From: Scott Brush Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 27 Sep 92 22:14:16 Subject: Re: FREEDOM VS. THE MASSES UpdReq Dear brother, You continue to blame the weakness and ignorance of the common people on government and Christianity. My point is that the masses are weak by nature and politicians and theologians merely play on those weaknesses. The Law of Thelema is for all because it applies to all. It is a fact of nature and not an ideal state of things. (Please, excuse my pestilence.) The fact is that most people would destroy themselves if they adopted Thelemic philosophy at this stage of human evolution. Just as with drugs, they simply lack the vision and self control to handle such societally unconditioned freedom. I assert that the common human desires to be told what to do and how to think. The dictatorial politician and dogmatic theologian are performing a public service that many are grateful for. The sole blame of human ignorance is the humans themselves. By the way, I sympathise with your comment about not caring what other people think of your way of life and philosophy. I share that view. However, it's likely we'd be very concerned if mobs of religious fanatics were rampaging through the streets, breaking into people's homes to search for evidence of impropriety, and persecuting "heretics." There is safety in secrecy and the masses are shielded from ideas that can only destroy them. Some have questioned whether it has ever been a good idea to communicate profound ideas to the masses for the sake of their enlightenment. Politicians and churchmen do that type of thing. It may cause more havoc, casting pearls before swine, than enlightenment. It requires profound wisdom to be able to tell when and how much to openly communicate and when to keep silent. The wisest adepts I know of are content to allow seekers to find them rather than holding membership drives or advertising in widely circulated publications. Silence is a vital power of the sphinx. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 28 Sep 92 13:44:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq TM> What boat did you fall off of? Ever hear of the '88 elections? TM> George Bush was _elected_ president. It is quite probable that he TM> will be "unelected" in '92. Give me just one, _just one_ example of TM> a "dictator" who has been in similar circumstances. GDC> You are assuming that a "dictator" cannot be elected. I don't GDC> believe that this is necessarily true. How can someone who's been elected, and who can be "unelected", be a dictator? TM> You're confusing your lack of political "fulfilment" with TM> dictatorship. Again, if you don't like the way the game is being TM> played, you want to take your marbles and go home. If the "majority" TM> wants to do something that you disagree with (casually or TM> vehemently), you say they are all ingorant dupes, unenlightened to TM> the "truth" as you see it. GDC> No. But I have the right to believe, look at, buy, and live my life GDC> by my own law; when the "majority" attempts to oppress me because it GDC> does not fit their set of standars my rights are being violated. Actually, you _don't_ have the right to live life by your own "law". Like it or not, you're "rights" have to be balanced against other's rights. You can't go out an kill some one just because _you_ think its OK. The way you live your life impacts how others live theirs. As a result, any society is a constant balancing act with the ultimate goal of pleasing the most people and offending the least. As an individual, you have two, and only two options: get enough power to ensure your interests are taken care of, or persuade that your interests are good for everyone else. (I should note that there is a third option: "do nothing and hope for the best", but this is not in the spirit of this thread.) The "dictators" take the first path, the politicians take the latter path. TM> If you don't like it _vote_!!!!! Persuade, cajole, yell, scream, TM> whatever... it doesn't make a difference unless you, and others who TM> think like you, _become_ the majority. In a collective society, it's TM> _only_ the majority who count. GDC> This is bulsshit, as you believe that I should compremise my beliefs GDC> and ethics to pay some kind of "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" GDC> game. Would YOU comprimise everything you believe in order to fit GDC> better to some premeditated mold that the "majority" has chosen for GDC> you? Come one! Life's a compromise. Granted, there are things that we don't compromise on. That's why there's war. Somethings are worth dying for. Look, everytime you make a decision based upon how it would affect others, you've balanced, i.e. "compromised", your interests with those of someone else. (Also, don't forget that there's always the power of persuasion. You could convince someone to act in your interest, or decide that there's mutual interests) TM> (There are some safeguards in our society, however, and they are called TM> the Bill of Rights. They aren't fool proof, but I wouldn't want to be TM> without them). GDC> The Bill of Rights is a pacifier the regime uses to make you believe GDC> you actually have rights. This document will mean very little to GDC> the homosexual when the legislate against homosexuality, or the GDC> WICCAN or Ceremonialst when the fundies legislate against GDC> alternative religious. A perfect example is the so called "war on GDC> drugs"; ask the guy sitting in a Florida prison for an ounce of pot GDC> how effective this noble document was. What the Bill of Rights does is define a certain set of "rights" that a simple majority could not legislate against. Two things about these rights, however: (1) Some rights are competitive, if not mutually exclusive. This forces one to prioritize the rights, or balance them against each other. Unfortunately, the prioritization and balancing is simply a matter of judicial opinion, and the judiciary is not responsive, in real time, to societal trends. (2) The "rights" are not _fundamental_, but can vary over time. Yet the variance is a function of society. Ultimately, all democratic power flows from the people. Even inept or stupid power. TM> All of this brings me full circle. I said this before, and I'll say TM> this again. What we should fear in our society is not the TM> dictatorship of individuals (George Bush included), but the tyranny TM> of the masses. What do we do when the "majority" fucks up? GDC> You do away with the majority. You create a system of government GDC> where people can be treated as individuals, instead of being placed GDC> into some kind of category where everyone in there with you is not GDC> permitted to show contrary behavior or beliefs. Ahhhh, your true colors are showing. "Do away with the majority?!?!?" Pray tell, how does one do this? You might inhibit, threaten, intimdate, imprison, or silence the majority, but you'll never get rid of it. By the way, what is this mythical systemof government where we're all just a bunch of individuals? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 28 Sep 92 14:21:38 Subject: Re: FASCISM U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated 24 Sep 92 06:03:02, Sea Queen wrote: > P.S. That was _such_ a nice PC touch. You know, that Feminazi B.S. > SQ> Now hold on. I had a tendency to be willing to TRY to support SQ> your rational, if somewhat rightist, points of view. SQ> but....feminazism? It's been my experience that term is exercised by SQ> men who are too intimidated by women who are vocally angry about SQ> THEIR rights being trampled, ignored, legislated against, or just SQ> plain over looked. The term is usually exercised by men who are sick and tired of being made the object of feminist hate, of which one aspect is the thought police of current the Politically Correct. The term is not, I repeat not, meant as a diatribe against mainstream, traditional "feminism" (i.e. equality of opportunity, mutual respect, etc.) Personally, I am sick and tired of being judged as a group (i.e. men), and "Feminazi" represents this emotion. SQ> It was a valid point. Women everywhere in htis SQ> country should be asking themselves if this government truly SQ> represents them (since it IS a republic and, idealistically should SQ> make an attempt at representing the people) when women make up 51% of SQ> the populaation and only hold 2% of the Senate and 13% of the House. "Special Interests", radical feminist included, are missing the point. I don't give a rat's ass whether my representative is a woman, a man, our a one eyed, three-legged extra-terrarestial transvestite; Give me a person who thinks what I think, beleives what I beleive, feels how I feel. We've become a nation of tribes: Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, etc. all after their "representative" share of the pie. Let's get the best _person_, not the best woman/african american/native american/hispanic/whatever. SQ> I'm not saying that congress whould be 51% women, but if they SQ> want to convince me, the numbers would have to be a lot closer than SQ> THAT that people are considering women as something more than an SQ> after thought. But you _are_ saying that the simple accident of gender plays a role in your decision. Now tell me, how is that different than me _refusing_ to vote for a african american lesbian with no legs? Both are basing a decision on irelevancies. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Vitriol 28 Sep 92 14:40:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated 25 Sep 92 23:41:23, Vitriol wrote: -=> Michael Lee sent a message to Gerald Del Campo on 20 Sep 92 18:15:12 <=- -=> Re: Re: Fascism U.S.A. <=- V> Hi, Mike. ML> Give me just one, _just one_ example of a ML> "dictator" who has been in similar circumstances. V> Adolf Hitler? Not quite. He never stood for reelection. Care to try again? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718