"Thelemites for Trump" Facebook page
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Takamba said
"This is a hopeless conversation. Reason can't seem to take hold.""You clearly don't understand Liber OZ."
" There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason."
Oh, the irony.
Seriously, Takamba, when you're going around saying that people don't understand Thelema or Liber Oz because they disagree with you, or are thwarting people's rights by suggesting that we be less violent than our ancestors, you've lost the thread.
Fights to the death over oranges are situations that exist when you do politics wrong.
Again, people, this isn't hard. It's just politics. It's not metaphysics.
Let's not be fascists and nazis. There are better ways that work much better for everyone.
Trump is doing the classic fascist autocrat move of (1) riding in on populist energy (2) accusing all the governmental institutions of corruption so that (3) there'll be less institutions in place to stop him from seizing more power and doing the corrupt things he wants to do.
Don't be a stupid person that falls for it. It's not worth it, no matter how much better one imagines they might feel while fighting over an orange for the sake of True WIll."
A: The Law is for all.
B: The rights of Man are for all.If one, or many, or any thing would thwart these rights, they would not be following the Law. They would not be doing their will. Not "True Will." If thou hast broken one commandment, thou hast broken them all. Or something old but useful like that. All words and prophets and so forth, save you might only understand a little. No one has argued against compassion (understanding how someone feels and wishing them well). No one has argued against striving to have the entire species enlarged so (so as maybe these questions aren't so hard to understand and answer well). Instead we want our mommy cuddled natures instead to be our definers of compassion (whatever won't maybe hurt in the process). No. I don't want my mommy cuddled nature, I want my self reliant, self determined, fraternally appreciative True Self nature. So thank me for saying no to giving you a free lunch, but later if you would help me I have a bunch of fruit I have to get rid of.
I just don't think you get Liber OZ. You can disagree, but when it's your mammalian brain in charge, it isn't anywhere near sufficient language centers to convey the true benefit to the entire species you dream of. (Note, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking about society within a topic about politics.)
-
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time. However, if you see that your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."
attribution goes to an author I cannot remember
-
@Takamba said
"
A: The Law is for all.
B: The rights of Man are for all."Love is the law
"(If one, or many, or any thing would thwart these rights, they would not be following the Law. They would not be doing their will. Not "True Will." "
Self inflicted violations of our true will should also be applied, no? What do you do to yourself when you fail to express your true will?
" If thou hast broken one commandment, thou hast broken them all. Or something old but useful like that. All words and prophets and so forth, save you might only understand a little. "
Sounds like some form of punishment is coming. Acting outside of the true will would put one in conflict with the entire universe. I would suggest staying out of the way of that and let the universe do her thing.
" No one has argued against compassion (understanding how someone feels and wishing them well)."
Compassion is more than just wishing someone well. It means you are bound up with them in their struggle for liberation.
"No one has argued against striving to have the entire species enlarged so (so as maybe these questions aren't so hard to understand and answer well)."
That's not what it reads like, perhaps what you intend to communicate is being lost somehow. The "right to kill those who thwart rights" and something something Donald Trump appears to being going in the opposite direction of continued historical progress.
"
Instead we want our mommy cuddled natures instead to be our definers of compassion (whatever won't maybe hurt in the process). "
I want the leaping laughter!
"No. I don't want my mommy cuddled nature, I want my self reliant, self determined, fraternally appreciative True Self nature. "
True Self nature is naturally in harmony with all true self natures. It is a collaborative sport, consciousness. No one really does anything all on their own. You would not even know who you are without others.
"So thank me for saying no to giving you a free lunch, but later if you would help me I have a bunch of fruit I have to get rid of."
You know...I remember reading in Crowley's Autohaigraphy, about him buying lunch for a friend under financial stress. Little moments like that always redeemed Crowley a bit from his more macho tough guy road show.
"I just don't think you get Liber OZ. "
Who can say, really. I don't think a few of us get you, to be more precise. But I do want to understand, and see what you can see.
" You can disagree, but when it's your mammalian brain in charge, it isn't anywhere near sufficient language centers to convey the true benefit to the entire species you dream of. (Note, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking about society within a topic about politics.)"
Ahhh, coming full circle back to the original quote from Liber Al - COMPASSION IS THE VICE OF KINGS. exactly. the mammal intelligence is clueless. The spirit king needs his juice, compassion, to light the way, get through all of the confusion.
The entire universe is a win win sport if you know how to read the tea leaves
-
1980s schtick about liberals and "nanny/mommy state" and "big government" aside, Democrats are the only fiscal conservatives in the room. Republicans/Trump just passed tax cuts for the wealthy and raised the debt limit. Their proposed budget guts social services to spend HUGE sums on the military.
They don't want to help. They want to get richer at the public's expense. So their trick for generations has been to whine about nanny states, and bleeding heart liberals, so that people would be outraged, and they could do more looting.
And you fell for it, Takamba. They even have you working for free.
Looting the future at the expense of the next generation is the behavior of the Black Brotherhood.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"1980s schtick about liberals and "nanny/mommy state" and "big government" aside, Democrats are the only fiscal conservatives in the room. Republicans/Trump just passed tax cuts for the wealthy and raised the debt limit. Their proposed budget guts social services to spend HUGE sums on the military.
They don't want to help. They want to get richer at the public's expense. So their trick for generations has been to whine about nanny states, and bleeding heart liberals, so that people would be outraged, and they could do more looting.
And you fell for it, Takamba. They even have you working for free.
Looting the future at the expense of the next generation is the behavior of the Black Brotherhood."
Again, proof on lack of comprehension skills. All the evidence is in this thread.
I have stated I am not a Trump supporter, I have stated that I'm merely playing Devil's advocate in some cases to answer the actual intent of this thread which is to discuss (for some reason unknown) why anyone would pair Trump and Thelema on a Facebook Page. So personal verbal attacks at me are ineffective. Ineffective. Good magicians might be ineffective from time to time, but great magicians never.
You are generalizing all black people... oops, no, sorry... all rich white people as all having the same natures and motives. How very sweet of you. No evidence presented, yet you intend that I should believe what you claim.
Rich people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are interested in technological advances for the entire planet, including the search for cures for diseases that ravage only the extremely underprivileged. Contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers were rich white men, so history doesn't seem to jive with this theory that rich white men are only interested in money and more money. Rich white men like Elon Musk like to show off their toys, you say? Or maybe find a way to get us to Mars and pay attention. Perhaps the motive is "my rocket in my pocket is the biggest ever" or perhaps the motive is (as is claimed by Musk) "the advancement of the entire world."
I don't know. I defer instead to your omniscience.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"1980s schtick about liberals and "nanny/mommy state" and "big government" aside, Democrats are the only fiscal conservatives in the room. Republicans/Trump just passed tax cuts for the wealthy and raised the debt limit. Their proposed budget guts social services to spend HUGE sums on the military.
They don't want to help. They want to get richer at the public's expense. So their trick for generations has been to whine about nanny states, and bleeding heart liberals, so that people would be outraged, and they could do more looting.
And you fell for it, Takamba. They even have you working for free.
Looting the future at the expense of the next generation is the behavior of the Black Brotherhood."
If I can't mention the feelings of "mama cuddled" individuals without you referring to it as a "schtick," you have no place in an adult discussion.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"A: The Law is for all.
B: The rights of Man are for all."Love is the law
"
Mistake not Love for there is love and there is love. etc etc. You know the 'schtick.'
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
(If one, or many, or any thing would thwart these rights, they would not be following the Law. They would not be doing their will. Not "True Will." "Self inflicted violations of our true will should also be applied, no? What do you do to yourself when you fail to express your true will?
"You're starting to get it. You might actually get it! You have to think a little more meta when understanding The Rights of Man and you're starting to show this. Yes, the Law is a Law because it is self enforcing for the most part (a problem of human comprehension or it would show as in all parts). I think you're getting it.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
If thou hast broken one commandment, thou hast broken them all. Or something old but useful like that. All words and prophets and so forth, save you might only understand a little. "Sounds like some form of punishment is coming. Acting outside of the true will would put one in conflict with the entire universe. I would suggest staying out of the way of that and let the universe do her thing. "
You're getting it. Stay out of the way for things like oranges vs EBT cards, virus invasion vs healthier species development, appropriately used words on a radio broadcast vs freedom of speech. Yeah, you don't know this but you get that part. Now, about the Rights of Man; the problem seems to be with the 'unsavory' phrase "kill those who thwart these rights" as if parsing one phrase makes more valid all the rest. Nope. Instead, that punishment stands because (refer to previous statements included within this entire thread) actually thwarting a right is far different than breaking a law or rule. Killing (in the Yoga for Yahoos sense) isn't actually even possible. Also, Kings apparently can't actually hurt one another I guess (refer to Liber AL for that one) (wacky shit this Do What Thou Wilt shit, it has all these reference points and tends to prove itself). Man has the right to kill those who thwart the rights of man.
Thwart the rights of man.....
Thwart the rights of man....oh, a law says I can't eat oranges on Sunday????????? THWART!
OH, guilty white privelaged boy says my singing the blues, impacted so as it is by my life of poverty and hardship, my tough outer exterior that my blessed life built for me, is a sadness to him? And he wants to correct my life for me with his shaming EBT cards and distressing (psychologically) visits of wellness checks at my home? Oh, okay. I get it. You feel bad because all your setbacks are self-inflicted and the poor black child was just born that way. So hand candy to the poor black child say you? Sure. I get it.@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
No one has argued against compassion (understanding how someone feels and wishing them well)."Compassion is more than just wishing someone well. It means you are bound up with them in their struggle for liberation."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this isn't a comprehension problem on your part, maybe it's a paying attention problem. It could still be either, mind you, but my evidence is in the above. I did say that compassion is understanding. What is understanding? It is comprehending at the least. Comprehending means enveloping, completely all the matter of the subject. "Bound up" like a slave? Naw, but enveloping and comprehending, understanding the other person's situation and feelings etc, AND (that's an English word, a conjunction (that means it puts things together), a verbal "plus sign" (+)) wishing them well; so what I'm saying is, compassion is comprehending (meaning all which that word means) others and wishing them well (meaning NOT "good bye sucka" but "may love and light surround you").
I think you're starting to get it.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
No one has argued against striving to have the entire species enlarged so (so as maybe these questions aren't so hard to understand and answer well)."That's not what it reads like, perhaps what you intend to communicate is being lost somehow. The "right to kill those who thwart rights" and something something Donald Trump appears to being going in the opposite direction of continued historical progress."
As above and probably so below, I have been demonstrating that I need not really add more words to my thesis with you. I have stated it and stated it well, you aren't comprehending it. Not because I didn't state it, but because you are filtering it through garbage. You are either interpreting my words as you want them to lean, or you are ignoring some words and not others. This is not the author's fault.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"Instead we want our mommy cuddled natures instead to be our definers of compassion (whatever won't maybe hurt in the process). "
I want the leaping laughter! "
I love you.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
No. I don't want my mommy cuddled nature, I want my self reliant, self determined, fraternally appreciative True Self nature. "True Self nature is naturally in harmony with all true self natures. It is a collaborative sport, consciousness. No one really does anything all on their own. You would not even know who you are without others."
By Jove, I think you've got it! So the Rights of Man is reaaaaaaallllly about learning about you the individual! And enough of the externalizing the blame and responsibility! Hey Mom! Check this guy out! I think he gets it.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
So thank me for saying no to giving you a free lunch, but later if you would help me I have a bunch of fruit I have to get rid of."You know...I remember reading in Crowley's Autohaigraphy, about him buying lunch for a friend under financial stress. Little moments like that always redeemed Crowley a bit from his more macho tough guy road show."
You see. You have the words. You have the stories vaguely in your memory. Great. Now go back and read that book again. Crowley treats a brethren to a "free lunch," but as a need for Crowley at that time, not as a pity point, not for martyrdom, not for quid pro quo, but as a brother. Go back, attempt to understand more than the actions itself. Attempt to understand the exact words chosen. Crowley helped, yes, but not in a way that also provided hurt (pride shame loathing pity).
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
I just don't think you get Liber OZ. "Who can say, really. I don't think a few of us get you, to be more precise. But I do want to understand, and see what you can see. "
Other than your racism, I don't think we're as far apart as you think.
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Takamba said
"
You can disagree, but when it's your mammalian brain in charge, it isn't anywhere near sufficient language centers to convey the true benefit to the entire species you dream of. (Note, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking about society within a topic about politics.)"Ahhh, coming full circle back to the original quote from Liber Al - COMPASSION IS THE VICE OF KINGS. exactly. the mammal intelligence is clueless. The spirit king needs his juice, compassion, to light the way, get through all of the confusion.
The entire universe is a win win sport if you know how to read the tea leaves
"
"YAY!
You get it!
See how many times you used the word "sport" as you were closing your arguments? That's an indication of you knowing what I mean, what I truly mean.Now, somewhere in the archives of this vast collection of forums is a topic about compassion. In it we discuss what is compassion and what is mere trouble making meddling. One is weak to be stamped down, one is the vice of Kings. It's like Love. There is the serpent and there is the dove. Choose ye well.
-
@Takamba said
"If I can't mention the feelings of "mama cuddled" individuals without you referring to it as a "schtick," you have no place in an adult discussion."
Incorrect. There wasn't an adult discussion happening.
It's projection. You have unresolved mama issues, which manifest in rejection of the collective that we all belong to, fear of surrender, and over-reliance on ego-separation.
Yes, we need strong, independent, competitive, ego drive. And we also need full, deep, cooperative surrender to the whole. We need Nuit and Hadit. Over-reliance on the first got us where we are, but we've outgrown it. It's time for us to enter the new Aeon. I know it's scary, but if you let your fear of the Nuit half of the equation drive you, then you're on the wrong path.
In the meantime, Trump has proposed a $1 trillion dollar annual deficit. Obama entered office with a $1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, inherited from Bush. Obama cut the deficit down to about $500 billion by the time he left office.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Takamba said
"If I can't mention the feelings of "mama cuddled" individuals without you referring to it as a "schtick," you have no place in an adult discussion."Incorrect. There wasn't an adult discussion happening.
It's projection. You have unresolved mama issues, which manifest in rejection of the collective that we all belong to, fear of surrender, and over-reliance on ego-separation.
Yes, we need strong, independent, competitive, ego drive. And we also need full, deep, cooperative surrender to the whole. We need Nuit and Hadit. Over-reliance on the first got us where we are, but we've outgrown it. It's time for us to enter the new Aeon. I know it's scary, but if you let your fear of the Nuit half of the equation drive you, then you're on the wrong path.
In the meantime, Trump has proposed a $1 trillion dollar annual deficit. Obama entered office with a $1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit, inherited from Bush. Obama cut the deficit down to about $500 billion by the time he left office."
Here you have measured and judged me and done so inaccurately. "You have unresolved mama issues, which manifest in rejection of the collective..." Show me this manifestation. Show me this rejection. I have done no such thing. IN FACT, I'm stating that your methods (here you poor old sod, have a cookie on us) are more detrimental to the collective (oh shit, DNA encoded cookie collection failure for the species has promulgated)*. That's what I'm saying.
Now quit confusing me with Trump, that's your transference and daddy issue manifesting itself.
*yes, that's an extreme and silly example - but you should get the message (I reserve the right to write what I will),
-
Quit confusing liberals with mommy issues, and I'll quit confusing you with a Trump supporter.
I know what you're saying. I just disagree.
You: unsubstantiated claims about damage to the collective because of nonsense worries about nanny state and mommy-loving liberals (TM Takamba/Rush Limbaugh/Trump)
Me: cutting food stamps and healthcare hurts the collective measurably
One is based on irrational fear of surrender. One is based on real-world facts.*
Daddy issues can manifest as anger at the old aeon patriarchy (which is sometimes necessary to move beyond an old structure) OR simpering unquestioning obedience to would-be dictators.
www.newsweek.com/trump-president-well-being-index-americans-805376
"The well-being index looked at well-being with five measures: purpose, social, financial, community and physical."
"21 states saw a drop in well-being from 2016 to 2017, beating the previous high of 15 set amid the onset of the recession in 2009. Not a single state recorded a statistically significant increase in well-being, the first time that has happened since the study began."
-
Hi Takamba,
What exactly is this thread about? It started off with Trump and Facebook, i.e. for some utterly bizarre reason, I cannot fathom some prominent Thelemites are Trump supporters.
Yet you seem to be talking about a broader social/political issue which seems to resolve in some form of libertarian philosophy (which I could see how it could blend with Thelema, philosophically yet superficially).
Do I understand that correctly? If so, what exactly is the quarrel here?
I've brought up the idea of a "historical Thelema" a few times before, I don't think many here found it very interesting. If Thelema is making an imprint on history (or IS the imprint of history) we are clearly at an epic stage, and much of the current chaos could be accounted for, in principle, with the Thelemic prediction of the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new one. Trump probably does play some role in that, the US and the World may never be the same after this.
All ideologies may play a role in the creation of the new order (all shall cluster about me...to paraphrase)
That's my position.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"Hi Takamba,
What exactly is this thread about? It started off with Trump and Facebook, i.e. for some utterly bizarre reason, I cannot fathom some prominent Thelemites are Trump supporters.
Yet you seem to be talking about a broader social/political issue which seems to resolve in some form of libertarian philosophy (which I could see how it could blend with Thelema, philosophically yet superficially).
Do I understand that correctly? If so, what exactly is the quarrel here?
I've brought up the idea of a "historical Thelema" a few times before, I don't think many here found it very interesting. If Thelema is making an imprint on history (or IS the imprint of history) we are clearly at an epic stage, and much of the current chaos could be accounted for, in principle, with the Thelemic prediction of the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new one. Trump probably does play some role in that, the US and the World may never be the same after this.
All ideologies may play a role in the creation of the new order (all shall cluster about me...to paraphrase)
That's my position."
What I gather this thread is supposed to be about is an open ended question about what would convince someone they could be both a Thelemite and a Trump supporter as demonstrated by a Facebook page. Open ended questions allow for a lot of variety in answering. And if "too keep on topic" all one was allowed by restriction to do was simply answer that question, the questions basic answer is "because they said so." But to try to understand the nature of the mind that gets to "I am a Thelemite and I support Trump," we are instead allowed to explore the topics to see if there might be actual errors or if it's simply unsavory opinion.
If you want to teach someone something, you first find out why they think they are right when they in fact might be wrong. You can't just go around saying, "wrong answer, get it right." You should say, "oh, I see you forgot to carry the 1" or "You chose the right sounding word, but spelled it as its homonym." So we explore all the reasons within Thelema and within Trump that might show enough similarities and we can discuss. And if in the end we find out we are the wrong ones, good too. In this case there is no right or wrong decision unless you are among those who are telling other people what decisions they should make.
At some point this discussion disintegrated into a debate about Liber OZ and most specifically "the right to kill."
It actually gives a responsibility to kill and by giving that responsibility it gives the right to do so. Liber OZ itself must be understood in total, not in cherry picked bric-a-brac mode. And it must be understood as applying to all. To say one man has the right to kill another man is not what it says, but to kill someone or something that appears to want to be more than all others. (that might sound wrong, certainly goes against the everyone wins a trophy and your self-esteem is the most important thing in life training of the last decade of the last century gave us, but it's true. No one is bigger than ll the others.)
Anyway. Why would someone support Trump (the real net this thread tossed)? Presidency is a temporary state, so any person put in the office is only a temporary nuisance or blessing, as in time (except what FDR did I think), things can be fixed. If Trump is a homophobic racists mass murderer in the waiting, he's got six or so years left to do his stuff and that's it. No need for me to get up in arms. Trump espouses a lot of rhetoric that supports self-made type thinking; any Thelemite could possibly relate. So maybe that's the answer.
My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?
-
@Takamba said
"My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?"
Well, it's not impossible. I just think the logic is murky, and "coddling" is your word.
For example, in the New Comment on Liber Legis II:21, where Crowley expresses similar thinking:
"There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!
Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!
Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!"
This thinking contradicts itself. If the strong are truly strong, they will not be damaged nor will their progress be hindered as described above. Here, logically, he asks that the truly strong, the collective, be weakened so that those who are in actuality weaker (the supposed "strong" who are yet damaged and hindered by the "weak") may flourish. It's contradictory. If the strong are strong, they won't be hindered. And if they are hindered, then this is the Law of the Strong and Nature to make them stronger. The supposed strong in the above words are actually weak, and by the same logic, who cares if they are hindered? Nature will sort it out.
The social collective that cares for one another is Strong AND NATURE. If it wasn't strong, Crowley wouldn't have to try to convince people to weaken it for the sake of the falsely so-called "strong." Ask the ape why he evolves in this direction.
Not only this, but our complex society is the crown jewel of humanity. It is completely literally what separates us from the animals. In contradiction, making an ethical philosophy of Hadit, who is pure Id unrestrained by Ego, is sociopathic. Read the words above again. It actually suggests letting those with diseases go ahead and die and that this is the most merciful prescription. It's absurd. It's all supernal thinking without connection to Malkuth and therefore without Tipharethic balance.
Crowley hated it at first, in the Old Comment, but he taught himself to love it. He went to far in the New Comment in my opinion. Descriptive not prescriptive!
How it applies: To me, this is Trump.
-
@Hermitas said
"
@Takamba said
"My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?"Well, it's not impossible. I just think the logic is murky, and "coddling" is your word.
For example, in the New Comment on Liber Legis II:21, where Crowley expresses similar thinking:
"There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!
Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!
Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!"
This thinking contradicts itself. If the strong are truly strong, they will not be damaged nor will their progress be hindered as described above. Here, logically, he asks that the truly strong, the collective, be weakened so that those who are in actuality weaker (the supposed "strong" who are yet damaged and hindered by the "weak") may flourish. It's contradictory. If the strong are strong, they won't be hindered. And if they are hindered, then this is the Law of the Strong and Nature to make them stronger. The supposed strong in the above words are actually weak, and by the same logic, who cares if they are hindered? Nature will sort it out.
Not only this, but our complex society is the crown jewel of humanity. It is completely literally what separates us from the animals. In contradiction, making an ethical philosophy of Hadit, who is pure Id unrestrained by Ego, is sociopathic. Read the words above again. It actually suggests letting those with diseases go ahead and die and that this is the most merciful prescription. It's absurd. It's all supernal thinking without connection to Malkuth and therefore without Tipharethic balance.
The above is just Crowley's Nietzschean wet dream. He hated it at first, but taught himself to love it. He went to far in the New Comment in my opinion. Descriptive not prescriptive!
How it applies: To me, this is Trump and all the Ayn Rand lovers."
There is flawed logic in your thinking. You say "if they are the strong" they won't be affected by the weaknesses. You are advocating stand still. If they are strong, they will be strong enough to overcome or eradicate these so-called weaknesses (I say "so-called" for your sake, to give you a point), yet when overcoming or eradicating is suggested, "NO NO NO" is the cry of and pandering liberal. "NO NO NO, be strong enough to endure your disgust!" you say. "NO NO NO, enjoy the smell of the feces of humanity!" you say whilst the feces encourages more disease. "NO NO NO, they were born that way! Control your thinking and decide you love them as is" you say with your own contradiction. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," you shit in one hand and "but forgive those souls their weaknesses (animal vices? prejudiced world-views? lack of ambition? failure to accept responsibility? desire for more with a willingness to provide less?)" you wish in the other hand.
Meanwhile a new age disease (in my opinion) has long infiltrated the core of Thelema. Every man and every woman gets a trophy!
-
@Takamba said
"But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).
Yeah. I forgot that part."
It's cool, dude.
It's this thing I do where I oppose each thought with its opposite - think for myself and stuff rather than merely follow a religious figure through blind faith and the appeals of the faithful to his authority.
-
@Hermitas said
"
@Takamba said
"But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).Yeah. I forgot that part."
It's cool, dude.
It's this thing I do where I oppose each thought with its opposite - think for myself and stuff rather than merely follow a religious figure through blind faith and the appeals of the faithful to his authority."
Did you oppose the thought that I don't do that with the opposite thought that I do do that also, and have reached my own conclusions as a result? Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale? Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."
-
"At some point this discussion disintegrated into a debate about Liber OZ and most specifically "the right to kill.""
That would have been when you said this irrelevant thing:
"
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""Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale? Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective.""
You have yet to reply to any of my four links to actual rational metrics of how Trump is harming the population of the US.
"If Trump is a homophobic racists mass murderer in the waiting, he's got six or so years left to do his stuff and that's it. No need for me to get up in arms."
People who don't actually care don't belong in this discussion.
"His prejudices are to be eradicated."
Lordy, I hope so. I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite.
"Meanwhile a new age disease (in my opinion) has long infiltrated the core of Thelema. Every man and every woman gets a trophy!"
No, meaningless trophies are a fascist disease. White supremacy is based on the fear that in any fair fight, whites lose.
The conservative idea of a fair fight is calling the referee biased and getting rid of him because he's trying to stop the audience from throwing beer bottles at one of the fighters.
American conservatism has always been white supremacy.
-
Your "metrix" links where bullocks. Biased information mining is not the trick; and as I have pointed out, and has been stated by another here, I'm not talking about the politics of Trump, I'm talking about the mindset of those who want to politicize (you included). I'm staying entirely to the topic of the OP (with the inclusion of necessary other information to support my statements). You? Name calling. Anger motivated (not willed) generalizing.
Why would a Thelemite allow his animal passions to be more valuable than True Will? That's my question to you Avshalom? My investment of "caring" isn't in a person, candidate, or party, it is in caring about truth.
Truth is this: Feed a man free food and he'll keep coming back. Give him a job to earn his own way and only his character will determine if he keeps coming back. You seem to want to just give him food. That's my impression of your ideology.
-
Your opinion on this topic doesn't count for much to me, personally. As you said, you wouldn't even care if Trump were a homophobic racist mass-murderer.
"Anger motivated"
Regardless, my anger serves my will."You? Name calling."
Calling Trump a fascist isn't name calling.
"I'm not talking about the politics of Trump, I'm talking about the mindset of those who want to politicize (you included)."
This is a political thread about Trump.
