"Thelemites for Trump" Facebook page
-
So I'm missing the reality that hatred and fear of Islam is somehow equal to endorsement of Trump via Thelema?
Not sure I follow that logic.
If we follow that logic, shouldn't we be a bit more suspect of the more intimidating christian oppressions endorsed by our twitter president?
Also, if you read Wasserman, he is very very respectful, if not admirable - of Islam including the prophet.
Why do i have to be a liberal to not understand the appeal of Trump with Thelemites?
-
@ldfriend56 said
"So I'm missing the reality that hatred and fear of Islam is somehow equal to endorsement of Trump via Thelema?
Not sure I follow that logic.
If we follow that logic, shouldn't we be a bit more suspect of the more intimidating christian oppressions endorsed by our twitter president?
Also, if you read Wasserman, he is very very respectful, if not admirable - of Islam including the prophet.
Why do i have to be a liberal to not understand the appeal of Trump with Thelemites?"
EITHER Pro Trump OR Anti Trump. What a pit.
-
i.M.O. I don't believe the general public is capable of voting in the best leaders.
What we are left with is mediocre people in power in most cases.
I.M.O., most people are like sheep.
They don't think for themselves, they follow the herd. -
Makes me physically ill to hear a Thelemite (let alone anyone) would endorse Trump, or Islam to be frank. This mention of the verse in Liber L is weak, and we shouldn't ignore (if one takes Liber L seriously) that Trump would in no way be Thelemic. He is one who oppresses and doesn't liberate, and who in the hell considers him "fit"?!
Now, I realize AC agreed with Islam, (which never settled with me, to be honest), but Thelema is about freedom to express oneself, and make decisions, and is hardly on the side of oppressive Christian morals, while he may be faking his Xtian beliefs, he is certainly helping them with their agenda. He hardly seems one to admire as a master tactician, or even halfway intelligent as well - he's an obvious moron.
I think some look at the language in the Book of the Law that seems to speak about being without mercy, and pity and this, in fact, does reflect Trump (and Repubs in general), but I hardly think this suggests Trump is somehow qualified to represent the Thelemic idea.
-
Why do i have to be a liberal to not understand the appeal of Trump with Thelemites?"
We sure as heck don't.
I am not Liberal or Conservative.Take Trumps stance on Transgenders in the military
I see that as being pushed by his
Christian Fundamentalist backers.
I don't see that as fitting in with what is stated in
Liber OZ -
@Francis1 said
"
I am not Liberal or Conservative.Take Trumps stance on Transgenders in the military
I see that as being pushed by his
Christian Fundamentalist backers.
I don't see that as fitting in with what is stated in
Liber OZ"Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him -
I don't think you HAVE to "be" anything, but it doesn't make too much sense to align with Christian ideals and repressive moral stances. Thelema was about personal freedom and expression, and Trump is anything but for the freedom of the individual, as he is obviously racist and willing to impose restriction. Did you forget - "the word of sin is restriction"?
-
@Takamba said
"
Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him"Man has the right to love as he will
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights. -
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Takamba said
"
Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him"Man has the right to love as he will
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."Yes. Unfortunately, the simple version (you reference) isn't understandable to the majority of people, hence why I had to break it down.
Man has the right to love as he will equals "hire who he wants," "make cakes" (or not, it is no odds), ETC.
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights = "refuse those who would refuse them."For the other readers in this forum, let's discuss the difference between being aggressive and being assertive (simply).
Being aggressive is declaring what you believe you have the right to no matter who else may be diminished by your "rights". Being assertive is declaring what you believe are your rights whilst also recognizing the fair rights of others. Liber OZ is pure assertiveness, whilst some would attempt to use it aggressively. Be cautious of that.
-
Right, there's a difference between asserting one's own rights, and hypocritically using the asserting of one's own rights as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others.
The way I read Liber Oz, my right to live and exist is dependent on my non-interference with the rights of others. If I say I support Liber Oz, I'm saying that someone has the right to kill me if I would thwart their rights.That's what I'm cautious about.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"if I would thwart their rights."
That's not actually possible, though within the framework of the apparent it happens. The flower blossoms because it receives the adequate love of the Sun, but it sometimes fails to recognize that it itself is an adaptation or expression of or one with that Sun. It is concerned with its floweriness as opposed to its role as a blessing of the Sun.
-
Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights."
If one lives in a deterministic world, it is not possible to thwart a person's rights; but in the framework of Liber OZ, this isn't exactly necessary.
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."
"those who would thwart these rights"
"those who would" They merely have to will it, want it, wish it, would it or should it to make them enemies of Will.
"these rights" These rights specific in Liber OZ -
If can preface any claim.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights."
Yes, that's precisely what I said:
"within the framework of the apparent it happens."And by saying it how I did I most carefully excluded all possibility for mixing the planes. When it comes to the planes we must heed The Offspring when they say "you gotta keep 'em separated!" Now, could you thwart the rights of an Ipsissimus? DOES not that term refer to "that which is most itself"? Is that not our inmost expression? How would you even approach such a thing?
Away, far off, but never too far,
From within us shines the light of the Silver Star.And if I step on a flower the Sun will be fine.
-
The current plane is a discussion of "Thelemites" for Trump.
Discussion of whether one can thwart the will of an Ipsissimus seems off topic to me. Why would we have a Liber Oz if it doesn't really matter and we can't truly thwart each other's wills or harm each other?
Back to the topic:
The measure of success politically is: taking care of basic human needs, like food and shelter.
You vote correctly and you get health insurance and education, and increased longevity and prosperity. Which all lead to more people to the great work.
You vote wrong and you get huge wealth gaps. And some guy trying to peddle you a zen koan that says if you were more enlightened it wouldn't hurt so bad.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The current plane is a discussion of "Thelemites" for Trump.
Discussion of whether one can thwart the will of an Ipsissimus seems off topic to me."
I only brought it up because it was related to where my original post in this thread was.
"You vote wrong and you get huge wealth gaps. And some guy trying to peddle you a zen koan that says if you were more enlightened it wouldn't hurt so bad."
Somewhere strange, somewhere new
There is only a part of you
That stands at the threshold of a golden dawn:
But you close your eyes
You believe the dream, you
Stare into there,
Though he says you must deal with it,
He never said otherwise,
And the trees grow,
The world goes on withon and without and withor our freedom
Because that love is true... -
According to Aleister Crowley, democracy isn't Thelemic in the first place: forcing people to participate in things just because an alleged majority says you have to. At least, according to Aleister Crowley - but never mind him, he's just a Class B kinda guy and product of his times (sexism, drugs, racism, dwarfism, those topics et al).
Vote the right way and the government gets out of people's way.
Vote the wrong way and the government is your mom and dad and knows better than you "and we're here to help."
-
A country can be any form of government, and still promote conditions suitable to Thelema. It could even hypothetically be a benevolent dictatorship, I guess. Though that's not commonly how dictatorships work, and there's still the issue of who replaces the benevolent dictator when they die.
There are a lot of values that a government can help promote, including prosperity, freedom for artistic freedom, religious freedom. And the US does pretty good in some respects. Though race and gender influence our job, wealth, and survival prospects too much and our pollution threatens to make the planet uninhabitable.
I'm not sure what the '80s talk radio bit about "mom and dad" government corresponds to in the real world, or what seeekinghga's comments been. But thank you both for showing to demonstrate fluffy peddlers of soothing koans for the politically disenfranchised.
Libertarianism is just nonsense designed to take away protections from the individual in favor of big corporations. But you're welcome to cite an example of a libertarian country that you think creates conditions that promote Thelema.
-
"We're with Thelema, and we're here to help."
Seriously? You've come to this incarnation to interfere with the Wills of individuals simply so you can sleep snuggly believing you've done no harm?
Even Jim has stated that not everyone's will is to be healed.
ah, but he's a Class B guy also, so maybe it doesn't count.
Whatever fits.