Thelemic Political Party?
-
A Thelemic Political Party is an oxymoron by default since Democracy/Politics today is driven primarily by economic factors. Campaigns create a mere superficial popularity, generating hype and exciting emotions [either positive or negative] by hyper-exposure of candidates within a compressed period of Time; because it is impossible otherwise for millions upon millions from all over to recognize a candidate on a first name bases which is necessary for the process of "voting". Democracy at its conception was never designed to cater for Nations with populations of 1/2 a billion people nor a corporate culture. The fictional state of anarchy (which is simply a perceived loss of present status quo/class system) a factor which incites government to increase restrictions and centralize control, as oppose to promote freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which seems more in line with Thelema.
Conclusion; we need a completely updated political science theory and system of government that is not anti-evolutionary; not just a new political party.
-
I partly agree... but approach the underlying problem differently.
Current democracies ignore a couple of key related facts. One is that a significant percentage of those entitled to vote will not vote. The other is that, in fact, most who are franchised to vote are incompetent to make decisions about how a nation is to be run.
It is primarily modern democracies that have these problems. The oldest democracies didn't, for the simple purpose that they had much narrow suffrage, and means of differentiating those qualified to vote intelligently.
It is not disenfranchising to acknowledge the meeting place of those who really don't care about government and those who wish they'd keep their noses out of it.
The solution IMO is to make available a clear, unimpeded path for people to gain voting rights, but to expect that not many will bother; and only give voting rights to those who do bother.
The Thelemic titles of Hermit, Lover, and Man of Earth are convenient anchors for thinking through the structuring of such a society. Those in the "Man of Earth" segment (whatever it was really called) would be expected simply to get on with living their lives without any particular attention to politics. But, should they choose, they could undergo education in government, the nation's constitution, and the issues of the idea and earn the right to participate as qualified participants ("Lovers" in this political sense - not an initiatic sense). The pairing of right and responsibility would be the basis of a Thelemic Republic. (And it doesn't seem that any government model except a republic would serve.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I partly agree... but approach the underlying problem differently.
Current democracies ignore a couple of key related facts. One is that a significant percentage of those entitled to vote will not vote. The other is that, in fact, most who are franchised to vote are incompetent to make decisions about how a nation is to be run."
we definitely agree on this point.
"The solution IMO is to make available a clear, unimpeded path for people to gain voting rights, but to expect that not many will bother; and only give voting rights to those who do bother."
what one expects may or may not translate to reality. although judging by current trends this expectation is not unreasonable, excluding consideration of other novel factors that may catalyze in one direction or the other.
"The Thelemic titles of Hermit, Lover, and Man of Earth are convenient anchors for thinking through the structuring of such a society. Those in the "Man of Earth" segment (whatever it was really called) would be expected simply to get on with living their lives without any particular attention to politics. But, should they choose, they could undergo education in government, the nation's constitution, and the issues of the idea and earn the right to participate as qualified participants ("Lovers" in this political sense - not an initiatic sense). The pairing of right and responsibility would be the basis of a Thelemic Republic. (And it doesn't seem that any government model except a republic would serve.)"
but then inevitably here the whole theory of Democracy and equal rights for "Citizens" breaks down ; unless those who are incompetent are not classed as full "Citizens", and what is changed is the process and definition of "Citizenship" itself. such that factors like place of birth and heredity are deemphasized, while political ideology and personal philosophy are emphasized to determine which Nationality is a better fit. I agree in theory with the idea of pairing right and responsibility, however such a policy will meet with strong resistance from the ignorant, who though never having valued the right in the first place, would turn into an irate mob at the thought of a perceived loss of any kind. furthermore there is the consideration of relativity, as some will always be more qualified than others, do these then get "2 votes"? or we have some kind of sliding scale of voting power according to qualifications? Being somewhat of an idealist I suppose I would contend there are alternatives to a Republic but concede that "Practically" because of overwhelming modern sentiment I suppose a Republic is the starting model we must work with for now.
-
@Frater Aster Lux said
"What we need is a system that would protect peoples rights to live in a community that would foster the sort of spiritual development that we are talking about. The current system we have is supposed to be doing that for us right now, but it doesn't. "Do what thou wilt... (or a modern alternative)" would not be the whole political philosophy per se, but could make a good slogan for candidates who's whole platform would be trying to democraticaly influence the community in a way that promotes these kind of ideals. "
you yourself have commented that the "current system" is not working. we have to first of all determine whether the flaw is fundamental or systemic, as opposed to nominal or superficial as you seem to imply but have not showed reason why you think the contrary. "do what thou wilt.." to the uninformed literally implies anarchy(whatever that means
).This then is the question you must to answer, how could this proposed "Thelemic Party" get an economically driven society, mentally conditioned by Culture & Tradition and structured by a Top-Down Authoritarianism to allow for an organic (self-organizing) integration of freely creative Individuals without a complete overhaul of the present status quo?www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYVK4zOcryg&feature=channel
@Edward Mason said
"As a perpetually bemused observer and frequent visitor to the U.S., I find it passing strange that the country that has invested more than any other in the concept of freedom has perhaps the western world's highest level of cynicism about the actual processes of democracy, as well as having managed to put itself into a state of an almost perpetual sense of threat. That, to me, seemed to be the case well before 9/11 and the G.W. Bush administration."
The cynicism exists because of the flaws in the system that do not live up to the theory, as for the perpetual sense of threat you are right that it is cultural, but this culture has been exported and is not confined to the U.S.after 9-11
"A society that creates an accommodation with the limits of politically and legally specified freedom actually enjoys a far greater degree of practical freedom. The sense of potential betrayal is then reduced, the level of societal paranoia is certainly way less, and in turn the laws need to be less draconian. The U.S., for example, appears to require an incredibly high level of incarceration of its citizenry in order to maintain its concept of freedom."
we agree that the laws need to be less draconian and about the incredibly high level of incarceration; the Judiciary branch of government surely seems to effectively be the biggest failure of the U.S.system. Which Country did you have in mind as an example of "practical" freedom?? (and please don't tell me Canada)!
X^0
-
Neo, 93,
"as for the perpetual sense of threat you are right that it is cultural, but this culture has been exported and is not confined to the U.S.after 9-11
"I disagree emphatically. Israel might be an exception, but overall, I can think of no western *society *that shares the US' sense of being surrounded by enemies. Anxiety over with a domestic Islamic presence is not the same thing as arming yourself to deal with Mulsims in present and future overseas wars.
"Which Country did you have in mind as an example of "practical" freedom?? (and please don't tell me Canada)! "
Then I'll have to displease you. I am about to leave Canada for Mexico, so I am not a Canadian-to-the-death citizen of this country. But most of the things that many Americans dislike about Canada - its tax-paid health systems, its dislike of firearms, its multicultural richness (I just had an Indian meal after visiting a Chinese-owned art gallery and looking at the work of a Mexican-American artist) - are things I'll miss greatly.
I've also been impressed several times in recent years over how Germany (to cite just one other example) has adapted to a large immigrant population, despite occasional protests about minarets and large mosques. And so on. Whereas, while I've enjoyed many visits to the US over the years, I no longer feel safe there, in the sense of freedom from criminality or simple incivility, freedom from the oppressively narrow range of a half-dozen possible political perspectives, or freedom from stupefyingly ignorant police and officials. And that, to me, is a shame.
But I see that many people don't share this view, including obviously most Americans. I acknowledge that mine is the perspective of one person - one Habit among myriads - and I'm not trying to say "This country is better than that one." But as I said before, I don't think we can create explicitly Thelemic parties, only individual Thelemic perspectives that might or might coincide when we choose to assume our responsibilities in Assiah, and go out and vote.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Ne said
"but then inevitably here the whole theory of Democracy and equal rights for "Citizens" breaks down ; unless those who are incompetent are not classed as full "Citizens", and what is changed is the process and definition of "Citizenship" itself. such that factors like place of birth and heredity are deemphasized, while political ideology and personal philosophy are emphasized to determine which Nationality is a better fit. I agree in theory with the idea of pairing right and responsibility, however such a policy will meet with strong resistance from the ignorant, who though never having valued the right in the first place, would turn into an irate mob at the thought of a perceived loss of any kind. furthermore there is the consideration of relativity, as some will always be more qualified than others, do these then get "2 votes"? or we have some kind of sliding scale of voting power according to qualifications? Being somewhat of an idealist I suppose I would contend there are alternatives to a Republic but concede that "Practically" because of overwhelming modern sentiment I suppose a Republic is the starting model we must work with for now."
One difference here is that I wasn't considering a change in operations of this country, but was designing the basis of government for an entirely new country - a Thelemic Republic. Therefore, nothing once held is lost; everyone comes into the new rule set.
The earliest democracies had this qualified suffrage. The classic, of course, is Athens, the locale from which our word democracy emanates. Not all adult citizens had the right to vote - only those who also were initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was government by initiates. I'm not sure (despite our system's history and biases) that "government by initiates" could fly in the modern world, nor even that it should (there would be enough concern, in today's world, for any new nation founded on religious ideology!); but some similar division, based on criteria more practical to governing, seems important.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Ne said
"but then inevitably here the whole theory of Democracy and equal rights for "Citizens" breaks down ; unless those who are incompetent are not classed as full "Citizens", and what is changed is the process and definition of "Citizenship" itself. such that factors like place of birth and heredity are deemphasized, while political ideology and personal philosophy are emphasized to determine which Nationality is a better fit. I agree in theory with the idea of pairing right and responsibility, however such a policy will meet with strong resistance from the ignorant, who though never having valued the right in the first place, would turn into an irate mob at the thought of a perceived loss of any kind. furthermore there is the consideration of relativity, as some will always be more qualified than others, do these then get "2 votes"? or we have some kind of sliding scale of voting power according to qualifications? Being somewhat of an idealist I suppose I would contend there are alternatives to a Republic but concede that "Practically" because of overwhelming modern sentiment I suppose a Republic is the starting model we must work with for now."One difference here is that I wasn't considering a change in operations of this country, but was designing the basis of government for an entirely new country - a Thelemic Republic. Therefore, nothing once held is lost; everyone comes into the new rule set.
The earliest democracies had this qualified suffrage. The classic, of course, is Athens, the locale from which our word democracy emanates. Not all adult citizens had the right to vote - only those who also were initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries. It was government by initiates. I'm not sure (despite our system's history and biases) that "government by initiates" could fly in the modern world, nor even that it should (there would be enough concern, in today's world, for any new nation founded on religious ideology!); but some similar division, based on criteria more practical to governing, seems important."
The phrase "religious ideology" in the context of "nation building" easily translates to a novel "political philosophy" but more importantly the question is where would this Nation be located? Who would be willing to give up all or part of their territory? and would not there be people already residing there prior to the establishment of this new nation? which leads right into the fact that you didn't specifically address the issue of whether you favor considerations of ideology, over place of birth and heredity as requirements for citizenship of this hypothetical nation? Whereby we must now consider the concept of "Nationality" **divorced from geographic location; **that is to ask; is there any other reason aside from convenience that necessitates a "State" to have a specific geographic territory? as opposed to being a non-territory specific allegiance and/or political affiliation (a Virtual territory if you like). This surely makes more sense that "like minded" people co-operate as opposed to people united by chance and circumstance , the political philosophy here is that unity is the primary strength of a nation. of course there should be a rigorous screening process to determine genuine aspirants, which may be designed along similar lines as initiatory schools, so yes a government by initiates seems feasible in a post-modern world(I like many others, who for different reasons, contend we are now in a post-modern world, the industrial age was modern, the internet- linked, 3D virtual society we live in now is post-modern; however i use modern to refer to the stubborn morphogenetic- field (Egregore) of the old mind-set), that way if you willfully opt in you would already probably be politically active and as such a higher number of citizens would be expected to participate in the political process. Lingering in the shadows is still the question of whether an advanced society should need any centralized government at all!
P.S. funny co-incidence i started reading Plato's classic "The Republic" a few days prior to this thread.
-
@Ne said
"The phrase "religious ideology" in the context of "nation building" easily translates to a novel "political philosophy" but more importantly the question is where would this Nation be located? Who would be willing to give up all or part of their territory?"
It's all a theoretical construct. Give me a hundred billion dollars free and clear to start the process, and I'm sure I can find a moderately sized island in international waters in private ownership, and declare it a new country, and start the process of introducing it to the international community of nations. - In other words, it doesn't matter. This is all smoke blowing until the circumstances present themselves, and then whatever "ideal plan" is constructed will have to be pragmatically adapted to the real circumstances.
But, to answer your questions: For sake of discussion, presume we're starting from scratch. We go in and purchase the land outright, temporarily declare it the Kingdom of Thelema and hold a press conference announcing long-term intentions (especially the preparation of a constitution to establish it as a republic within the first 10 years), start conditions necessary to set up a new nation from scratch, and within short order open the gates to selective immigration.
"which leads right into the fact that you didn't specifically address the issue of whether you favor considerations of ideology, over place of birth and heredity as requirements for citizenship of this hypothetical nation?"
Birth and heredity would have no significance. Because the new nation would have a legal and social structure consistent with the Law of Thelema, it's reasonable to assume that immigration policy would consider their willingness to exist in such a country and under its laws.
"Whereby we must now consider the concept of "Nationality" **divorced from geographic location; **"
Just to be clear, this is changing the original subject of the thread, and I'm not sure that's a good idea. We should probably get back to the original topic. I just mentioned that some of the thoughts I'd thrown out arose from my own thinking about the creation of a new nation. But, to finish answering your questions in this post: In the case of creating a new nation, there is no concept of nationality divorced from geographic location because there would be an entirely new nation in its own location.
"that is to ask; is there any other reason aside from convenience that necessitates a "State" to have a specific geographic territory?"
Yes, if we are approaching this pragmatically rather than fantastically: The nation must exist within the world community of 200 or so nations. Its survival depends on its acceptance within that larger community. It must, therefore, in some sense be an entity that a significant set of those nations will acknowledge and accept, and that requires that it be something that they can recognize as a nation. There are also practical issues of governing, and the fact that there is no nation as such unless there is creation of internal community.
Now, of course someone could come up with a new model unlike anything that has been seen in the world before. But even the Jewish nation existed as a people, rather than a nation, during centuries of diaspora, and I doubt there is a better example to be found in history. If you can come up with a theory that (1) is pragmatic, (2) would allow a nation to exist in the context of the world community of nations, and (3) would allow for all the conditions of governance, yet (3) has no linkage of the nation's citizens en masse to a piece of eral estate, please start a new link and post it. It is difficult for me to consider, though, how a nation could guarantee and enforce the rights of its citizens if the entirety of the population lived in other nations with their own laws; and the same for the government drawing upon the duties of its citizenry to support and further the nation.
"as opposed to being a non-territory specific allegiance and/or political affiliation (a Virtual territory if you like)."
In that case, it's not a nation. It's a movement. Probably a conversation worth having in its own thread, but not the one I was having.
"This surely makes more sense that "like minded" people co-operate as opposed to people united by chance and circumstance,"
I wasn't considering chance etc. I was considering starting with a piece of land, owning it outright, and inviting people to apply (an act of choice) to come live there under the conditions of that land.
"Lingering in the shadows is still the question of whether an advanced society should need any centralized government at all!"
The most ideal government is self-government. When a mass of millions of cohabiting individuals can demonstrate that they actually can pull this off, then the withdrawal of external government is possible. That would take probably two or three generations of demonstration. There remains, though, the issue of the coexisting of the nation with other nations, who won't deal with masses in general (unless, say, they assimilate them) - compare what happened with the Maori.
-
@Ne said
"
we agree that the laws need to be less draconian and about the incredibly high level of incarceration; the Judiciary branch of government surely seems to effectively be the biggest failure of the U.S.system."I agree that America's Justice system is jacked up, most of the problems caused by prostitution, gambling, and sedative drugs like pot are due to the fact that they are criminalized and therefore forced into criminal business, and the government gives too harsh sentences for victimless crimes. However I don't think law as a whole needs to be "less draconian" per se. IMO more serious crime like rape and child abuse are not dealt with nearly harsh enough in this country. Last year some idiot got only one year in jail for raping a five-year-old girl. If it were up to me, these kinds of people would be publicly executed and their body ground up for fertilizer on a cow pasture.
Anyways, I don't like mixing Thelema and politics since Thelemites can have alot of different views on various political issues and trying to establish official political positions for Thelema as a whole would be anti-thetical. That being said though, I think a "Thelemic" government could be libertarian or socialist, since Thelema emphasizes both individualism and unity, but like Jim said the ideal probably lies somewhere in the middle.
-
93,
Infernal Seraph wrote:"I think a "Thelemic" government could be libertarian or socialist, since Thelema emphasizes both individualism and unity, but like Jim said the ideal probably lies somewhere in the middle."
My guess is, the Thelemic government we finally evolve for ourselves wouldn't be about a hypothetical middle (many western democracies already embrace something like that perspective, following the lead of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair), but about accepting the two perspectives. That is, allowing for broad individual freedom, while there's also respect for the needs of the greater community, and a willingness not to over-stress the polity through aggressive egotism. It might look like a middle way from the outside, but it wouldn't deny the need for both extremes at times.
Although I also can't imagine a really Thelemic society not getting fiercely shaken up from time to time.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
According to my calculations Thelema is the key to solving all the worlds problems.
It is the Utopia of man, Peace on Earth.
In my view it is inevitable that eventually a "Thelemic Political Party" will coalesce, as this is the design of the GOD of the Aeon of the Child. There is no stopping it.It is nice to think humanity is gracious enough to slowly begin to accept the Light of the Truth and change & evolve gently, but I don't think it's going to happen like that.
An event will happen disrupting/destroying the present system, and from the ashes a new plan will unfold.
Thelemites already do govern the planet, by way of their magic. Thelemic societies do exist proving heaven on earth, I like to imagine a future widening that influence across open territory. Where all people recognize themselves governing the planet through establishment of their True Wills, this is the natural way of harmony & order.
The so-called "Politics of Thelema", should be taught in kindergarten, and not doing so is corruption.
Defining a working blueprint of the Politics of Thelema is something that interests me. I have my own ideas and outlines too.