"Thelemites for Trump" Facebook page

[oldfriend56]

Hi Takamba,

What exactly is this thread about? It started off with Trump and Facebook, i.e. for some utterly bizarre reason, I cannot fathom some prominent Thelemites are Trump supporters.

Yet you seem to be talking about a broader social/political issue which seems to resolve in some form of libertarian philosophy (which I could see how it could blend with Thelema, philosophically yet superficially).

Do I understand that correctly? If so, what exactly is the quarrel here?

I've brought up the idea of a "historical Thelema" a few times before, I don't think many here found it very interesting. If Thelema is making an imprint on history (or IS the imprint of history) we are clearly at an epic stage, and much of the current chaos could be accounted for, in principle, with the Thelemic prediction of the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new one. Trump probably does play some role in that, the US and the World may never be the same after this.

All ideologies may play a role in the creation of the new order (all shall cluster about me...to paraphrase)

That's my position.

[Takamba]

Hi Takamba,

What exactly is this thread about? It started off with Trump and Facebook, i.e. for some utterly bizarre reason, I cannot fathom some prominent Thelemites are Trump supporters.

Yet you seem to be talking about a broader social/political issue which seems to resolve in some form of libertarian philosophy (which I could see how it could blend with Thelema, philosophically yet superficially).

Do I understand that correctly? If so, what exactly is the quarrel here?

I've brought up the idea of a "historical Thelema" a few times before, I don't think many here found it very interesting. If Thelema is making an imprint on history (or IS the imprint of history) we are clearly at an epic stage, and much of the current chaos could be accounted for, in principle, with the Thelemic prediction of the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new one. Trump probably does play some role in that, the US and the World may never be the same after this.

All ideologies may play a role in the creation of the new order (all shall cluster about me...to paraphrase)

That's my position.

What I gather this thread is supposed to be about is an open ended question about what would convince someone they could be both a Thelemite and a Trump supporter as demonstrated by a Facebook page. Open ended questions allow for a lot of variety in answering. And if "too keep on topic" all one was allowed by restriction to do was simply answer that question, the questions basic answer is "because they said so." But to try to understand the nature of the mind that gets to "I am a Thelemite and I support Trump," we are instead allowed to explore the topics to see if there might be actual errors or if it's simply unsavory opinion.

If you want to teach someone something, you first find out why they think they are right when they in fact might be wrong. You can't just go around saying, "wrong answer, get it right." You should say, "oh, I see you forgot to carry the 1" or "You chose the right sounding word, but spelled it as its homonym." So we explore all the reasons within Thelema and within Trump that might show enough similarities and we can discuss. And if in the end we find out we are the wrong ones, good too. In this case there is no right or wrong decision unless you are among those who are telling other people what decisions they should make.

At some point this discussion disintegrated into a debate about Liber OZ and most specifically "the right to kill."

It actually gives a responsibility to kill and by giving that responsibility it gives the right to do so. Liber OZ itself must be understood in total, not in cherry picked bric-a-brac mode. And it must be understood as applying to all. To say one man has the right to kill another man is not what it says, but to kill someone or something that appears to want to be more than all others. (that might sound wrong, certainly goes against the everyone wins a trophy and your self-esteem is the most important thing in life training of the last decade of the last century gave us, but it's true. No one is bigger than ll the others.)

Anyway. Why would someone support Trump (the real net this thread tossed)? Presidency is a temporary state, so any person put in the office is only a temporary nuisance or blessing, as in time (except what FDR did I think), things can be fixed. If Trump is a homophobic racists mass murderer in the waiting, he's got six or so years left to do his stuff and that's it. No need for me to get up in arms. Trump espouses a lot of rhetoric that supports self-made type thinking; any Thelemite could possibly relate. So maybe that's the answer.

My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?

[Hermitas]

My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?

Well, it's not impossible. I just think the logic is murky, and "coddling" is your word.

For example, in the New Comment on Liber Legis II:21, where Crowley expresses similar thinking:

There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!

Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!

Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!

This thinking contradicts itself. If the strong are truly strong, they will not be damaged nor will their progress be hindered as described above. Here, logically, he asks that the truly strong, the collective, be weakened so that those who are in actuality weaker (the supposed "strong" who are yet damaged and hindered by the "weak") may flourish. It's contradictory. If the strong are strong, they won't be hindered. And if they are hindered, then this is the Law of the Strong and Nature to make them stronger. The supposed strong in the above words are actually weak, and by the same logic, who cares if they are hindered? Nature will sort it out.

The social collective that cares for one another is Strong AND NATURE. If it wasn't strong, Crowley wouldn't have to try to convince people to weaken it for the sake of the falsely so-called "strong." Ask the ape why he evolves in this direction.

Not only this, but our complex society is the crown jewel of humanity. It is completely literally what separates us from the animals. In contradiction, making an ethical philosophy of Hadit, who is pure Id unrestrained by Ego, is sociopathic. Read the words above again. It actually suggests letting those with diseases go ahead and die and that this is the most merciful prescription. It's absurd. It's all supernal thinking without connection to Malkuth and therefore without Tipharethic balance.

Crowley hated it at first, in the Old Comment, but he taught himself to love it. He went to far in the New Comment in my opinion. Descriptive not prescriptive!

---

How it applies: To me, this is Trump.

[Takamba]

My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?

Well, it's not impossible. I just think the logic is murky, and "coddling" is your word.

For example, in the New Comment on Liber Legis II:21, where Crowley expresses similar thinking:

There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!

Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!

Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!

This thinking contradicts itself. If the strong are truly strong, they will not be damaged nor will their progress be hindered as described above. Here, logically, he asks that the truly strong, the collective, be weakened so that those who are in actuality weaker (the supposed "strong" who are yet damaged and hindered by the "weak") may flourish. It's contradictory. If the strong are strong, they won't be hindered. And if they are hindered, then this is the Law of the Strong and Nature to make them stronger. The supposed strong in the above words are actually weak, and by the same logic, who cares if they are hindered? Nature will sort it out.

Not only this, but our complex society is the crown jewel of humanity. It is completely literally what separates us from the animals. In contradiction, making an ethical philosophy of Hadit, who is pure Id unrestrained by Ego, is sociopathic. Read the words above again. It actually suggests letting those with diseases go ahead and die and that this is the most merciful prescription. It's absurd. It's all supernal thinking without connection to Malkuth and therefore without Tipharethic balance.

The above is just Crowley's Nietzschean wet dream. He hated it at first, but taught himself to love it. He went to far in the New Comment in my opinion. Descriptive not prescriptive!

---

How it applies: To me, this is Trump and all the Ayn Rand lovers.

There is flawed logic in your thinking. You say "if they are the strong" they won't be affected by the weaknesses. You are advocating stand still. If they are strong, they will be strong enough to overcome or eradicate these so-called weaknesses (I say "so-called" for your sake, to give you a point), yet when overcoming or eradicating is suggested, "NO NO NO" is the cry of and pandering liberal. "NO NO NO, be strong enough to endure your disgust!" you say. "NO NO NO, enjoy the smell of the feces of humanity!" you say whilst the feces encourages more disease. "NO NO NO, they were born that way! Control your thinking and decide you love them as is" you say with your own contradiction. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," you (****) in one hand and "but forgive those souls their weaknesses (animal vices? prejudiced world-views? lack of ambition? failure to accept responsibility? desire for more with a willingness to provide less?)" you wish in the other hand.

Meanwhile a new age disease (in my opinion) has long infiltrated the core of Thelema. Every man and every woman gets a trophy!

[Takamba]

But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).

Yeah. I forgot that part.

[Hermitas]

But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).

Yeah. I forgot that part.

It's cool, dude.

It's this thing I do where I oppose each thought with its opposite - think for myself and stuff rather than merely follow a religious figure through blind faith and the appeals of the faithful to his authority.

[Takamba]

But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).

Yeah. I forgot that part.

It's cool, dude.

It's this thing I do where I oppose each thought with its opposite - think for myself and stuff rather than merely follow a religious figure through blind faith and the appeals of the faithful to his authority.

Did you oppose the thought that I don't do that with the opposite thought that I do do that also, and have reached my own conclusions as a result? Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale? Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."

[Avshalom Binyamin]

At some point this discussion disintegrated into a debate about Liber OZ and most specifically "the right to kill."

That would have been when you said this irrelevant thing:

Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him

Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale? Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."

You have yet to reply to any of my four links to actual rational metrics of how Trump is harming the population of the US.

If Trump is a homophobic racists mass murderer in the waiting, he's got six or so years left to do his stuff and that's it. No need for me to get up in arms.

People who don't actually care don't belong in this discussion.

His prejudices are to be eradicated.

Lordy, I hope so. I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite.

Meanwhile a new age disease (in my opinion) has long infiltrated the core of Thelema. Every man and every woman gets a trophy!

No, meaningless trophies are a fascist disease. White supremacy is based on the fear that in any fair fight, whites lose.

The conservative idea of a fair fight is calling the referee biased and getting rid of him because he's trying to stop the audience from throwing beer bottles at one of the fighters.

American conservatism has always been white supremacy.

[Takamba]

Your "metrix" links where bullocks. Biased information mining is not the trick; and as I have pointed out, and has been stated by another here, I'm not talking about the politics of Trump, I'm talking about the mindset of those who want to politicize (you included). I'm staying entirely to the topic of the OP (with the inclusion of necessary other information to support my statements). You? Name calling. Anger motivated (not willed) generalizing.

Why would a Thelemite allow his animal passions to be more valuable than True Will? That's my question to you Avshalom? My investment of "caring" isn't in a person, candidate, or party, it is in caring about truth.

Truth is this: Feed a man free food and he'll keep coming back. Give him a job to earn his own way and only his character will determine if he keeps coming back. You seem to want to just give him food. That's my impression of your ideology.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

Your opinion on this topic doesn't count for much to me, personally. As you said, you wouldn't even care if Trump were a homophobic racist mass-murderer.

Anger motivated

Regardless, my anger serves my will.

You? Name calling.

Calling Trump a fascist isn't name calling.

I'm not talking about the politics of Trump, I'm talking about the mindset of those who want to politicize (you included).

This is a political thread about Trump.

[Takamba]

Among the first posts in this thread is this post by oldfriend56. This is the OP (the previous posts just like this, small bits of English, which eventually lead us to this post, the hidden OP:

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?

So this is not a political thread, it's under the General Discussion heading, it's a question about why people do or support such things. That's the original question. Politics has to get involved when talking about people's politics, but politicizing isn't required. In fact, my main political argument is intended to favor less politicizing in general. Don't turn my water cooler moments into a political issue, don't turn my neighbor's hunger into a political issue, don't turn my personal health choices into a political issue, don't turn my recreation choices into a political issue, don't make me pay for your political issues. I've learned from my mistakes, and so long as I am hurting no one, I can continue to make discoveries of all kinds thank you - and I won't ask you to pay for it.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

People have a right to politicize as they will.

[oldfriend56]

Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale?

To be fair though, Takamba, I am not sure you are presenting much of an argument in the rational deductive sense as you are just stating your opinion. At least to me. I disagree with your interpretation of Liber OZ, but only for me as I have my own intimate relationship with Thelema and Liber AL, and there is no need to combat our viewpoints unless we want to arrive at some shared objective truth.

Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."

Collaboration is what is best for the collective, obviously. Non zero sum, mutual resolution is ALWAYS, without fail, great for the collective. With collaboration, society has the technical ability to give each and every single individual billionaire access to wealth.

Human politics stands in the way of collaboration.

Crowley had little insight into the coming technological breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st century.

[oldfriend56]

Also, data is very helpful.

There is a reason why "non-violent" solutions work. It's not that it produces "cuddly" feelings, it is purely psychological and mathematical.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ur-weapons

Violent solutions produce more problems than they seek to resolve. That's not even philosophy, it is just the data, a very real game theory.

The US president has a very powerful position in that he sets the tone of the national discussion. This is where I believe Obama was incredible, and Trump harmful, independent of any policies or decisions. Follow the discussion...

[Takamba]

Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."

Collaboration is what is best for the collective, obviously. Non zero sum, mutual resolution is ALWAYS, without fail, great for the collective. With collaboration, society has the technical ability to give each and every single individual billionaire access to wealth.

Human politics stands in the way of collaboration.

Crowley had little insight into the coming technological breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st century.

Mutual resolution? As in "we both agree?" I'm not sure that isn't the end goal and not a means. How to achieve the goal of mutual resolution? As brothers blah blah blah. Want an orange? I need to lighten this pack.

Without fail? Only a true orbit is without fail. I like that ambition but I see that this world is confusing collaboration with pity. I despise pity. It puts one above the other. I'm not saying to a man don't be in the spirit of kindness for life. I'm not saying to a man don't share your joy and leaping laughter. I'm not saying to a man, even such as this dreadful thing: don't sell out and paint what they tell you to paint. I'm saying to the collective that it has all the right to that but no right to thwart those rights. And I will defend these ideals to my death.

Crowley, in his fiction, wrote of a semi-theocratic society of initiates who selected through their means the Leader. He was simply put, a select adept. Locally the people controlled their own forms of self-governing operations. The answers to concepts we now call "lawsuits" seemed to be the main function of this "select adept."

Anyway. The entire thing needs to change, not the candidate selected, not the programs we adopt to feed the needy, not even the more desirable programs of teaching and empowering the needy will do the trick (well, actually, it will do the trick of tumbling the current model toward a higher more resolute model in line with Thelemic thought). Democracy didn't come out of the aeon of Osiris overnight. I'm in no hurry. Surely it will not hurt me, the authentic being, but it will inflict something on oldfriend56 and also on Takamba because we're in the midst of it. The entire thing is going to change.

Otherwise I agree that the genius of collaboration is what it becomes. Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief. Here, have an EBT card and you better smile when you hand it to the clerk.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief.

What specific "things" do you believe create more drag than relief?

[Takamba]

Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief.

What specific "things" do you believe create more drag than relief?

Food stamps.

Food stamps are a supplemental program designed to help both farmers and families. Farmers are helped by the increasing amount of subsidy dollars they receive from our taxes as part of the subsidy/supplement program run by the department of agriculture called "Food Stamps." The Department of Agriculture runs the subsidy program in such a way that as a result (and this is not really the forum for it, so I'll let you do some research on it) produces more waste farming than productive farming. That's not a drag you think? For the families: make $56 too much in one month via an actual income and you lose your benefits or have them cut down by $99 to a lower benefit number. Does that make sense? No, it makes drag.

Also there's the psychological toll. As a child of a mother who accepted food stamps, I know first hand the psychological stigma of food stamps. Maybe you don't. Maybe you do. Maybe you say "aw, that's jist in yer head, overcome that problem and be a man!" Well then, had you said that, I'd say then why not say that always. The need for food stamps? That's just a problem in yer head! No, you don't say that, you pick and choose your kindness. That's not balance also, that's drag.

The same goes to all the welfare programs so far. If you need them, you qualify, but it won't really be enough. If you somehow increase your own wealth just ever slightly too much, you lose all the welfare which then means you actually have even less than the welfare ever offered alone. So, what motive do you think you'll lean to?

Subsidized Art: The drag here is largely financial. There's not much a moral or substance issue. Art is great. Culture is important to preserve IF YOU'RE A DOGMATIST UNWILLING TO EVOLVE. But that's just my opining mind. I suppose there are a lot of reliefs among those arts, but I like a good fresco myself.

It causes a lot of emotional upheaval wherever I mention it, but I don't believe in vaccination. The government telling me that I must inject something into me? Well, let's leave that for the adepts to discuss when they become the ruling class; meanwhile, I'd rather the unruly class get there's and just leave me alone. It drags the species to keep propagating inferior genes. Again, opinion.

The public school system is intentionally designed to drag. There's a lot of material you can discover for yourself on this subject starting with the Presidential retreat with Calvin Coolidge and others to "reinvent the American education system." Thank you Henry Ford! You make fantastic factory workers! Much Compliance To You!

so on and so on. Pay my health bill you? Oh, only if I stop eating bacon? Forgetabouit

[Avshalom Binyamin]

That's an interesting hypothesis, but it's not born out by the evidence.

Studies repeatedly confirm that money spent on welfare, unemployment, and food stamps have between $1.50 to $1.75 return on investment, in terms of macro economic benefit.

Here's one done by Moody's

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/docu ... t-2008.pdf

The psychological affect of food stamps you allege?: zero evidence. Psychological effects of going hungry: much evidence.

(And yes, I personally experienced food neglect as a small child. My parents didn't want to accept charity, however, so we went hungry. It was not enobling)

[Avshalom Binyamin]

And, since anything can be criticized, it's important not to go down the illogical route of: x is flawed therefore we should be against x.

A best practices approach for people who are interested in a rational approach to solving issues like this is to to measure how much of an impact the flaws create, and put it in the context of the benefits, and compare to an alternative based on the same measures.

[Takamba]

The psychological affect of food stamps you allege?: zero evidence. Psychological effects of going hungry: much evidence.

(And yes, I personally experienced food neglect as a small child. My parents didn't want to accept charity, however, so we went hungry. It was not enobling)

Practicing that each thought with its opposite excercise, I see.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

And, in Trump news today:

13 people were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States for the dark money flowing from Russian money launderers into US election ads designed to sow discord with propaganda.

By the way, in the 2016 campaign, the NRA funneled an estimated $70 million to Trump's campaign (hard to say exactly how much, because the NRA has been funding the dismantling of campaign finance laws that would let us know)--much of it from Russian arms dealers and Putin-loyalist money launderers/government officials.

Sounds like the work of Choronzon and the Black Brothers to me. Definitely not the actions of someone who is trying to help people live in harmony with their true wills.

[Avshalom Binyamin]

The psychological affect of food stamps you allege?: zero evidence. Psychological effects of going hungry: much evidence.

(And yes, I personally experienced food neglect as a small child. My parents didn't want to accept charity, however, so we went hungry. It was not enobling)

Practicing that each thought with its opposite excercise, I see.

Got me! Or you didn't.

My anecdote is not societal evidence of the psychological effects of food stamps.

It's purpose is to forestall your Republican talking memo penchant for talking about liberals as mommy loving softies (who are also spoiled rich kids, I'm guessing).

[Avshalom Binyamin]

(I thought you were looking for rational discussion)

[Takamba]

My anecdote is not societal evidence of the psychological effects of food stamps.

It's purpose is to forestall your Republican talking memo penchant for talking about liberals as mommy loving softies (who are also spoiled rich kids, I'm guessing).

Got you again. Not a Republican. Don't write memos. Never a one. I talk about ideas, ideals I leave for others. I don't talk about people. Please cite me.

This is the nature of rational discourse. I'm not emotionally upset about this, are you?

[oldfriend56]

Mutual resolution?

Let's do it.

As in "we both agree?"

yes!

I'm not sure that isn't the end goal and not a means.

it's both the end goal (it is the only rational, functional, harmonious, goal that would ever work) and the means (by focusing on where the foundations of "agreement" already exist through more collaborative exchanges, it becomes much easier to "see what each other means")

How to achieve the goal of mutual resolution?

I believe a good way to start is by understanding, or at least seeing, what my "opponent" would consider a resolution, and being clear on what you would consider a resolution. Building a shared language of what the "resolution" means to all parties provides a foundation for mutual resolution (from my experience)

As brothers blah blah blah.

YES! Consider - say you have a truth, something mutually true (like science, for example) and I have the falsity...If I am rational, would I not greet your truth once I saw the mistake in my own calculus? If you improve my calculus or I improve yours through the "fighting as brothers" (my interpretation is this is just dialectic, debate, argumentation) that is a mutually resolving yet ideologically violent sport.

Want an orange? I need to lighten this pack.

Imagine that famous Thelemic thought experiment (which to me never provided any satisfactory answers from known Thelemites) being applied to ideas exchanged, battled, conflicted, contradicted, yet (eventually) resolving, instead of some thought experiment over battling who gets to eat some kind of snack or food.

(lol, what is it with Thelemites and eating food? so much controversy over lunch )

Without fail? Only a true orbit is without fail.

I win every time I lose something that I thought was true, but was just my own delusion.

Collectively, we are in a state of almost perfect agreement all the time, there is only a very small fraction of disagreement between all of us, and those fine details can all be resolved, in principle. (My interpretation is this is what Nuit brings, an "objective" reality of all of the stars, a certainty, not a delusion)

I like that ambition but I see that this world is confusing collaboration with pity.

Well sure, modern global civilization confuses just about everything. I'm certainly not describing what I think the world is, just what I believe it will become through a historical process that I find Liber Al remarkably predestinate.

I believe, practically speaking, much of this confusion is because of language - we really dont know what each other is talking about, even if we agree on the language shared. We are all confusing the opposites in our exchanges collectively speaking.

I despise pity.

okay. that sounds familiar

It puts one above the other.

To me, I believe what you mean here is the distinction between what I consider the signature of the old aeon and the signature of the new aeon.

The old aeon is any form of win/lose psychology (which evolves into win lose problem solving). Now the win lose could be " I will lose so you can win" which is the message of Christianity, or it could be "I will win and you will lose" which is pure patriarchal social problem solving.

so "one above the other" is a form of that patriarchal win lose psychology.

The new aeon (by my interpretation) is the emergence of collective or collaborative intelligence, "win win" psychology.

Globally speaking, it is the only psychology that will work. If humanity for some reason can't upgrade, we are probably {******}

I'm not saying to a man don't be in the spirit of kindness for life. I'm not saying to a man don't share your joy and leaping laughter. I'm not saying to a man, even such as this dreadful thing: don't sell out and paint what they tell you to paint. I'm saying to the collective that it has all the right to that but no right to thwart those rights. And I will defend these ideals to my death.

Okay, that's cool. I think maybe you just need to be funnier with it then

if you would defend it to your death, then you are adopting the win lose psychology of the old aeon, no? Is that not you suggesting that you would lose to protect the win for others?

I'm just focusing on your language...the words you choose to use to express your POV, so as to understand the underlying meaning so we can find mutual resolution.

Crowley, in his fiction, wrote of a semi-theocratic society of initiates who selected through their means the Leader. He was simply put, a select adept. Locally the people controlled their own forms of self-governing operations. The answers to concepts we now call "lawsuits" seemed to be the main function of this "select adept."

I should check that out havent read crowley's fiction

Anyway. The entire thing needs to change, not the candidate selected, not the programs we adopt to feed the needy, not even the more desirable programs of teaching and empowering the needy will do the trick (well, actually, it will do the trick of tumbling the current model toward a higher more resolute model in line with Thelemic thought). Democracy didn't come out of the aeon of Osiris overnight. I'm in no hurry. Surely it will not hurt me, the authentic being, but it will inflict something on oldfriend56 and also on Takamba because we're in the midst of it. The entire thing is going to change.

I'm feeling some mutual resolution with you here on this one amigo.

Otherwise I agree that the genius of collaboration is what it becomes. Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief. Here, have an EBT card and you better smile when you hand it to the clerk.

yeah, we got lots of work to do

that's what we kinda signed up for on this path, no?