Politics and Thelem...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Politics and Thelema  

Page 9 / 12
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 12:24 am  

If you mix all races together, then inter-breeding destroys genetic diversity.
If you mix all cultures together, you destroy the diversity of traditions and approaches to life.
If you mix all nations together, you destroy the vitality of beneficial competition and create mass servitude under one rule.

It is highly undesirable to homogenize the whole world. You want to have many different pockets and localized areas where each culture exists and maintains a separate identity and way of life.

If France is exactly the same as china, which is just like St. Louis which are all like Russia and India, why would anyone every travel?

If there is only one race of people who all speak the same language, eat the same kind of food, live in the same style of housing, all of which are produced by standardized models. Every nation eats Mc Donalds and even the shape of the restaurant is the same, etc. Why bother even to learn history, tradition, anthropology, art, religion, or anything at all. Why even leave your house, you will never see anything different, you might as well veg out at home and have generic unhealthy food delivered to your house is bags with different symbols on them, that pretend to represent other cultures. The Chinese symbols on you lunch bag are probably not even chinese, just doodles, who cares anyway, we are all the same, cuz we 'Merkans. Why bother learning proper english, it's illegal to speak english in my state anyway, besides we ain't under no kind, we Melkans not Englanys.

If we blur every location so that everything is multi-cultural. (Mexican food becomes Taco bell) then we have reduced everything to some watered down, industrialized misrepresentation of a culture, with no real tradition behind it. And we all become plastic people living in a plastic world designed by industry, to be non-offensive. We disguise shoddy bullshit in the superficial layer of culture, while all true culture rots away behind the veneer.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
19/06/2010 12:47 am  

From the Moderator

name538, I've let you run with this for quite some time now, but your posts have become excessively repetitive and off-topic. There are, of course, many other sites out there where your racial views would be welcome, but it's beginning to look as if you're flogging a dead horse here.

Please ensure future posts remain on-topic and relevant to the Home of the Aleister Crowley.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 12:59 am  
"∆" wrote:
Your concept of ethnopluralism (described also by de Benoist) is just an other word for segregation. I see what you want to obtain. A Class of white people, described as masters, and the rest as slaves. The old dream of the race who rule the Earth. And after that, you asked me why i don't like de benoist ideas… sheeesh…

You really are seeing faeries and phantoms where none are present.

Please enlighten me as to where I have written that I want a ”class of white people” to ”rule the earth” and keep ”the rest as slaves”?

Why would I want that? I am not even ’white’ myself.

If you want to argue that etnopluralism does not fit within a political framework inspired by Thelema, please do so. If you believe that etnopluralism leads to holocaust, by all means, believe what you want – but stop phantasizing about me wanting to enslave non-whites under some imagined Aryan master race.

As for segregation, yes, the concept of biodiversity implies a certain segregation.

"∆" wrote:
Just remember that evolution only occurs with the mix of genes sufficiently differents. It has been the way iused by humanity since the beginning, by nomadism, expansion, war, economy…But you have also the absolute right to decay by consanguinity.

You seem to have some misconceptions about evolution and how the human genome has evolved vis a vis differing population groups.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 1:13 am  
"name538" wrote:
If you mix all races together, then inter-breeding destroys genetic diversity…

The new Æon is coming, and your dreams and fears will vanish just because the mixing of races have always existed (the genetic never lies).
Read that before : http://bit.ly/atozOz and maybe you will understand what i mean.
Your thoughts and beliefs comes from the Old æon. They have been beaten everywhere. As the old and inaccurate ideas of boundaries.

But I can reassure you. There are so much people on earth, and so much few massive displacements of population, that certain specificities will support time… during a certain time. And they will change, because there will be always a change.

In any case, I now understood what you want to express exactly (my comprehension of English has still much progress to make). And well… i'm sorry to say you that… (not really, whatever)… But you already lost. The new Æon will not be your petty, fearful æon, but a period of glory for the whole mankind.

But well, it is only my projection. The things will undoubtedly be even more interesting. 😀


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 1:22 am  
"Taxidermist" wrote:
As for segregation, yes, the concept of biodiversity implies a certain segregation.

So what i said is not what you call a fantasy…


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 1:37 am  

Race does not even really apply to an individual human, (it does but only loosely).
Race is a term that is applied to whole populations, I am not against interracial breeding or any such thing.
I am against the whole sale annihilation of a population, either by destruction or integration.
I do not want say, a black child who lives in the same community as a white child to be treated differently.
I do want to see that if it is a community that was established on say British culture I want all the members to act like and believe in the British way of life. If it is an Islamic culture, I expect everyone to respect the traditions of that land and to be treated as that tradition dictates.

I do not want foreigners coming into a land, disapproving of it's way of life and culture and working to manipulate and change that culture to be like what their ideal is. No matter if it is the Judaic ideals that destroyed Rome, or the Radical Islamic Ideals that are currently eating away at America and Western Europe. (It is liberal ideology, that demands tolerance and sympathy, that these groups are using to their advantage to undermine the language, boarders and culture, of western civilization).

These are the issues that a Thelemic Politics must answer. When the old aeon cultures and traditions are totally eaten away by this kind of activity, the way Rome was eaten away by Christianity, What sort of new culture, new traditions, new links to the earth and cycles of life will Thelema provide to those living it the ruins of the old.
And by what political means, shall me create and preserve our local cultures and autonomy from those who wish to degenerate them once more. (The black brotherhood).


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
19/06/2010 1:56 am  

From the Moderator

http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=50731#50731

name538, please submit future posts to me first for pre-moderation.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 1:58 am  

Oh what a relief.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 2:13 am  

🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 3:27 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Does it mean that someone calling themselves Thelemites, will in the name of Liberty take away all common voters’ democratic rights to general elections in said nation state?
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes, noone will be allowed to exercise their socalled democratic rights to infringe upon the liberty of others, in order to subordinate them to their false ideals and concepts of safety first.
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Patriarch156, do I understand you correctly when I interpret the quotes from you above, to mean that “the practical program of politics of Thelema” as envisioned by Crowley, does include – in the name of Liberty – taking away the democratic rights, political power and influence of any individual common voter in a Telemically governed nation state, to general elections in such a nation state?
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes you will not be able to exercise your socalled democratic right to barter away the freedom of others for safety.

Picture above – from the gallery of lashtal.com – of Aleister Crowley dressed up as Winston Churchill, the latter being a personal favorite of Aleister Crowley among politicians.[Description of image used in this posting, for those readers who are blind or visually impaired.]

Quote from Winston Churchill in House of Commons, 11 November 1947:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Source:

http://richardlangworth.com/2009/06/democracy-is-the-worst-form-of-government/

"Patriarch156" wrote:
You do realize that at the time when Churchil declared the above Crowley was seriously ill as he would die the next month? Moreover his diary does not mention this quote at all, so your attempt at stringing too unrelated concepts (Crowley's admiration of Churchill's caretaking of GB during WWII and a statement Churchill declared one month before he died) together is a bit disingenious to say the least.

What you read as disingenuous is not so at all. My reference to Winston Churchill’s indirect defense of democracy as a form of Government better then “all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”, is relevant to what you present as being Crowley’s vision for the political future of Thelema.

Because what you present is an ancient old fashioned form of government akin to the 'totalitarian' subordination to a – for the subjects of this law universal – law administrated by judges (read experts or someone with enlightened insight into said law), that the tribes of Israel according to the most holy scripture[-s] of Judaism and Christianity, had as their form of government, before these tribes - against the will of God - bartered themselves into and/or ellected themselves inti, having a king just like all their neighouring peoples had kings. I do of course not have to remind you that Aleister Crowley was very well read in the most holy scripture[-s] of the Christians.

You being a bishop in the O.T.O. currently led by Frater Superior Hymenaeus Beta, is not likely to write seriously and extensively on Crowley’s vision for the political future of Thelema, merely as nothing beyond an intellectual exercise on your part. Thus it is likely that your writings on this subject matter can be interpreted as an effort in promulgation of Thelema. My reference to Winston Churchill’s indirect defense of democracy is an example of the sort of criticism and attacks that any implementational efforts in relation to Crowley’s vision for the political future of Thelema, can and will be confronted with.

Such implementational efforts in relation to Crowley’s totalitarian and non democratic vision for the political future of Thelema, is also likely to be confronted with criticism and attacks pointing out that Crowley – in his authoritative and new and comment to The Book of the Law
http://hermetic.com/220/crowley-comment.html – recommend exterminating the Jews and the Christians. Public broadcasting of such similarities between A. Crowley and his contemporary and 'partner' in non democratic totalitarianism and anti-Semitism, A. Hitler – which A. Crowley wanted to adopt Thelema – would make any serious and wide ranging implementational efforts in relation to Crowley’s vision for the political future of Thelema – and promulgation of Thelema – more difficult.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley were perfectly aware of what was considered controversial and transgressive and attempted to deliberately obfuscate and hide this from the mainstream. When it got out, his plan was to "normalize" it through explanation, but in practice he ran away.

Or maybe your purpose in this thread Patriarch156, is less about implementational efforts in relation to Crowley’s vision for the political future of Thelema, and promulgation of Thelema, then to "normalize" Thelema through explanation? 😉

"Patriarch156" wrote:
[...] our doctrines are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being. If you differ that is your right.:)

In the link right below is a page from the free online comic about Crowley's student Parsons, The Marvel, sex magick and rocket science

To quote Camlion;

"Camlion" wrote:
Patriarch156, [...] it is certainly not my intention to dissuade you from your own valuable work. 🙂

, but a more mass-effective way of promulgation of Crowley's Thelema and proving and/or demonstrating in reality that the doctrines of Crowley's Thelema "are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being", would be of making a reality show for TV. Here one non Thelemic team called "The empty-headed Athenians", a name inspired by what Grady McMurtrey called those so called Thelemites not adhering to the teachings of Crowley's Thelema at the first Agape lodge in the USA, and illustrated on the page from the comic in the following link right below, would act in the standard way of acting on reality shows, where as one other team, called "The scum bag Crowley's Thelemites", would act according to the doctrines of the latter's Thelema. The TV show's consultant regarding Thelema, should be you Patriarch156. [Let me here provide you all with something that the superenlightened Aiwass could not resort to, emoticon: 💡 😆 ]

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/rscarbonneau/parsons/series.php?view=single&ID=150180

****As for something more on reality, I have earlier in this thread stated that name538's postings in this thread has not improved the impression i get from said poster.

The impression I get from name538 is of someone being out of touch with reality, and of someone with a way of thinking almost aproaching H. P. Lovecraft's obsessive racial views. The best cure for being out of touch with reality is confronting the real world and real persons as often as posible. You name538, submitting future posts to the moderator first for pre-moderation, might function as one way for you of confronting the real world and real persons as often as posible, I should know, as I have been under pre moderation myself. Wellcome to the club.

Your understanding of Thelema as being about finding one's - or comming to terms with one's - own nature, is correct according to Crowley's Thelema. But in Crowley's Thelema there are also clearly supernatural elements(in the meaning of elements trancending human nature), where one trough higher intiatic activety supposedly can become someone totally different from whom one were before said activey. Crowley for example in Confessions describes himself going out af a desert in North-Africa, compleatly changed in nature with nothing left of his ego from before the intiatic activety he went through with in said desert.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
19/06/2010 3:33 pm  

Please take more care on your quotations of previous posts, wellredwellbred, otherwise it looks as if you're just repeating yourself: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=50608#50608

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
19/06/2010 8:43 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
[Description of image used in this posting, for those readers who are blind or visually impaired.]

Could you please embed a sound file in case the blind or visually impaired fail to see this helpful remark.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2010 10:53 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
lol My goodness (and evil), Patriarch156, I do seem to both rise and fall from grace in your opinion with great frequency! Regardless, thank you for the substantial reply. I will respond in kind as soon as I get some of the shameful capitalism that is preoccupying me this week out of the way. 🙂

You have not risen or fallen from grace in my opinionin this thread. I have merely started adressing modern political science since you seemed to defer to it in this discussion.

I look forward to reading your response 🙂

My apologies, again, for the delay. My business interests have taken an uncharacteristically distracting turn this week. I've been working on a startup of new business for a couple of years now, a 'Thelema oriented' one, in fact, involving various artists. Artists are difficult enough by nature, but starting a new business here in the present politically poisoned economic environment is next to impossible, and is something that I used to easily be able to do over a weekend.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Do you mind if I ask you what you actually have studied when it comes to political science? Do you have any degree at all in it, or are you self-studied. If so, what works have you studied?

I do not mind at all if you ask for my qualifications for invoking the names of political science or libertarianism in the company of such an august body as this internet forum. 😉 I studied political science in my youth at one of the most prestigious universities in my country. The curriculum was as broad and deep as any in the world at the time. I did this not in the interest of joining my fellows there in the academic morass in which several still find themselves today (some of them teach there now, being unable by nature to engage in any more practical application of their science) but in the interest of divining a practical political application for the Law of Thelema. I had the good fortune of being introduced to the subject rather early on in life (circa 1968-69). Much of Crowley's own jottings on the subject had yet to see the light of day by the time I became interested in a political application, beyond what could be gleaned from the contents of the HAG, and this seemed to me somewhat less than practical.

As for libertarianism, I joined the Libertarian Party of California almost twenty years ago. I did not do this in the interest of becoming a perpetually frustrated 'party man,' as are so many of my fellows there today, but in the interest of gaining a deeper insight into the issues and principles involved in somehow transcending the Left-Right political dichotomy that has a stranglehold on so many democracies today, forcing them to choose repeatedly between the lesser of two evils, traditional conservatism or traditional liberalism. In a similar vein, in the interest of gaining a deeper insight into the system of the OTO, I became what was then called an associate member in the mid 90s, but is now called something else, as you know. In each case, libertarianism and OTO, I was fortunate find a mentor of extensive experience and excellent repute in their respective fields of endeavor.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I am reasonably curious by now since you have refused to engage in any particulars when I have asked for it and you have declared yourself the task that you are here to correct this socalled error among Thelemites (see more about that below).

I did begin to respond, in this thread, by attempting to focus on a more issue-oriented approach than I find in the political outlooks of most Thelemites. I find most Thelemites, among the few that have any interest at all in the political applications of Thelema, to be bogged down in theory and lacking in any semblance of pragmatism. As I see it, the only pragmatic approach is an issue-oriented one, at least to start with. I wrote:

"Camlion" wrote:
For the present time, and while employing the existing democracies of the world, I favor a political hybrid toward achieving the goals of Thelema on the level contemplated by the subject of this thread. I embrace, in general, the social liberalism of the political Left, which insures individual freedom of choice, but I reject the socialism of their "nanny state," which insures the weakness and dependence of the individual and inevitably bankrupts the "nanny state" itself. I embrace, in general, the fiscal responsibility of the political Right, which insures the self-sufficiency, personal strength and independence of the individual, but I reject their social conservatism, which denies personal freedom of choice to the individual.

This political perspective is known by some as "libertarianism," but I favor the term 'enlightened libertarianism,' as I see this perspective not as a political goal in itself but, rather, as a step in the right direction toward the goal of Thelema, that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and that the purpose of government should be facilitating the knowing and doing of true Will (Thelema) at optimum levels by its citizens, while refraining from interfering with that natural function as much as possible.

If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion of the above thoughts, Patriarch156?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
The Libertarianism of its godfather Murray Rothbard as exemplified by H.H. Hoppe is largely anti-democratic in nature. In fact HHH argues in Democracy, the God that failed that though he prefers anarchocapitalism (Stateless Feudalism is an immensely more preferable to liberal democracy.

Though there are people who disagree with this, as far as I know there exists no serious Libertarian thinker who advocates the existence of a State beyond one that protects our fundamental right. None of them advocates a democratic system as far as I am aware of, though they tend to vary as far as whether or not partaking in the democratic system (usually by aligning themselves with the Conservative right) is wise or not.

I must assume that you have mistaken me for an advocate for 'liberal democracy,' and that in so doing you are emphasizing your position as an advocate for 'liberal totalitarianism.' I am not your garden variety advocate for democracy as some sort of sacred cow, not at all. If anything, I am an advocate for democracy only in the interest of pragmatism. In the world of today, democracy is the only tool in the political tool box by which change in political policy is possible. You and I could sit in a room and bemoan the sorry state of democracy today to our heart's content, but eventually we have to walk outside and upon doing so we will likely find ourselves standing in the midst of an established democracy, like it not. If we really want to change political policy, democracy is the only means currently at our disposal, on a scale significant enough to matter at present.

As I am sure that you are aware, the 'founding fathers' of democracy in the USA would themselves join us in bemoaning the current sorry state of democracy.

This one is of great general interest:

"Ben Franklin" wrote:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This one is of particular interest to those frustrated by the Left-Right political dichotomy that has a stranglehold on so many democracies today, (especially to libertarians), as it is a warning against the system of political parties itself, given long before it even took it's present stranglehold on democracy here:

"George Washington" wrote:
It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

And, so, I believe that we are in agreement as to sorry state of democracy today, as well as, I hope, agreeing that we might employ democracy in one way or another to effect policy change on a significant scale at present - remembering always that:

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
Legislation shall bear constantly in mind the first principle “do what thou wilt”; its object shall be to assist each individual citizen to accomplish his will, as education has assisted him to discover his nature. It shall not restrict any man from damaging himself on the ground that he owes the state service; or even from damaging others, so long as that damage depends on their own consent. Thus, armed robbery is to be repressed. But racing and procuring are not to be made unlawful, on the theory that those who indulge in betting and wenching injure themselves. They have the right to do so; but a right to protection against alien pressure to do so.

In the interest of furthering a discussion of relevant issues rather than indulging in theoretical distractions, I would like offer this list of what I consider to be relevant issues. You will recognize it's source:

1. Man has the right to live by his own law— to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:— "take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51

I have omitted item number five only to postpone the inevitable distraction presented by the nuances of it's apparent complexity in application.

Patriarch156, I have highlighted the final portion of item 1 above because I am interested in your personal opinions on the issues surrounding Dr. Jack Kevorkian. (Wikipedia gives a sufficient overview to any reader who is not familiar with the subject.) As you are probably aware, Patriarch156, in my country it is presently illegal (with a few very sloppily designed exceptions in three states) for any of our 309,541,074 citizens to employ the services of a physician to end their pain and suffering if they are terminally ill, although Kevorkian's proposals include safeguards against the abuse of such services, as in the case of murder. Kevorkian has just been released after serving eight years in prison for his 'crimes.' Although "physician assisted suicide" is widely practiced in this country, it remains illegal and thus turns doctors who are helping their patients die as they Will into criminals.

If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion on the above issue, Patriarch156? Of course, any other reader is encouraged to share any thoughts they may have on the subject, the more the merrier. This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Your socalled enlightened Libertarianism is not really recognized among political scientists last time I checked and for good reason too, since it really is not Libertarianism at all, but rather Mont Pelerin or Hayekian "minimal government" Conservativism.

I would also like to add that those political scientists, since you (as opposed to me) is arguing with appeal to authority, who actually believes Libertarianism is workable, are in a distinct minority and that those who do have yet to meet their criticism with any reasonable evidence that should indicate that they ought to be taken seriously.

lol I really don't think that we want to engage in a pissing contest over which is taken more seriously, by political scientists or otherwise, the 'libertarian democracy' of a body such as http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party or the 'liberal totalitarianism' of a body such as the OTO. After all, the Libertarian Party is one of only a very small handful of alternative political parties that are represented on every national election ballot in the US, by virtue of the size of their constituency alone. (I should add that I am not in agreement personally with the position of the Libertaian Party on every issue.)

Yes, I do believe that minimal government is in the best interest of the individual citizen; that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and that the purpose of government should be facilitating the knowing and doing of true Will (Thelema) at optimum levels by its citizens, while refraining from interfering with that natural function as much as possible.

Yes, libertarians are a political minority, certainly, because we embrace, in general, the social liberalism of the political Left, which insures individual freedom of choice, but we reject the socialism of their "nanny state," which insures the weakness and dependence of the individual and inevitably bankrupts the "nanny state" itself. We embrace, in general, the fiscal responsibility of the political Right, which insures the self-sufficiency, personal strength and independence of the individual, but we reject their social conservatism, which denies personal freedom of choice to the individual.

The question is, Patriarch156, is this or is it not a 'Thelemic perspective.' Was this, or was it not, Aleister Crowley's perspective, or as close as one can come to his perspective within the pragmatic framework of democracy?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Moreover I thought I ought to note that in stark contradiction to what you have declared several times in this thread there is a growing consensus among political scientists that Francis Fukuyama famous saying was in error due to the staggering success of both Putin's Russia and China.

In my opinion, this is not a case for or against 'liberal democracy,' or for or against 'liberal totalitarianism,' it is a case of capitalism coming to the rescue of failed socialism, and I mean FAILED, along with having to tolerate all of the attendant woes of capitalism. Do not expect a return to socialism in these countries, because you will be disappointed if you do. 🙂

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I am not aware of a single person on this forum, let alone Crowley, who advocates anything of the sort as you describe above: i.e. not engaging in democratic agenda. I have tried several times now to advice you that Crowley himself envisioned several interim solutions and have asked you where you differ from him on this "interim solutions" project.

Well, there are folks in this forum advocating for all sorts of things. Name538, for one, seems to be advocating against engaging in a democratic agenda in this forum thread, while at the same time advocating for the 'liberal totalitarianism' of the OTO, or for what he understands that to be. Perhaps you have not been as critical of him as you might otherwise be, because of this fact? But then again, perhaps you might not have been attracted to this forum thread at all were he trying to carry that OTO banner? 😉

You have said:

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes, noone will be allowed to exercise their socalled democratic rights to infringe upon the liberty of others, in order to subordinate them to their false ideals and concepts of safety first.

and

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Yes you will not be able to exercise your socalled democratic right to barter away the freedom of others for safety.

and I agree with you, but these are miseries attendant to 'liberal democracy,' and not to the 'libertarian democracy' that I advocate.

I should also note that I do admire the work that the OTO is doing on many levels, including it's internal experiment with Crowley's 'liberal totalitarianism.' That is an important part of the OTO's function, as I understand it, in accordance with Crowley's intent. My concern is for it's practical application in the world outside of the OTO at present, compared to the 'libertarian democracy' that I find to be pragmatic at least to a certain degree, issue by issue, and to be 'Thelemic.'


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
20/06/2010 2:22 am  

93 Camlion,

"Camlion" wrote:
to die when and how he will...This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy...

Agreed! This is a basic Right of Man (or Woman!) and any society that considers it a crime could not be considered Thelemic. In regard to this subject A.C. wrote an entertaining short story called "Felo De Se", which I believe was published in the International. Check it out if you haven't read it before. It's well worth it. Another interesting subject of discussion might be the Right "to move as he will on the face of the earth"! Especially in light of recent immigration laws in the U.S.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 1:12 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
[...] I find most Thelemites, among the few that have any interest at all in the political applications of Thelema, to be bogged down in theory and lacking in any semblance of pragmatism. As I see it, the only pragmatic approach is an issue-oriented one, at least to start with. [...]

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Your socalled enlightened Libertarianism is not really recognized among political scientists last time I checked and for good reason too, since it really is not Libertarianism at all, but rather Mont Pelerin or Hayekian "minimal government" Conservativism.

I would also like to add that those political scientists, since you (as opposed to me) is arguing with appeal to authority, who actually believes Libertarianism is workable, are in a distinct minority and that those who do have yet to meet their criticism with any reasonable evidence that should indicate that they ought to be taken seriously.

"Camlion" wrote:
lol I really don't think that we want to engage in a pissing contest over which is taken more seriously, by political scientists or otherwise, the 'libertarian democracy' of a body such as http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party or the 'liberal totalitarianism' of a body such as the OTO. [...]

In the light of the first quote below about the doctrines of Thelema being "in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being", such advantage[-s] of Crowley's Thelema, must logically also be valid for Crowley's 'liberal totalitarianism', as presented by Patriarch156 in this thread. But as there is not now, and never has been before, any successful permanent continuously running community in this world organized according to Crowley's 'liberal totalitarianism', we are only left with theoretical reasoning, and no reality based success-stories, regarding its suposed advantage[-s] in relation to other forms of political organization of communities. Hence, there is, in this regard, no basis whatsoever on which to take Patriarch156's claim in the following quote seriously:

"Patriarch156" wrote:
[...] our doctrines are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being. If you differ that is your right.:)
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley were perfectly aware of what was considered controversial and transgressive and attempted to deliberately obfuscate and hide this from the mainstream. When it got out, his plan was to "normalize" it through explanation, but in practice he ran away.

That there is absolutely nothing in this world, in the form of Crowley's 'liberal totalitarianism' as presented by Patriarch156, successfully demonstrating in reality that the doctrines of Crowley's Thelema "are in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage human being", is a fact that no one of the adherents of Crowley's Thelema can run away from.

--As for something more on name538's, according to Crowley correct, understanding of Thelema as being about coming to terms with one's own nature, this coming to terms with one's own nature is also presented as being supernatural, in November 1996 by David Scriven, the representative of the chief of the O.T.O., of which Patriarch156 is a member and a bishop:

"Gnostic doctrines are modified in Thelema as the doctrine of True Will: that every man and woman has a "reason" to be here: that they have "chosen" to descend into this rotten place, that they have a mission to accomplish, which they have forgotten. It is their task not simply to escape, but also to remember why they came, and to fulfill this function."

Sources: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/spermo.htm footnote 52, and page 56 in Koenig's introduction to O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick, a book which the O.T.O. just mentioned above sued about to get it out of circulation. http://www.amazon.com/O-T-O-Rituals-Magick-Theodor-Reuss/dp/1872189938/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 12:48 pm  

By the way, I have a bachelor's degree in political science from one of the top universities in my home country. But it does not take any qualification in political science at all, to see that your thinking in this thread concerning the 'liberal totalitarianism' you present in Crowley’s name, is based on underhanded and/or faulty reasoning.

Reasoning where this Crowley’s 'liberal totalitarianism', must by implication be as advantageous and valid for the political organization of communities, as Crowley’s doctrines of Thelema that you – also in this thread - present as being "[...] in agreement with a more realistic as opposed to idealistic view of the avarage[sic] human being."

As there are no empirical or practical successful large scale examples of the 'liberal totalitarianism' you present in Crowley’s name Patriarch156, in the past or in the present, your own reasoning in this regard is clearly an example of an idealistic view, as opposed to a realistic view.

"Camlion" wrote:
Although "physician assisted suicide" is widely practiced in this country, it remains illegal and thus turns doctors who are helping their patients die as they Will into criminals. If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion on the above issue, Patriarch156? Of course, any other reader is encouraged to share any thoughts they may have on the subject, the more the merrier. This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy. [...]

I agree, and this can in a functioning democracy be dealt with by supporting political parties working for goals in agreement with one’s own view[-s] on this matter.

The local council in Brighton promising to take steps to see that such a thing as the ceremonies arranged according to what Crowley desired at his funeral there in December on December 5th 1947, should never happened again, is another clear example of what Camlion describes as "[...] a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, […]" Source: http://carnage.users2.50megs.com/AleisterCrowley/

"Whatever Crowley was, he was not a charlatan. He believed, he worked, he suffered, he had power. He failed to put over the religion of Thelema in his lifetime, which, considering its nature, is not surprising. [...]" From The Occult Observer, Vol 1, No 2, Summer 1949, this quote was found on: http://carnage.users2.50megs.com/AleisterCrowley/
Emphasis added by me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 3:50 pm  
"phthah" wrote:
93 Camlion,

"Camlion" wrote:
to die when and how he will...This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy...

Agreed! This is a basic Right of Man (or Woman!) and any society that considers it a crime could not be considered Thelemic. In regard to this subject A.C. wrote an entertaining short story called "Felo De Se", which I believe was published in the International. Check it out if you haven't read it before. It's well worth it. Another interesting subject of discussion might be the Right "to move as he will on the face of the earth"! Especially in light of recent immigration laws in the U.S.

93 93/93
phthah

93 phthah. Agreed, of course, with regard to the right to die as we Will. Felo de Se is being republished in The Drug and Other Stories.

Yes, the ongoing heightened controversy regarding immigration here is very relevant. During severe economic downturns, it is common historically for immigrant populations to be scapegoated and, complicating matters further in this case, the contributions of the immigrant population in question are integral to the success of the economy in many states, California included. And, of course, both the traditional Left and the traditional Right would like to have the 'Hispanic voting block' in their column, along with the 'anti-immigration voting block.'


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 5:39 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
--As for something more on name538's, according to Crowley correct, understanding of Thelema as being about coming to terms with one's own nature, this coming to terms with one's own nature is also presented as being supernatural, in November 1996 by David Scriven, the representative of the chief of the O.T.O., of which Patriarch156 is a member and a bishop:

"Gnostic doctrines are modified in Thelema as the doctrine of True Will: that every man and woman has a "reason" to be here: that they have "chosen" to descend into this rotten place, that they have a mission to accomplish, which they have forgotten. It is their task not simply to escape, but also to remember why they came, and to fulfill this function."

Sources: http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/spermo.htm footnote 52, and page 56 in Koenig's introduction to O.T.O. Rituals and Sex Magick, a book which the O.T.O. just mentioned above sued about to get it out of circulation. http://www.amazon.com/O-T-O-Rituals-Magick-Theodor-Reuss/dp/1872189938/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

As I see it, very generally speaking, 'Thelemic religion' is justified by the observation that people, for whatever reasons, persistently continue to have an interest in and a use or need for religion. This being the case, the idea is that there ought to be made available a religion based upon scientific fact rather than upon fantasy - as in the past. (Thus in keeping with Crowley's axiom 'The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion.') The scientific fact being offered is that each organism possesses a nature intrinsic to itself and that it is best served by expressing that nature in action, by behaving according to it's own nature. Hence the term true Will - Thelema. If interpreted in this light, Mr. Scriven's quote is a gnostic flavored ("descend into this rotten place") view of a demonstrable fact through the lens of a new religion.

By the way, you also seem imply, wellredwellbred, that the suppression the material that you cite was made by it's owners for reasons other than the fact that it was published illegally without their permission, as if the OTO was attempting to conceal the fact that they are practicing religion. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, however.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Although "physician assisted suicide" is widely practiced in this country, it remains illegal and thus turns doctors who are helping their patients die as they Will into criminals. If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion on the above issue, Patriarch156? Of course, any other reader is encouraged to share any thoughts they may have on the subject, the more the merrier. This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy. [...]

I agree, and this can in a functioning democracy be dealt with by supporting political parties working for goals in agreement with one’s own view[-s] on this matter.

The trouble is that the dominant political parties, usually only two, representing traditional liberalism and traditional conservatism, are each only partially 'Thelemic' in their programs and platforms, so that a voting Thelemite must opt for the lessor of two evils if he or she aligns themselves entirely with one of these parties or the other.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
21/06/2010 5:50 pm  

Do you ever read original sources and, in so doing, understand and appreciate the context of that which you quote so freely, wellredwellbred?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 6:05 pm  

I read many comments being centered on the political systems of the past, on the way in which should reform them…

IMHO, I think that a reform would be only once more a try to repair the same fabric which tears itself everywhere.
For a long time, the reproaches attributed to the political and social systems are the same ones.

i'm sure you have already heared this kind of dialog :
"…
In that, I said, the father accustoms himself to become like his child and fears his sons, while the son likens himself to his father, and feels neither shame nor fear in front of his parents, so he may be free ; the metic becomes the equal of a citizen and the citizen of a metic, and similarly with the foreigner.
It indeed so happens, he said.
To these, said I, such trifles do add up: the teacher, in such a case, fears his pupils and fawns upon them, while pupils have in low esteem their teachers as well as their overseers; and, overall, the young copy the elders and contend hotly with them in words and in deeds, while the elders, lowering themselves to the level of the young, sate themselves with pleasantries and wit, mimicking the young in order not to look unpleasant and despotic.
Most certainly, he said.
But indeed, said I, the ultimate, my dear, in the excess of freedom as it develops in such a city is reached when the men and women who have been purchased are no less free than those who have bought them... And regarding the relations of women with men and of men with women, how far equal rights and freedom have gone, we came close to almost saying nothing about that!
…"

Plato put those words into the mouths of Socrates and Adeimantus.
The Republic, VIII

Didn't the things change meanwhile? or is this only the manner of seeing things? It is time to think of a new model, anchored in the present rather than in the past. And Thelema gives us a lot of elements to help us. We just have need to have a sufficient understanding not to reiterate the errors of our fathers.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
21/06/2010 7:01 pm  

Might it not be just to think "history will always repeat itself"?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/06/2010 7:32 pm  
"alysa" wrote:
Might it not be just to think "history will always repeat itself"?

It appears to repeat itself, certainly, but I think that what appears to be things going round in a circle endlessly is really a spiral of gradual progress. The past is the foundation of the present and the present will be the foundation for the future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 1:29 am  

In response to the appeals to Liber OZ I would like to show this clip from George Carlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

In short, Rights are not inherent, they are not god given, they have no supernatural origin. (Liber OZ clearly postulates that your rights are stipulated upon your right to KILL those who interfere.)
You have certain privileges to do whatever you have the MIGHT and the POWER to get away with. If you can physically KILL or otherwise thumps those who want you to stop doing what you intend on doing, then you can do it. If they chose to exercise their power to kill you instead, then you then you have failed to get away with it and thus can't.

The only "Rights" you have are those grated to you by a civil army who will fight on your behalf (The police). Of course they don't really fight on your behalf, they work to establish a degree of calm in the market place and safety for the workers whom they exploit and extort tax money from which pays their salary. (And that is the WILL of the police and the governing factions).

Thelema will not change this, it does not create magical rights for everyone. What it is, is a teaching that if you use people according to how they are biologically and socially conditioned to feel a sense of personal reward in being used, they will submit voluntarily to the discipline of the community. Thus there will be little need for using violence and dragooning. Instead, the use of science to discern what each individual enjoys doing and to shape the society to accommodate each one. Don't carve the square peg to fit societies round holes, instead build a society that has enough square holes to allow all the square pegs a place to fit in.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 2:40 am  
"name538" wrote:
Instead, the use of science to discern what each individual enjoys doing and to shape the society to accommodate each one. Don't carve the square peg to fit societies round holes, instead build a society that has enough square holes to allow all the square pegs a place to fit in.

You know already what i think about your definitions of biology and social conditioning). But as you define yourself as a peg, can you define the peg hole of… let's say, an artist?
Do you mean that art can be defined or limited? or for an artist to be limited into a function ?
Into which sort of hole will you put Aleister Corwley ?
By extension, what's your definition of an human being ? Don't you believe that people can expand their mind, develop their understanding, by themselves or with the help of others?

"name538" wrote:
You have certain privileges to do whatever you have the MIGHT and the POWER to get away with. If you can physically KILL or otherwise thumps those who want you to stop doing what you intend on doing, then you can do it. If they chose to exercise their power to kill you instead, then you then you have failed to get away with it and thus can't.

And as you said, if i oppose to you in this lovely forum, do i have signed my death warrant? Yes, you have already found (dug?) my own hole. But i don't agree with that. and i will fight that.

"name538" wrote:
In response to the appeals to Liber OZ I would like to show this clip from George Carlin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

George Carlin was sometimes amusing, but your vision of his humor is far from being also pleasant. His comments were about christian so-called morality, which is a complete failure since the beginning. Not about a New Æon, in any ways.

Please re-read the Liber OZ once again…


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 5:03 am  

On what do the rights of Liber Oz stand.
Why would you have those rights, what will stop others from taking away your rights?
What is making others agree to Liber Oz, and what stops them from breaking their agreement?
(Other than the right to kill them and they to kill you)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 5:25 am  

I just wish you all could have Obama as your primary representative right now...do they like golf across the pond?? 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 10:12 am  
"lashtal" wrote:

Do you ever read original sources and, in so doing, understand and appreciate the context of that which you quote so freely, wellredwellbred?

Yes, of course I do. I am merely quoting from OTO-Rituals-amp-Sex-Magick’s introduction written by Koenig, more specifically the part of the introduction where the latter explains the practice and structure of the various O.T.O. groups. What I quote from this introduction is taken from Koenig’s discussion about claims of Crowley’s O.T.O. concept – as currently practiced by some - containing “Gnostic doctrines.”

I bought that book before the largest O.T.O. managed to pull it out of circulation. I have not quoted anything from that book infringing on those texts in that book that the abovementioned O.T.O. claims to have copyright to.

The Occult Observer, Vol 1, No 2, Summer 1949, that I quote from has not been read in original by me, but the context it is written in is clearly to commemorate Crowley, pointing out that it was no surprise that neither his power, honesty, true belief nor life’s work, were enough to put over the religion of Thelema in his lifetime, due to the nature of said religion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 10:32 am  
"name538" wrote:
On what do the rights of Liber Oz stand.

If they are not enforced by law, they stand on nothing but "the law of the jungle."(= "Dog eats dog.")

"name538" wrote:
Why would you have those rights,

You would have theme for the reason of them being enforced by law, with no such enforcement, one would only "have" them on the basis of "the law of the jungle."(= "Dog eats dog.")

"name538" wrote:
what will stop others from taking away your rights?

Only enforcement by law, because the alternative is that there will eventually always be a stronger dog.

"name538" wrote:
What is making others agree to Liber Oz,

Only its enforcement by law.

"name538" wrote:
and what stops them from breaking their agreement?

Only contractual enforcement by law.

"name538" wrote:
(Other than the right to kill them and they to kill you)

Only enforcement by law.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 11:53 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"[...] you [...] seem to imply, wellredwellbred, that the suppression the material that you cite was made by it's owners for reasons other than the fact that it was published illegally without their permission, as if the OTO was attempting to conceal the fact that they are practicing religion. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, however."

Reading me wrong you are. Claimed infringement of copyright was the cause of the 'suppression', not any attempt to conceal what you mentioned.

"Camlion" wrote:
Although "physician assisted suicide" is widely practiced in this country, it remains illegal and thus turns doctors who are helping their patients die as they Will into criminals. If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion on the above issue, Patriarch156? Of course, any other reader is encouraged to share any thoughts they may have on the subject, the more the merrier. This is an example, imo, of a government too intrusive in the personal lives of it's citizens, and of an 'unThelemic' government policy. [...]
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
I agree, and this can in a functioning democracy be dealt with by supporting political parties working for goals in agreement with one’s own view[-s] on this matter.
"Camlion" wrote:
The trouble is that the dominant political parties, usually only two, representing traditional liberalism and traditional conservatism, are each only partially 'Thelemic' in their programs and platforms, so that a voting Thelemite must opt for the lessor of two evils if he or she aligns themselves entirely with one of these parties or the other.

Good point. The from issue to issue alignment you suggest, is an alternative to aligning oneself entirely.

The struggle for something scarce, namely power and influence, is a very simple definition of politics. There are thelemites spread all over the world, whereas Thelema on an organizational level is not a big player in the struggle for power and influence that defines politics. Thus a clever thing to do by thelemites around in the world’s countries with democracy and the rule of law, to protect their religious rights - to having for example thelemic funerals – will, as can be seen from the quotes below from an official net site, be to align themselves from issue to issue with bigger and more well-established organizational players in the struggle for power and influence. Like for example the well-established organizational political player referred to below:

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0479.html
"SPEARHEADING SOCIAL REFORM. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. […] like all of man’s treasured freedoms, freedom of religion is maintained only through vigilance and refusal to succumb to those who seek to enslave and suppress. […]The Church of Scientology […] strongly believes […] that continuous attempts by government to encroach upon this right must be strenuously fought, for this is the sign of an oppressive government."

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part06/Chp24/pg0416.html
"THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS. FREEDOM MEDAL WINNERS. Each year since 1985, the IAS has recognized individuals who have defended the cause of religious freedom by awarding them the Freedom Medal at its anniversary celebration every October. This medal acknowledges exemplary courage and determination of these members for bringing greater freedom to mankind."

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part06/Chp24/index.html
"THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTOLOGISTS. […] the International Association of Scientologists was formed to guarantee that the Scientology religion can be practiced for all time – through a strong group composed of those who believe in and are willing to fight for the rights of man and the freedom of all religions."

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp36/pg0641-a.html
"ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS. In what way does Scientology differ from other religions? […] Scientology makes it possible for any religion to attain its goals and is therefore a religion of religions."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 12:43 pm  

In what way is a law enforcement agency different from a large gang of bigger dogs?

Liber Oz uses the language of rights, but really it sets up a rule of might, Kill or be Killed. Or find a balance where everyone leaves everyone else alone because no one is intruding on other's business.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 12:59 pm  
"name538" wrote:
In what way is a law enforcement agency different from a large gang of bigger dogs?

A law enforcement agency is subservient to the law it enforces, a large gang of bigger dogs are subservient to nothing except constantly changing top dogs.

That is, a law enforcement agency is subservient to something more permanent then merely constantly changing top dogs.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2010 1:12 pm  

The law enforcement agency is just the biggest gang that controls the area. The mafia is a law enforcement agency too. It enforces protection fees, the same way the LAW enforces taxes.

The Law is a Gang that is paid off by big business to protect the efficient operation of the Markets. They don't care about you, they don't care about enforcing your "rights" or if you have liberty. They only care to keep the streets cleared enough to open the shops, and collect the tax money, When they are not shaking you down for Fines, to pay the Coffers of the State. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but one must realize they are nothing more than the biggest game in town, there is no divine right or something special about the police, they have no more Right to do what they do than the Mafia does.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/06/2010 3:09 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
A law enforcement agency is subservient to the law it enforces, a large gang of bigger dogs are subservient to nothing except constantly changing top dogs.

That is, a law enforcement agency is subservient to something more permanent then merely constantly changing top dogs.

From The U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Of course, there are only a large handful of these travel circumstances, but who's to say the set of circumstances can't be broadened?

In order to write the law, they must have power over it.

To include themselves into the law is to give some amount of power to the law, over them.

To exclude themselves from the law, leaves them in power over the law.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
22/06/2010 7:27 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not mind at all if you ask for my qualifications for invoking the names of political science or libertarianism in the company of such an august body as this internet forum. 😉

Thanks for an review of your qualifications on your comments on political science. As for me I studied political science at college level and have always had a broad interest in it ever since and still regularly keep up to date with leading peer-reviewed journals that deals with the subject.

The reason I brought it up was because despite you appealing to authority, your conception of political science seemed rather narrow minded, naive and dare I say it, "impractical" *cough*. One of the most curious things is your attempt to formulate a position without outlining a theory that flows from a set of principles. There would be nothing wrong with this, if not for the fact that you keep referring to these positions without qualification as Thelemic and expecting others to "get" what you are talking about.

I think that our community is at a pre-paradigmatic stage as far as political thought goes and though we can always fight for whatever agenda that fits our own idiosyncratic point of view, it is too early to call such a unique and individual position as Thelemic before the heavy lifting of first principles has been investigated in light of the Law of Thelema.

Perhaps this offers you better insight into why I at this moment with rare exceptions prefer to keep to history and philosogy as opposed to outlining any point of view concerning the Law and its application to Society at large. It certainly is not out of any lack of coming to grips with a pragmatic orientation and manifestation of Thelemic ideals in my life and Society as I see it, as seems to be your belief.

If I may, I would ask that you share your personal opinion of the above thoughts, Patriarch156?

My personal opinion about the above thoughts is that you have a very americanized way of approaching politics (two party system, with the Libertarians somewhere beyond both). Beyond that I have no particular point of view concerning the concept of Enlightened Libertarianism. Perhaps if you asked more specific I would be able to give something more worth your time?

I must assume that you have mistaken me for an advocate for 'liberal democracy,' and that in so doing you are emphasizing your position as an advocate for 'liberal totalitarianism.'

Actually, I have tried to comment upon Crowley's and from that Thelema's politics (yes I am aware that many do not regard those as one and the same which is fine, but that is another discussion that I prefer not to go over now, much for the same reason I feel that arguing about politics is futile when noone really agrees on what the principles underlying the concepts are, let alone how to apply them). Though I am in general sympathetic towards Crowley's political ideas, and I find much interest in them and consequently inherent worth in being expounded and developed, I wouldn't really call myself a libertarian totalitarian.

I am not your garden variety advocate for democracy as some sort of sacred cow, not at all.

Never claimed you were. My point about liberal democracy was that I had already acknowledged another way of securing the liberty of people, though at the same time highlighting its problems. After having read Rothbard's the ethics of liberty, even with Hoppe's attempts at reigning it in, I can not say that I understand how liberty can be taken care of through insurance companies as is ostensible the Libertarian thought concerning this, since after all as Hoppe recently remarked in a lecture, minimalist statists is an contradiction of terms.

If anything, I am an advocate for democracy only in the interest of pragmatism. In the world of today, democracy is the only tool in the political tool box by which change in political policy is possible. You and I could sit in a room and bemoan the sorry state of democracy today to our heart's content, but eventually we have to walk outside and upon doing so we will likely find ourselves standing in the midst of an established democracy, like it not. If we really want to change political policy, democracy is the only means currently at our disposal, on a scale significant enough to matter at present.

As someone who several times in this thread have stressed that one can out of pragmatic concerns engage legislative and democratic processes in order to promote Thelemic ideals (though as I understand it the rising point of view of Libertarianism as opposed to the party of the same name is that you can not) I do not quite understand what you are talking about here.

And, so, I believe that we are in agreement as to sorry state of democracy today, as well as, I hope, agreeing that we might employ democracy in one way or another to effect policy change on a significant scale at present - remembering always that:

No argument, in fact this has been my argument all along and I have pointed out that in fact Aleister Crowley wanted us to engage in such work.

As for your point about the right to die and the euthenasia debate, I think merely quoting Liber Oz is too weak an argument. You need to construct an argument showing that this is relevant for this question, addressing the concerns (largely it seems that one pressures people who do not want to die to die), rooting it in the principles of Thelema through this.

That being said, since Crowley noted that everyone should be allowed to harm themselves, I do think that in a State governed along ostensible Thelemic principles, the work of Dr. Kevorkian would not be necessary, since the right to die when and where one will would be secured. at the same time since he also decreed that we had the right to protection against bullying by others to accept their point of view, a system that addressed both concerns (the right to die and the right to be protected against being pressured to die) would have to be instituted.

As for me personally, I have supported the right to die for the last 20 years, long before I had any real working knowledge of the principles that underlie the practical political application of the Law of Thelema.

lol I really don't think that we want to engage in a pissing contest over which is taken more seriously, by political scientists or otherwise, the 'libertarian democracy' of a body such as http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party or the 'liberal totalitarianism' of a body such as the OTO.

You misunderstood me, my point was not that political scientists in general supported totalitarianism of any kind (including liberal which was just my term made up in order to clarify Crowley's point of using it) over democracy. My point was rather that appealing to political science in this instance and in the way the way you have done it is fallacious.

Yes, libertarians are a political minority, certainly, because we embrace, in general, the social liberalism of the political Left, which insures individual freedom of choice, but we reject the socialism of their "nanny state," which insures the weakness and dependence of the individual and inevitably bankrupts the "nanny state" itself. We embrace, in general, the fiscal responsibility of the political Right, which insures the self-sufficiency, personal strength and independence of the individual, but we reject their social conservatism, which denies personal freedom of choice to the individual.

I also think that Crowley's totalitarianism is just as likely to be implemented on any small or large scale as that of the anarchocapitalism of true Libertarianism. In fact, probably moreso considering that Libertarianism in general likes to defy the Law, while Crowley's orders for us was to obey the Law in our social experiments, even if this was not soemthing he always did himself.

I do agree absolutely however that one may vote in accorance with ones values pragmatically focusing on what is most likely to implement legislation that is more in harmony with the Law of Thelema.

The question is, Patriarch156, is this or is it not a 'Thelemic perspective.' Was this, or was it not, Aleister Crowley's perspective, or as close as one can come to his perspective within the pragmatic framework of democracy?

As far as I can see and as I have pointed out this is part and parcel of Crowley's plans for establishing the Law of Thelema. In fact he vehemently opposed revolution and opted instead for reform.

In my opinion, this is not a case for or against 'liberal democracy,' or for or against 'liberal totalitarianism,' it is a case of capitalism coming to the rescue of failed socialism, and I mean FAILED, along with having to tolerate all of the attendant woes of capitalism. Do not expect a return to socialism in these countries, because you will be disappointed if you do. 🙂

You seem to have a very peculiar reading of both my point and what is happening in these countries. My point was merely that totalitarianism, including fascism is making a comeback and successfully so. Nothing about socialism was mentioned in there.

Well, there are folks in this forum advocating for all sorts of things. Name538, for one, seems to be advocating against engaging in a democratic agenda in this forum thread, while at the same time advocating for the 'liberal totalitarianism' of the OTO, or for what he understands that to be.

In actual fact he has at more than one time emphasied that of partaking in the democratic structures of society, while at the same time making himself more and more independent of them.

Perhaps you have not been as critical of him as you might otherwise be, because of this fact? But then again, perhaps you might not have been attracted to this forum thread at all were he trying to carry that OTO banner? 😉

I think my criticism of his misunderstandings of the Law of Thelema in the early pages of this thread speaks for itself and shows that you are in error above.

As for your last comment, please refrain from painting me as some sort of OTO sycophant who goes easier on members or advocates of the OTO than I do others. You neither know nor can you ever know what goes on in my mind. But since you seem to be concerned about this let me tell you instead. I am mostly active in threads on LAShTAL.com because it is the Home of the Aleister Crowley Society.

That is I gather that it is possible to engage in reasonably informed debate about the life, ideas and history of Aleister Crowley. I read nearly all the threads that is concerned with that subject and I provide comments where I feel I have something of worth to add. Though I have at your instigation declared several times in this thread my own idiosyncratic peculiarities in general I try to avoid this and instead focus on the life, ideas and history of Aleister Crowley.

The politics of Thelema as understood in relation to Crowley is something that has been woefully neglected and so I take a special interest in that subject, not only because of my wish to inform, but also because I have a particular interest in the subject right now.

and I agree with you, but these are miseries attendant to 'liberal democracy,' and not to the 'libertarian democracy' that I advocate.

Yes which was why they were not written in response to you, but to wellredwellbred's criticism of Crowley's totalitarianism, which I thought were erroneous on several points.

It is good that you admire the work of the O.T.O. in this vein, but really I am not sure I understand why as there has been no serious attempt at applying these principles in the Order as such. This is not a criticism of the O.T.O., but rather an acknowledgement that such a thing would be impossible in the pre-paradigmatic stage.

My understanding is that though there are work underway to establish profess-houses, these will not function as social experiment tanks where the Law of Thelema rules as an practical system of politics. This is a good thing as I do not believe the Order to be at a developmental stage where such an experiment would be possible.

I do wish that the Order would like the masons organize for charity, organize for specific causes of Liberty. But again, the movement being in a pre-paradigmatic stage it is difficult enough to gain broad support for any inherently Thelemic position as understood by Crowley, be it about unnecessary intrustions into our lives as you have mentioned let alone the much more controversial topics such as abortion, forcing privately owned enterprises to not live according to their own law and so on.

Only the future can tell us what paradigm we end up with once we solidify into one, if anything at all, but right now... it is frankly too early to do anything of the sort.

This does not mean that one as an individual can not work and support the causes one feel is inherently Thelemic (be it in Crowley's or anybody else's view). In fact in workshops in the various degrees of the Order I always urge everyone to do just this.

Hope this was what you were looking for when you ask3ed me about my point of view, if not I must confess that I am at loss as to just what you are asking for.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
22/06/2010 9:15 pm  

Moderator's Note

name538,

"name538" wrote:
The Law is a Gang that is paid off by big business to protect the efficient operation of the Markets. They don't care about you, they don't care about enforcing your "rights" or if you have liberty. They only care to keep the streets cleared enough to open the shops, and collect the tax money, When they are not shaking you down for Fines, to pay the Coffers of the State. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but one must realize they are nothing more than the biggest game in town, there is no divine right or something special about the police, they have no more Right to do what they do than the Mafia does.

You were instructed:

"lashtal" wrote:
please submit future posts to me first for pre-moderation.

You submitted one such post, which I immediately approved unedited, despite the borderline racist attempt at humour in your PM:

"name538" wrote:
Can I's post diss' uhns mass'er?

You have since made further posts without submitting them for pre-moderation and are therefore failing to comply with the Guidelines.

Your account is closed.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 11:23 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
A law enforcement agency is subservient to the law it enforces, a large gang of bigger dogs are subservient to nothing except constantly changing top dogs.

That is, a law enforcement agency is subservient to something more permanent then merely constantly changing top dogs.

From The U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Of course, there are only a large handful of these travel circumstances, but who's to say the set of circumstances can't be broadened?

In order to write the law, they must have power over it.

To include themselves into the law is to give some amount of power to the law, over them.

To exclude themselves from the law, leaves them in power over the law.

93 93/93

My use of the term law enforcement agency, was referring to police-like enforcement, not law enforcement in the capacity of law giver[-s].

Liber Oz is not an extensive basis for a practical system of politics, politics here simply defined as the struggle for something normally scarce, namely power and influence.

In Liber Oz Aleister Crowley presents our rights, and the following seemingly problematic from Liber Oz is not so problematic in the context of the history of politics as defined above: ”Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.”

Killing is in Liber Oz referred to in an instrumental way, this means that killing can be used as an instrument for protection of power and influence, here the power and influence granted each individual according to Crowley’s Thelema.

Killing has – on a group basis - been used as a legitimate instrument for protection of power and influence, since the dawn of history. The new thing with Crowley’s Thelema, is that it grants the individual more power and influence then all or almost all traditional earlier teachings on life.

In the real world we all currently live in, where there is no politically independent territory organized according to Crowley’s Thelema, using killing[-s] as according to his Thelema, might end up actually diminishing the power and influence the killer[-s] had before acting out the killing[-s], and possibly after the killing[-s] leading to punishment by forced jail time and/or death for said killer[-s].

In any possible future politically independent territory organized according to Crowley’s Thelema, using killing[-s] as according to his Thelema, must of course be done with carefulness and precision, if any future thelemic territory shall have any hope of long-time survival.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
23/06/2010 11:57 am  

Context, context, context...

Liber Oz was written for a specific purpose with specific objectives in mind. In short, a declaration of the rights of man inspired by events surrounding the Second World War.

To analyse it without recognising this context is to make a basic error.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 3:32 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
Context, context, context...

Liber Oz was written for a specific purpose with specific objectives in mind. In short, a declaration of the rights of man inspired by events surrounding the Second World War.

To analyse it without recognising this context is to make a basic error.

I know the context. The founder and Prophet of a religion authoring a public text authorizing the right to kill those who actively oppose the rights granted by said religion, does not mean that one must exercise that right to kill.

More - both relevant and detailed - information concerning the treatment that active opponents of Thelema should be met with, has been provided by Patriarch156 earlier in this thread. According to that information, involving Crowley's thougts on Thelema in a position of governmental power, such active opponents of Thelema should have going into exile as an option.

Liber Oz shows the Prophet Crowley, his homeland being in a state of war, officially stating the right to kill those who actively oppose the rights granted by the religion he founded. According to Patriarch156, Crowley's recommended treatment of active opponents of Thelema during a peaceful time in a Thelema-controlled or dominated territory, would not be killing them at first instance, but rather forced exile of said active opponents of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/06/2010 3:44 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
A law enforcement agency is subservient to the law it enforces, a large gang of bigger dogs are subservient to nothing except constantly changing top dogs.

That is, a law enforcement agency is subservient to something more permanent then merely constantly changing top dogs.

From The U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Of course, there are only a large handful of these travel circumstances, but who's to say the set of circumstances can't be broadened?

In order to write the law, they must have power over it.

To include themselves into the law is to give some amount of power to the law, over them.

To exclude themselves from the law, leaves them in power over the law.

93 93/93

My use of the term law enforcement agency, was referring to police-like enforcement, not law enforcement in the capacity of law giver[-s].

Liber Oz is not an extensive basis for a practical system of politics, politics here simply defined as the struggle for something normally scarce, namely power and influence.

In Liber Oz Aleister Crowley presents our rights, and the following seemingly problematic from Liber Oz is not so problematic in the context of the history of politics as defined above: ”Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.”

Killing is in Liber Oz referred to in an instrumental way, this means that killing can be used as an instrument for protection of power and influence, here the power and influence granted each individual according to Crowley’s Thelema.

Killing has – on a group basis - been used as a legitimate instrument for protection of power and influence, since the dawn of history. The new thing with Crowley’s Thelema, is that it grants the individual more power and influence then all or almost all traditional earlier teachings on life.

In the real world we all currently live in, where there is no politically independent territory organized according to Crowley’s Thelema, using killing[-s] as according to his Thelema, might end up actually diminishing the power and influence the killer[-s] had before acting out the killing[-s], and possibly after the killing[-s] leading to punishment by forced jail time and/or death for said killer[-s].

In any possible future politically independent territory organized according to Crowley’s Thelema, using killing[-s] as according to his Thelema, must of course be done with carefulness and precision, if any future thelemic territory shall have any hope of long-time survival.

This is all well and good, but there's one thing missing. Liber OZ, while it may work for Thelemites, is not an officially recognized law. Thus, there are only two choices:

1) Work within the law of your current country in order to help create change in accordance with the law of Thelema.

2) Become a world leader and some how toss everything out the window in favor of a "Thelemic rule"

The answer to 1 is that not even Thelemites can agree on the essentials of law according to Thelema, which sort of leaves every star for hirself.

Proposition number 2 is a simple absurdity.

Thus, we are required to work within the bounds of existing laws at the moment, interpreting them in light of the law of Thelema. And yes, a Congressman committing a felony is very much a part of law enforcement.

It's hard to read your writings. Maybe I'm just not that interested in them. Regardless, in any law enforcement issue, you are either the person creating the laws, living by them, or a bit of both.

Crowley said in Book 4 (paraphrase) that if a barking dog disturbs your meditation it is best just to shoot the dog and think nothing else of it. That sounds great, doesn't it? No more barking dog, and continued meditation. In the current day and age however, that dog most likely has an owner, and dog owners get pretty pissed if you mess with their dogs. Thus, you may end up having to shoot the dog owner too, or get shot, and the entire ordeal might be a bit more hassle than you bargained for just to perform a morning meditation. Common sense then would tell you to put on some headphones, or maybe talk to the dog's owner, or find some way to calm the dog yourself so that you may all live in harmony.

"These slay, naming thine enemies", especially in accordance with Liber Oz, is at the present time in our society to be taken with more of a Voodoo doll implication, instead of literally. That is, unless making license plates for the rest of your life is a part of your True Will.

Then one always wonders... if you are going in your true Orbit anyway, anything that impedes that orbit will be cast aside or burned down by the shear magnitude of your will. That doesn't mean you don't have to bust a head from time to time, but for the most part, people leave you alone. In that case, it seems fair to take a more esoteric approach to the verse, "killing" the aspects of the ego that would thwart your right to your True Will.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 4:31 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
This is all well and good, but there's one thing missing. Liber OZ, while it may work for Thelemites, is not an officially recognized law. Thus, there are only two choices:

1) Work within the law of your current country in order to help create change in accordance with the law of Thelema.

2) Become a world leader and some how toss everything out the window in favor of a "Thelemic rule"

Needlessly dualistic, and breathtakingly unresourceful. Keep looking.

It's hard to read your writings. Maybe I'm just not that interested in them.

It's possible, inevitable even, that there are readers who feel the same way about your posts, and mine, Az, but happily for us, they appear to have some sort of basic manners - or better things to do, other than to compose verbose yet somehow also mostly slap-dash replies to posts which they allege they "aren't that interested in", containing this sort of thing. Why, if this were Texas . . .

n.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/06/2010 4:45 pm  

93,

"Noctifer" wrote:
Needlessly dualistic, and breathtakingly unresourceful. Keep looking.

What other options do you see then Noc, on a grand scale, considering not even all schools of Thelema are in agreement on how to approach the situation and what to do with it?

And yes, it's dualistic.

You can either 1) work inside the current set of laws, attempting to adjust, change, or otherwise "reform" them, or you can 2) toss the whole thing out and start from scratch, which is indeed an absurdity as it most likely will not happen any time soon.

It's possible, inevitable even, that there are readers who feel the same way about your posts, and mine, Az, but happily for us, they appear to have some sort of basic manners - or better things to do, other than to compose verbose yet somehow also mostly slap-dash replies to posts which they allege they "aren't that interested in", containing this sort of thing. Why, if this were Texas . . .

n.

If this were Texas... what? Spit it out.

And don't assume so much. I never said I wasn't interested in the topic. I approached law enforcement from the idea of the politician or law writer, which is the avenue I am interested in, not the local policeman. I'm more interested in how the laws are written, and how they are governed, not enforced. That the local police may or may not show up at my house if I shoot my neighbor is a by-product.

People take Liber Oz and put their own twists to it. I highly doubt Crowley intended on "globalcide" or some other catchy term for anarchy, but maybe he did. What I do know is that you don't have to go around killing people to accomplish your Will. You should however, have the right to shoot some asshole who breaks into your house.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 4:52 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Liber Oz is not an extensive basis for a practical system of politics, politics here simply defined as the struggle for something normally scarce, namely power and influence.

Power and influence over the circumstances of one's own life seems a reasonable expectation to me. One is a slave to one's true Will, one's own intrinsic nature, and that alone - exceptions being cases of voluntary compromise.

Issue by issue is the best approach to practical politics, imo, and the best sequence of approach is usually from the simplest to the more complex.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/06/2010 5:04 pm  

93,

"Camlion" wrote:
Issue by issue is the best approach to practical politics, imo, and the best sequence of approach is usually from the simplest to the more complex.

Cam, when Rome founded its legal system, it did so on the Twelve Tablets (Tables?). After a while, they created more specialized laws for various situations. From your post it seems that you do not agree with this approach.

Do you think it is better for a multitude of simple laws to be formed, thereby creating a more complex web of laws?

What do you mean by simple laws? The right to bear arms, for example, is pretty simple, yet very broad and inclusive. The many laws of the states and what-not that govern various parts of the simple right to bear arms are what make it complex. Would you begin by changing those smaller, state-wide laws in order to bring the right to bear arms back to simplicity, or...?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 5:06 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And yes, it's dualistic.

Your personal vision of this situation may be, but "it" is always a bit more than what you see, innit. Keep looking. 😉

You can either 1) or 2)

Well, you can 3) and 4) and much more too.

And don't assume so much. I never said I wasn't interested in the topic.

Oh for crying out loud you did, you actually said "Maybe I'm just not that interested". You were talking about wrwb's posts. Read the quote I kindly provided for your reference, your own words, in context of what I was referring to.

People take Liber Oz and put their own twists to it.

Inevitable, wouldn't you say? Kind of the point (?!?!?!), innit?

What I do know is that you don't have to go around killing people to accomplish your Will.

Wow, you're on fire tonight Az. I managed to do my will all night without slaughtering every motherfucker in the neighbourhood, so you must be onto something mighty profound.

You should however, have the right to shoot some asshole who breaks into your house.

What is it with the binary compulsion? What if the 'asshole' broke in because they weren't actually an asshole but a decent person being chased by an axe-wielding maniac, or maybe simply mentally ill and a bit confused, or sick, or desperate for something crucial to a life-saving emergency with only seconds to spare? No, shoot the bastard. Christ, Azidonis, I'm stunned.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
23/06/2010 5:11 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
I know the context.

Well. not one of your posts demonstrates the slightest real understanding of the context, regardless of how casually you assert it.

The lesson is simple: don't just quote him - understand him!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/06/2010 5:22 pm  

93,

"Noctifer" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And yes, it's dualistic.

Your personal vision of this situation may be, but "it" is always a bit more than what you see, innit. Keep looking. 😉

You can either 1) or 2)

Well, you can 3) and 4) and much more too.

You aren't saying much, Noc, besides continuing to disagree that there are only two basic approaches to the solution of the broken legal system that exists in this world today. Until you present 3, and 4, they simply do not exist as viable options. So I ask again, what other avenues of approach do you see?

And don't assume so much. I never said I wasn't interested in the topic.

Oh for crying out loud you did, you actually said "Maybe I'm just not that interested". You were talking about wrwb's posts. Read the quote I kindly provided for your reference, your own words, in context of what I was referring to.

I'm not interested in the post. The post was on law enforcement. I've stated that the enforcement is not my concern.

People take Liber Oz and put their own twists to it.

Inevitable, wouldn't you say? Kind of the point (?!?!?!), innit?

Not really. See the Tunis Comment.

What I do know is that you don't have to go around killing people to accomplish your Will.

Wow, you're on fire tonight Az. I managed to do my will all night without slaughtering every motherfucker in the neighbourhood, so you must be onto something mighty profound.

Must be. The fact that you haven't answered my first question is profound as well. Also, many people take Liber Oz literally, and in many cases that is am impractical solution.

You should however, have the right to shoot some asshole who breaks into your house.

What is it with the binary compulsion? What if the 'asshole' broke in because they weren't actually an asshole but a decent person being chased by an axe-wielding maniac, or maybe simply mentally ill and a bit confused, or sick, or desperate for something crucial to a life-saving emergency with only seconds to spare? No, shoot the bastard. Christ, Azidonis, I'm stunned.

Now you are simply making up scenarios to be argumentative. I'm not sure how things are in your area, but where I live we have door locks. I happen to have a steel door, a lock on the knob, and a dead bolt. The house just came that way. If you are running for your life from a maniac, and you manage to break down or into that door, then you deserve a cookie. Also, you should question for yourself why you are being chased by a maniac through my yard so late at night in the first place. And if you do manage to break through the door, there is a slightly different attitude of someone who is running in fear than a simple burglar. Sound comes to mind.

If you just want to argue, then we can argue all day, but it won't get us anywhere. If you can't find anything to debate in the actual points I made aside from the manner in which I made them, then you aren't getting anywhere either.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 5:34 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"Camlion" wrote:
Issue by issue is the best approach to practical politics, imo, and the best sequence of approach is usually from the simplest to the more complex.

Cam, when Rome founded its legal system, it did so on the Twelve Tablets (Tables?). After a while, they created more specialized laws for various situations. From your post it seems that you do not agree with this approach.

Do you think it is better for a multitude of simple laws to be formed, thereby creating a more complex web of laws?

What do you mean by simple laws? The right to bear arms, for example, is pretty simple, yet very broad and inclusive. The many laws of the states and what-not that govern various parts of the simple right to bear arms are what make it complex. Would you begin by changing those smaller, state-wide laws in order to bring the right to bear arms back to simplicity, or...?

93 93/93

93 Az. At least from my perspective, we're not contemplating founding a new legal system - this idea presupposes that we can start from scratch - which we cannot. We are, at best, contemplating reforming existing legal systems. (Other folks are working on brand new systems, mind you, but that is a separate issue, as I see it, and is a long term experimental process.) Reforming existing legal systems does include, imo, reforming, the legislative processes that fucked up the existing legal systems to begin with. (Imposing strict lifetime government service term limits, radical political campaign finance reform, etc.)

Reforming existing legal systems proceeds issue by issue, and some issues are simpler than others, that is what I meant; but the 'conrol control' issue may not be as simple as it seems to you and and I, from an international perspective, in particular. Many countries have strict government gun control at present, and many people in the US are in favor of a similar policy.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 5:49 pm  

Azidonis, you made up a scenario. I made up another, not to "be argumentative" but to show that your assumption (you're quite blinkered today, what's up?) was not necessarily the only possibility, and so the "right" to "shoot some asshole" just because they're in "your" house - not threatening anyone's life, just in your house for Christ's sake- is non-existent. I also have locks on my doors, and chains, and I have dealt with maniacs in the neighbourhood too, gun-toting ones, and precisely because of that but I do not, and will never, own a gun, and I do not claim the "right" to own one, and do not happen to believe that such a "right" necessarily exists. If someone wants my stuff, they can totally have it. I honestly don't care, much as I love my stuff. I am not going to shoot some poor bastard because they're junkies or whatever. If they want to kill me, that's different of course, but simply breaking into a house, to steal or whatever, I don't think I need to shoot them. Maybe you really are surrounded by people who want to kill you. Maybe they're all thinking the same thing, because guns are the first, and apparently also the last, place your mind goes.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Until you present 3, and 4, they simply do not exist as viable options.

Oh, they do, just maybe not for you, yet, certainly as long as you mistakenly insist that the blinkers you've got on today show you everything that 'exists'. Keep looking. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 5:57 pm  

Noc, Az, the right to kill those who would thwart our rights and gun control are 'hot button' issues, often injected into discussions by folks with an anti-Thelema agenda, (wellredwellbred?) to distract from and disrupt the productive exchange of ideas.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2010 6:11 pm  

Nothing wrong with hot button issues, Cam. I can't say (now you mention it) that I've had time to bother with wrwb's posts much, but (with that caveat) I didn't see anything being "anti-Thelemic" agenda in them. For example, he makes a good concession to Paul's correction:

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Liber Oz shows the Prophet Crowley, his homeland being in a state of war, officially stating the right to kill those who actively oppose the rights granted by the religion he founded.

I may have over-generously misread the intention of this, conflating it with Paul's suggestion for context, ie. the spin being that Britain's side in the war was more Thelemic as it promoted freedom, which is the centrepiece of Liber Oz. I thought he was saying by this that he understood the context. But maybe I'm misreading him.

cheers
n


ReplyQuote
Page 9 / 12
Share: