From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 5 Oct 92 08:34:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq GDC> Do you think Bush can be "unelected"? Very doubtful. TM> Man, you're way to paranoid! Of course Bush _can_ get unelected. Will TM> he? I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks. BUt if he does get TM> reelected_, he's still put his butt on the line. GDC> Put his butt on the line? How so? But ruining the economy? by GDC> sending college aged kids to a sand pit so they can learn how to GDC> kill people for oil? Come one man, your assumptions that this is GDC> the fairest, most advanced country in the world is a testament of GDC> proof on the effectiveness of mass media brain wash. And you blame GDC> MTV for getting kids to get involved. George Bush is putting his butt on the line _by standing for re-election_, not for anything he's done in office. By this simple act, it is _impossible_ to call him a "dictator" (if we are to assume the word "dictator" has any real meaning other than your own personalized one). As for the "brain wash" bit. I could easily say the same for you. Some where, in some way, some one placed an incredilby large chip on your shoulder. You refuse to see the opportunity this country provides because your to wrapped up in the things that are wrong. Yet consider the alternative? Nazi Germany? Stalanist Russia? Maoist China? Parlamentary Britain? It's real easy to blame my views on brainwashing, because any consideration to the idea that my beliefs are based on a careful study of history would be a threat. The Dialectic is dead! (in fact it was stillborn, but it took a century for us to realize it.) I find it interesting how many of your arguments are based on the viability of the Dialectic (knowingly or unknowingly). I suggest you ought to take long look at inconsistencies in your own beliefs before you accuse me of being brain washed. TM> So now we get a qualification. "To the extent that the way I live TM> does not interfered..." And who's to judge what "interference" is? GDC> The result of my actions and those of others who are living by their GDC> own rules will be the determining factor in "who is right or wrong". GDC> The whole concept is based on respect for life, and people are GDC> given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being compitent. You're still not getting the point. You have your "law". This "law" has certain tenents. Great! Wonderful! Super! _BUT IRRELEVANT_!!!! In any society, it's not the specific tenents that matter. What matters is how those tenents fit in. How "popular" the beliefs are, or how "inoffensive" they are, _that's_ what matters. Now, you obviously believe that Thelema (or a reasonable derivation) is superior in it's tenent of "non-interference" (Please, let's not get in a discussion of what is, or what is not, Thelema at this time). Yet there is nothing in this world that makes it superior, _OTHER THAN YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES_! Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. Regardless of what someone else beleives, even if that belief means "active interference", you are, from purely collective viewpoint, no more right or wrong than they are. From a collective viewpoint, what matters is how well you can persuade others of your being right. (Or, how well you can prevent others from thinking you're wrong.) ou're trying to focus on the beliefs, and how you are right, and others are wrong. What I was trying to do is show you that "right and wrong" are not relevant, because everyone's definition of right and wrong is different. What is relevant is how well you can get others to think like you. TM> Let's take an example you use later on in your last post. Gay rights. TM> To you, advocacy of Gay rights is not interfering. In fact, you percieve TM> it as just the opposite. Your promoting non-interference. Now let's TM> look at it from the other side. Like it or not, there are quite a few TM> people in this world who believe homosexuality is wrong. Some believe it TM> quite vehemently. GDC> this "belief" is based on the premise that there is some gray haired GDC> ancient male god in the heavens somewhere just waiting to smite GDC> those who sway from his law. In fact, the premise is that everyone GDC> is responsible for their own salvation, and that all one must do is GDC> "repent" to Jesus. Who care's what the belief is based on? It's a "belief". It's obvious that your enlightenment and insight on the world has brought you to the true understanding of things... but so what? GDC> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the above statement is GDC> correct. Why do these people feel that it is their job to stop GDC> everyone from doing something just because the believe (let's face GDC> it, it is all belief) it is not "right"? If they don't think GDC> homosexuality is cool, they should refrain from it. I AM promoting GDC> non-interference... don't fuck with people. If I am cold, why GDC> should I force YOU to wear a jacket? Who know's what motivates these (or any other) people? From my perspective it's irrelevant. I do know that if that is their belief, and you actively oppose thier "interference", then, by definition, you are yourself interfering with their beliefs. Whether your interference is justified, or is morally superior, is another matter entirely. But you are "interfering". You are in _conflict_. TM> Has it ever occurred to you that when you're challenging their beliefs TM> you are, in fact, "interfering" with thier life? GDC> This is utter bullshit, and frankly I am surprised that you would GDC> say such a thing. No one is challenging their beliefs any more than GDC> they are challenging mine. I am not obligated to believe anything GDC> you believe, and vise versa. It is not bullshit. You _are_ challenging their beliefs. Your lack of understanding in this matter is single biggest flaw in your whole argument. Your statement "I am not obligated to believe anything you believe, and vice versa." is a paradox. Here's why. Suppose I "believe" you are wrong to believe what you do. In fact, I actively try and force you to beleive the way I do. Active interference is a fundamental tenent of my "law". Now the paradox becomes clear. Because if you beleive that I have the right to my beliefs, then you subordinate your own beleifs, and if you believe in your own beleifs then you subordinate mine. The thing you are not taking into account is the _mutually exclusive_ nature of some beliefs. Or more specifically, the mutually exclusive nature of your beleifs with some others. Again, things come full circle. The point I was trying to make originally is that when there is mutual exclusion of beleifs, then there's conflict. And in conflict, "might makes right" is a fundamental law. (There is all kinds of "might" also. Not just military might.) TM> Ultimately, what we have is conflict. Your beliefs against someone TM> elses. GDC> People who have doubts regarding their religious beliefs are driven GDC> by their lack of faith to "convert" everyone else they come into GDC> contact with. It is insecurity, and a paranoid way of saying "I GDC> can't possibly be wrong if EVERYONE believes the same thing I do". In your _opinion_. And the point I'm trying to make is that your opinion (or mine for that matter) doesn't mean a hill of beans by itself. TM> When their is conflict, the most powerful will win. There are several TM> ways to get power (persuade, lie, grovel, compromise, fight, etc.), but TM> what I've described is _fundamental_ to the human condition. GDC> It may be "fundamental to the human condition", but so is greed, GDC> lust for power, etc. As is laziness, avarice, stupidity, arrogance, conceit, (and so on)... What I'm saying is that life, _life_, is a series of conflicts. Some you win and some you lose. The problem I'm having with this thread is your single minded attempt to "rationalize" your loses. It's obviously someone else fault; they're brains washed; uneducted; pavlovian insects who stand in the way of your "success". TM> (1) limiting power; and (2) basing power in the hands of the people. GDC> I will assume that the statement above is posted for its humorous GDC> content; since it is totally inaccurate. It looks good on paper, GDC> but in practice.... It's not inaccurate. It's true (or mostly so). I still say that the problems your're having in this area have more to do with not getting what _you_ want, as opposed to anything else. Since the "givernment" doesn't believe what you do, and there is really no possibility of things changing to suit you, then your warped sense of things automatically challenge the validity of the governments resposnsiveness to the people. It's sour grapes. You deny all that is good because the world is not the way _you_ would like it to be. TM> Like it or not, you're "rights" have to be balanced against other's TM> rights. You can't go out an kill some one just because _you_ think its TM> OK. GDC> My Law recognizes every person's right to pursue happiness in what GDC> ever form it manifests in the individual. Respect for other people GDC> makes murder unacceptable. It is not an option. It becomes GDC> permissible when I am protecting my life or the life of the people I GDC> love. Again, I haven't been arguing for or against the validity or superior nature of your "law". What I am arguing is your exclusive insight into the truth. TM> Again, "your law." But what makes you better than someone else? What TM> universal insight have you gotten that the rest of us don't? (I'm only TM> saying this to make a point. To a certain extent I agree with you. GDC> When I say "my Law" I mean that I have embraced those priciples and GDC> reconciled them. This Law is for anyone who wants it. I din't make GDC> it up, nor am I saying I am some kind of a great dude because I am GDC> promoting it. I made a statement most people I have known embrace. GDC> Of course, there are those who wouldn't trust themselves to cross GDC> without some one telling them when to cross; and they have the right GDC> to live that way as well. Again, your true colors are showing. You say one thing, then another. I don't find it so morally reprehensible for a person to say "look I'm smarter than you are and Have a greater insight into the true nature of things. So piss off!" as I do when some one like you says "My beliefs are no better off than anyone else, everone has a right to live their life the way the please. (But you don't want to beleive like XY or Z because they're backward, stupid, and superstitous)." TM> The poit I'm trying to make is that just because you and I beleive it, TM> doen't mean a hill of beans unless we can get the society in which we TM> live in to beleive it. ANd guess what? Society has a perfect right to TM> say we're fucked. My point is that if they do say we're fucked, to go TM> about changing the way society works, because there are mechanisms in TM> this country to do that. GDC> I believe that these mechanisms are there for people that fit within GDC> a certain category, and NOT for eveyone. This is probably due to GDC> the fact that most of congress is filled with yellowed-bellied- GDC> caucasian-christian-heterosexual men whose lust for life has been GDC> stiffled by their own intolerance and hatred. The system works for GDC> people like them. The _OPPORTUNITY_ is there for everyone. The problem is that human frailities (ignorance, lack of character, laziness, feeling sorry for yourself, etc.) all prevent us from making the most of the opportunity. (I've run out of time. I'll finish these thoughts later.) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718