Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

What do you want to talk about?

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:01 pm

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

A few logical inconsistencies I've observed in the claims people make about Liber Oz:

1. Societal rules governing behavior are an infringement on my Liber Oz rights!

If this is your view, then you misread Liber Oz, starting with the very first word: Man.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man

Two possible definitions of "Man" in Liber Oz:
1a: an individual human
1b: humankind

Notice that it doesn't say "Every man" or "A man". It says "Man".

Taken simply, all Liber Oz means is that people have a right to self-governance. People--whether a solitary individual, a small tribe, a huge metropolis--have a right to choose how they will govern themselves.

2. Hate speech is a protected right under Liber Oz

No. While an individual or group of people may collectively agree to permit hate speech, there's no innate right to spout hate against groups of people for the following reasons:

1. Liber Oz quotes Liber Al: Every man and every woman is a star. If you believe that some races or genders are subhuman, you are disconnected from Nuit.
2. Liber Oz quotes Liber Al: thou hast no right but to do thy will. Diseased beliefs are not in harmony with True Will.
3. Man has a right to self governance. A people can decide to ban certain speech because they believe it will lead to the infringement of people's right to exist
4. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights. "Would thwart". Hate speech is intended to take someone's humanity away, in order to lessen their power and their ability to exercise their Liber Oz rights.

Hate speech is not a Liber Oz right. Some countries are more cautious than others about banning hate speech, out of fear that it will lead to censorship and violate people's freedom. That's ok. Other countries with a recent history of genocide are more cautious about permitting hate speech, out of a fear that it will lead to another holocaust. That's ok too.

I'm not the sole judge of where to draw the line for others. I'm a flawed, biased human after all, and I don't have the insight to balance the complicated relationship between the rights of people.

But I can say that calling people racial slurs with the intention of taking away their humanity and reducing their power is a violation of their Liber Oz rights.

3. Liber Oz means I have a right to kill someone who opposes me

Only if you live in a place where people agree this is appropriate. If you're reading this, you likely live in a place where murdering people for telling you that your ideas are rubbish is an arrestable offense.

If a society decides (as most have) that they don't want to go around murdering each other, they can form laws (as most have) to stop murder and protect rights. Studies show that it only takes about 3.5% of the population to be in active protest for any government to topple, so if you live in a country ruled by laws (as most do) then about 96.4%+ of the population is not seriously, actively opposed to the existence of that government.

You can disagree, and you can attempt to murder your way to a new form of governance. I'm 96.4% sure it's not your will to do so.

(Oh, and since killing someone is a violation of Liber Oz, if you claim the right to murder others for opposing you, others have a right to kill you for opposing them.)

4. It is not possible to live in harmony with Liber Oz today

Yes, it is.

Liber Oz is not a complicated document. All it says is that people are on their own to solve their differences. If they wish, people can revert to a culture where people just murder each other to resolve their differences. Or they can choose a more peaceful way. It's up to people.

Liber Oz isn't a manifesto granting people who resent their mothers/teachers/authority figures the un-infringe-able right to do whatever they want, consequence free.

You are a star, and an artist, and can make whatever art your heart desires. But if art exists freely, so does the art critic, who may call your scribbles the ramblings of a sh*t-gibbon.

That's not a violation of your right to be an artist.

And for art to exist freely in a society, it is necessary that a line will be drawn between a subversive poem and, say, actual plans to blow up a metropolis with a nuclear warhead.

That's not a violation of your right to be an artist.

Do what thou wilt (and, if you will to be called a f**kface, by all means post something pro-nazi in this thread)

“the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."

Love is the law, love under will
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:40 pm

The Christians to the lions (the so-called Thelemic ones are extra crunchy)
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:43 pm

Vel
Go Through
All Your Crowley Books
and
Redact All
His Hate Speach
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:46 pm

(The proper occult method of finding those who are now as you once were in your biases and destroying the tools that got you here before they do)
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:00 pm

Takamba, a courtesy reminder: you're on my ignore list, so I don't see any of your posts. I can only assume your posts here constitute a personal request to be called a "f**kface", in harmony with the terms of this thread that you have voluntarily entered into by posting.

So, here you go:
f**kface


(You're welcome)

Your request being satisfied in a spirit of love and joy, I now release you.
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby mark0987 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Liber Oz states that Every man and every woman is a star, but it also states that the slaves shall serve. It states that man has the right to die when he wills but also states that if anyone thwarts the rights of another human being they have the right to kill the other.

No matter which way you put it, if we are following liber oz, man has the right to say what he wills- if we are Thelemites we believe the law is for all and therefore everyone has this right. Non-thelemites may not believe every man and every woman is a star, therefore the document does not apply to them anyway, much less quotes from a holy book.

I wish all people were Thelemites, the world would be simpler, but they're not, they have a right to do as they will however due to the caveat of "The Law is for all". Of course, if they were doing their Will they would not be spouting hate speech in my opinion, but that is another philosophical debate.

I disagree with your statement that the intention of all hate speech is to dehumanize, I believe that is a result, and some may hold that intention, but much of the time when it comes to things such as racism think it is born out of ignorance- they don't know they are dehumanizing someone, they just genuinely believe group x is evil because my friends all think so and I know one member of x who robbed a bank so they are all criminals. That sort of thing is very common among the uneducated. But I do agree with this:

But I can say that calling people racial slurs with the intention of taking away their humanity and reducing their power is a violation of their Liber Oz rights.



I think Liber Oz is quite pathetic, to be honest, Crowley wrote better explorations of the moralistic qualities of the Thelemic law. It is contradictory, and I honestly think it is nonsense. It makes people once again confuse Will and want. It is hardly my Will to wear blue, it is my want to wear blue. It is hardly my Will to eat peas, I just like them. I would like to know more about when he wrote the document and for what intention, sadly I do not have the time tonight to research this. People may want to say nasty things but I hardly think it is their Will.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realises that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'"

-Max Planck
User avatar
mark0987
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:27 am
Location: England

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:28 pm

I disagree with your statement that the intention of all hate speech is to dehumanize, I believe that is a result, and some may hold that intention, but much of the time when it comes to things such as racism think it is born out of ignorance

If someone is doing it ignorantly, they're just parroting someone else's intent to dehumanize. (Ignorance isn't an intention)

People may want to say nasty things but I hardly think it is their Will.

I'm with you.

I think Liber Oz is quite pathetic, to be honest

That's fine by me, too, especially if one adopts the popular interpretation of it.

93
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:51 pm

I think it’s intended as possible justifications for war.

Alternately, living life there in Liber Oz Land on the mere level of personal offense is just a quick trip out of the game. Someone is always faster on the draw. And there’s nothing of nobility or regality in the ugly, brutish, and short life of someone who gets murderously offended all the time. That application just seems absurd to me. That sounds like mental illness. It’s the wrong context.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:05 pm

I mean, if humans want to be warfaring, they can. Though I don't think most people want that. That's what sports and politics are for lots of people.

Yeah, in a different context the energy is fantastic. Fight or flight, life or death, root chakra energy as a powerful foundation for attainment.
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:14 am

Crowley wasn't fond of Liber Oz per se. So, it's okay if you think you don't want it to matter to you. He wrote it because people kept accusing him of obscuring his message with verbosity. He allegedly wrote a previous version, mailed it off to certain types (including not esoteric types) and argument ensued because some of the words apparently had double meanings or the intentions could be misconstrued. It was the accusation of complication via verbose language that irked Crowley so he wrote it expressly to contain all monosyllables. I don't even know what class of text it is, but it is not class A and so can be argued all we like. :D

It does mean what you think it means.
In a letter in 1941, Crowley wrote, “Rights of Man is an historical document. The items don't go easily on the Tree; but I've got them down to five sections: moral, bodily, mental, sexual freedom, and the safefguard tyrannicide .. 160 words in all.”

Most important to me, in this OTO document, is the "safeguard tyrannicide." I think this "safeguard" is what trips most of you people up. You are born to be tyrants I take it and this listing of what Crowley called 'natural rights' (https://hermetic.com/sabazius/ozgloss) disturbs you. I'm sorry, there are no participation trophies in a Thelemic cosmos. This is naturally going to upset two generations of American born children. I'm sorry. I watched you grow, I was too young to change your parenting. I fear for you today. Good luck.
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:26 am

Takamba wrote:Most important to me, in this OTO document, is the "safeguard tyrannicide."

Agreed. These are the rights in the face of an actual tyrant.
Takamba wrote:I think this "safeguard" is what trips most of you people up. You are born to be tyrants...

Here's where you lose the true context. Someone in another political party in a democracy is not an actual "tyrant."

But if you have fallen so far as to believe that only one political party is the party of "tyranny" while the other is so righteously guiltless, you are worthy of mockery. Both seek to restrict the other, and failure to see this is absurd.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:41 am

I mean who in their right mind could take a gun and kill another person over their vote, accusing the voter of being "tyrannical"?

That's backwards.

The murderer is the tyrant.

Unless I misunderstand your argument, it's ridiculous.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:55 am

Hermitas wrote:I mean who in their right mind could take a gun and kill another person over their vote, accusing the voter of being "tyrannical"?

That's backwards.

The murderer is the tyrant.

Unless I misunderstand your argument, it's ridiculous.


Apparently you misunderstand my argument because I never brought "party" into it.
Apparently you misunderstand Liber OZ because "those who would thwart these rights" are tyrants and clearly labelled. We don't have to ask "gee, are they tyrants or not?" If they would thwart, then they are tyrants.

Me? I'm shrugging my shoulders. I'm not here to thwart you or thwart Nazis, I'm shrugging my shoulders as they will eventually reap their own reward (much as I reaped my rewards as a youth and thus grew up for it). You want to create passive conformists who obey simply because you said so? I wonder about this part, this I do.
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:59 am

Here, maybe this will help. There's currently a movement starting (let me pray it fails) that wants to eliminate the romance languages from Earth. Yep. They want to get rid of Spanish and French and other "non-gender-nuetral" languages because these languages allegedly promote sexism. Yep.

In the future you will not have the right to speak French!

Where's the tyrant now?
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:21 am

He has a good point: it's just an OTO document. As an initiatory document, it would have been useful for helping an early-level candidate take their own will seriously enough to dismantle the attachments they had set up as obstacles to their own will. Internal tyrants, if you will.

The timid person needs to be revved up to fight for their rights if they want to progress.

Once you're revved up though, the question becomes the next step. (How am I going to go from asserting my individuality to attaining harmony with others?)

If one had already corrupted harmony by treating it like a team sport, one has to find a deeper spiritual connection.

The next area would be our communication. Do our words have integrity of intent? Racial slurs don't.

If that's already corrupted, we have to look deeper, and find a creative solution that is original and our own.

And if we can't get ourselves unstuck from parroting other people's ideas, we have to go to the source: our connection with something beyond ourselves.

Every man and every woman is a star.

(Nazis don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to claims of being tyrannized by others. They had their chance and they blew it. They're intent is tyranny. Case closed.)
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:10 am

Takamba wrote:Here, maybe this will help. There's currently a movement starting (let me pray it fails) that wants to eliminate the romance languages from Earth. Yep. They want to get rid of Spanish and French and other "non-gender-nuetral" languages because these languages allegedly promote sexism. Yep.

In the future you will not have the right to speak French!

Where's the tyrant now?


Excellent example.

A: It's super weird you'd kill over the right to speak French, but that's me. But, yeah, absurdly tyrannical, I get your point.

B: Exercising one's freedom to speak against the French language is not tyranny, though that free speech may have the quality of being tyrannical. No actual tyranny exists until French is actually forbidden.

C: If you turn around and start justifying the murder of people for simply thinking and speaking as they will, you've completely turned Liber Oz backward from it's intent.

My point is that we're talking about true tyranny, a true limitation of rights, not merely personal disagreement or offense.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:35 am

Hermitas wrote:
Takamba wrote:Here, maybe this will help. There's currently a movement starting (let me pray it fails) that wants to eliminate the romance languages from Earth. Yep. They want to get rid of Spanish and French and other "non-gender-nuetral" languages because these languages allegedly promote sexism. Yep.

In the future you will not have the right to speak French!

Where's the tyrant now?


Excellent example.

A: It's super weird you'd kill over the right to speak French, but that's me.

B: Exercising one's freedom to speak against the French language is not tyranny, though that free speech may have the quality of being tyrannical. No actual tyranny exists until French is actually forbidden.

C: If you turn around and start justifying the murder of people for simply thinking and speaking as they will, you've completely turned Liber Oz backward from it's intent.

My point is that we're talking about true tyranny, a true limitation of rights, not merely personal disagreement or offense.


Thanks for the response because now I know why you don't get it.

You think I'm saying something I am not.

I've never turned OZ into a credo to justify murder. You may examine all my mentions of this little text and discussions about this little text. The "those" who would do the thwarting are the very ideas themselves. The idea that sexism will ever be burned out of the human race is a terrible idea and will bring all the terror that that territory of thinking (good vs bad in people) that tyranny uses as a tool of totalitarianism. Terrible!

In some cases, because ideas tend toward institutionalization (i.e. black brotherhood), people will fall victim to the deaths. They will die in numerous ways. They will die by their terminal connection to the institutionalized idea. Their paychecks will die, their coffers will die, their savings will die, their food stores will die, they will die. And if they can muster up the courage, they may even die fighting. There's no murder.

You, on the other hand, are shooting an all or nothing tirade at me. This is the handiwork of tyranny, a tyranny that currently I'll allow in you so that you may understand it some day as the tyranny of mislead ideas in your mind. The tyranny is "believing a right and wrong jargon is right up your alley and mine." Your belief is that French is not being threatened right now by the very ideas that it is counter-feminist simply by its being. That idea right there (faaaaake would say one ID-iot on the world-stage) is the tyrant. It needs to be killed. If it doesn't get killed, and French becomes the tyrant by way of this dualistic belief of one or the other must be right, then the game won on its own merit and will survive. To force it? That's not ideal.

My points, by the way, are not about people voicing an opinion. My points, by the way, are about people forcing their voice to be the voice of all.

That is all.
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:06 am

Takamba quotes:
I’ve never turned Oz into a credo to justify murder.

Apparently you misunderstand Liber OZ because "those who would thwart these rights" are tyrants and clearly labelled. We don't have to ask "gee, are they tyrants or not?" If they would thwart, then they are tyrants.

Perhaps you do not realize the import of your own words.

If they “would thwart.” Your reading of that does not exclude murder for mere desire to thwart rights.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:12 am

Hermitas wrote:Takamba quotes:
I’ve never turned Oz into a credo to justify murder.

Apparently you misunderstand Liber OZ because "those who would thwart these rights" are tyrants and clearly labelled. We don't have to ask "gee, are they tyrants or not?" If they would thwart, then they are tyrants.

Perhaps you do not realize the import of your own words.


Perhaps you do not realize the import of reading an entire thing

In some cases, because ideas tend toward institutionalization (i.e. black brotherhood), people will fall victim to the deaths.


And if they can muster up the courage, they may even die fighting. There's no murder.
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:16 am

Maybe. But you do tend to speak for dramatic effect and then write lengthy disclaimer posts when confronted. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Here’s a test scenario: The NFL won’t allow its players to protest during the U.S. national anthem.

Tyranny?

Rights under Liber Oz?
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Avshalom Binyamin » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:56 am

And yes, within the past few days, Takamba did call the murder of two people by a nazi justified under liber oz.

Harmony is based on trust. Justifying nazis and using racist slurs destroys trust. These are things Takamba has done.

Waving a hammer and sickle flag, praising Stalin, etc., would also destroy trust. No one here is doing that.

So, it's a projection.

Trust is based on holding ourselves to limits. If you don't, then you imagine that others don't. That's the projection.

Eventually the projection becomes real. The person who refuses to control themselves eventualy violates a big enough social rule and society decides they need outside control.

To them, it's proof of the tyranny. But it's self created.

Anti-liberals are currently resorting to anti-social, racist behavior to provoke a response and prove to themselves that liberals are tyrants.

I get that there is *always* a balance to be struck between the collective and the individual. But the participants need to show that they hold themselves to social/ethical standards before the conversation can be productive.

Taking the stance of "I'll do and say whatever I please, and any suggestion of limits is tyranny" is the stance of a sociopath.

Yes, we all have a subconscious that demands freedom. It is our job to be the ambassador between our subconscious and other people.

If you abdicate that responsibility, it's like a person who shits on the rug and wants to talk about how everyone shits and that anyone who is against rug-shitting is a dictator.
Every man and every woman is a star.
User avatar
Avshalom Binyamin
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:00 am

Hermitas wrote:Maybe. But you do tend to speak for dramatic effect and then write lengthy disclaimer posts when confronted. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Here’s a test scenario: The NFL won’t allow its players to protest during the U.S. national anthem.

Tyranny?

Rights under Liber Oz?


Commercial property, licensing, contractual obligations. A job. A work place. Semi-public vs public space.

All these issues, your example doesn't exactly fit the jurisdiction of "rights."
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:05 am

Takamba wrote:
Hermitas wrote:Maybe. But you do tend to speak for dramatic effect and then write lengthy disclaimer posts when confronted. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Here’s a test scenario: The NFL won’t allow its players to protest during the U.S. national anthem.

Tyranny?

Rights under Liber Oz?


Commercial property, licensing, contractual obligations. A job. A work place. Semi-public vs public space.

All these issues, your example doesn't exactly fit the jurisdiction of "rights."


Ah... Okay. We agree on that.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Hermitas » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:16 am

Avshalom Binyamin wrote:And yes, within the past few days, Takamba did call the murder of two people by a nazi justified under liber oz.

Pretty sure I remember that too.
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Taking the stance of "I'll do and say whatever I please, and any suggestion of limits is tyranny" is the stance of a sociopath.

Yes.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Liber Oz doesn't mean what you think it means

Postby Takamba » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:47 am

Hermitas wrote:
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:And yes, within the past few days, Takamba did call the murder of two people by a nazi justified under liber oz.

Pretty sure I remember that too.
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Taking the stance of "I'll do and say whatever I please, and any suggestion of limits is tyranny" is the stance of a sociopath.

Yes.


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Go back to the claimed statement of me justifying murder. I did not say it was justified by OZ or the Law of Thelema. I said the law of nature justified it.
"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."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest