2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

oldfriend56 wrote:James Wasserman is big on Trump, not sure if he is behind the group though, but appears likely.

I don't get it.

What am I missing?

Hilary or Trump?

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Last edited by gerry456 on Thu May 25, 2017 1:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Last edited by gerry456 on Thu May 25, 2017 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Gerry .IIRC the Islam Crowley liked was that of the desert tribes, not the politically driven catastrophe that happened after the fall of Iran.Could be wrong but the confessions seem to suggest that via his encounters.

Anchorite wrote:Gerry .IIRC the Islam Crowley liked was that of the desert tribes, not the politically driven catastrophe that happened after the fall of Iran.Could be wrong but the confessions seem to suggest that via his encounters.

Makes sense. Of course.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

oldfriend56 wrote:So I'm missing the reality that hatred and fear of Islam is somehow equal to endorsement of Trump via Thelema?

Not sure I follow that logic.

If we follow that logic, shouldn't we be a bit more suspect of the more intimidating *christian* oppressions endorsed by our twitter president?

Also, if you read Wasserman, he is very very respectful, if not admirable - of Islam including the prophet.

Why do i have to be a liberal to not understand the appeal of Trump with Thelemites?

EITHER Pro Trump OR Anti Trump. What a pit.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

i.M.O. I don't believe the general public is capable of voting in the best leaders.What we are left with is mediocre people in power in most cases.I.M.O., most people are like sheep.They don't think for themselves, they follow the herd.

Makes me physically ill to hear a Thelemite (let alone anyone) would endorse Trump, or Islam to be frank. This mention of the verse in Liber L is weak, and we shouldn't ignore (if one takes Liber L seriously) that Trump would in no way be Thelemic. He is one who oppresses and doesn't liberate, and who in the hell considers him "fit"?!

Now, I realize AC agreed with Islam, (which never settled with me, to be honest), but Thelema is about freedom to express oneself, and make decisions, and is hardly on the side of oppressive Christian morals, while he may be faking his Xtian beliefs, he is certainly helping them with their agenda. He hardly seems one to admire as a master tactician, or even halfway intelligent as well - he's an obvious moron.

I think some look at the language in the Book of the Law that seems to speak about being without mercy, and pity and this, in fact, does reflect Trump (and Repubs in general), but I hardly think this suggests Trump is somehow qualified to represent the Thelemic idea.

I don't think you HAVE to "be" anything, but it doesn't make too much sense to align with Christian ideals and repressive moral stances. Thelema was about personal freedom and expression, and Trump is anything but for the freedom of the individual, as he is obviously racist and willing to impose restriction. Did you forget - "the word of sin is restriction"?

Takamba wrote:Man has the right to hire who he wantsMan has the right to make cakes for who he wantsMan has the right refuse those who would refuse him

Man has the right to love as he willMan has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

Yes. Unfortunately, the simple version (you reference) isn't understandable to the majority of people, hence why I had to break it down.

Man has the right to love as he will equals "hire who he wants," "make cakes" (or not, it is no odds), ETC.Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights = "refuse those who would refuse them."

For the other readers in this forum, let's discuss the difference between being aggressive and being assertive (simply).

Being aggressive is declaring what you believe you have the right to no matter who else may be diminished by your "rights". Being assertive is declaring what you believe are your rights whilst also recognizing the fair rights of others. Liber OZ is pure assertiveness, whilst some would attempt to use it aggressively. Be cautious of that.

"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."

Right, there's a difference between asserting one's own rights, and hypocritically using the asserting of one's own rights as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others.

The way I read Liber Oz, my right to live and exist is dependent on my non-interference with the rights of others. If I say I support Liber Oz, I'm saying that someone has the right to kill me if I would thwart their rights.That's what I'm cautious about.

That's not actually possible, though within the framework of the apparent it happens. The flower blossoms because it receives the adequate love of the Sun, but it sometimes fails to recognize that it itself is an adaptation or expression of or one with that Sun. It is concerned with its floweriness as opposed to its role as a blessing of the Sun.

"And they that read the book and debated thereon passed into the desolate land of Barren Words. And they that sealed up the book into their blood were the chosen of Adonai, and the Thought of Adonai was a Word and a Deed; and they abode in the Land that the far-off travellers call Naught."- LXV 5:59

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights.

If one lives in a deterministic world, it is not possible to thwart a person's rights; but in the framework of Liber OZ, this isn't exactly necessary.

"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.""those who would thwart these rights""those who would" They merely have to will it, want it, wish it, would it or should it to make them enemies of Will."these rights" These rights specific in Liber OZ

"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights.

Yes, that's precisely what I said:"withintheframeworkoftheapparentithappens."

And by saying it how I did I most carefully excluded all possibility for mixing the planes. When it comes to the planes we must heed The Offspring when they say "you gotta keep 'em separated!" Now, could you thwart the rights of an Ipsissimus? DOES not that term refer to "that which is most itself"? Is that not our inmost expression? How would you even approach such a thing?

Away, far off, but never too far,From within us shines the light of the Silver Star.

And if I step on a flower the Sun will be fine.

"And they that read the book and debated thereon passed into the desolate land of Barren Words. And they that sealed up the book into their blood were the chosen of Adonai, and the Thought of Adonai was a Word and a Deed; and they abode in the Land that the far-off travellers call Naught."- LXV 5:59

Discussion of whether one can thwart the will of an Ipsissimus seems off topic to me. Why would we have a Liber Oz if it doesn't really matter and we can't truly thwart each other's wills or harm each other?

Back to the topic:

The measure of success politically is: taking care of basic human needs, like food and shelter.

You vote correctly and you get health insurance and education, and increased longevity and prosperity. Which all lead to more people to the great work.

You vote wrong and you get huge wealth gaps. And some guy trying to peddle you a zen koan that says if you were more enlightened it wouldn't hurt so bad.