Why Chaos Magicians Are Such Assholes
Max
An essay by the Little Sister of the Order
This essay has caused a bit of controversy, and it's meant to point out
why most other magicians think
that Chaos Magicians (tm) are assholes. In my experience many of them
are, and often for the reasons
discussed below. I, of course, am not an asshole, nor do I always wear
black, have tattoos, or bait
Christians. I get along quite well with my family, often wear my hair in
a bun, and am as likely to read
about molecular biology as Maat. Make of this what you will. It was
re-edited in September of 1999.
Walking with the FireDemon, the Boy, and the Piranha Kitten through the
South End of Boston, the Demon and I pick up the
conversation we've had ongoing for years. It started back when he gave
me my first real practical lesson in magick -- do the
Middle Pillar while walking on the railroad tracks, using only the
'weight' of the pillars in your mind to affect your balance. The
Demon was also the person who gave me Peter Carroll's Liber Kaos, where
I discovered a name for what I already was. He
matters to me.
We are discussing magick as always, and he is telling me he's reached a
point where ritual magick has no place in his life. "All
the mucking about on the Astral just doesn't do it for me any more. I'm
only interested in Doing, in reaching goals on the
physical. Chaos magick only looks to me like you've given all the usual
ceremonial stuff funny names. The only difference that I
can see in Chaos Magicians is in the attitude."
I agree, thinking of my own attitude, that the core of Chaos Magick is
deconstruction of ritual to essence, of personalizing what
works for me. "Yes," I say, "the attitude is different."
"Yep," he answers. "All the Chaotes I've met are assholes."
I am surprised.
He goes on, "What's the point? I mean, I can kind of get behind having a
goal of enlightening all mankind, but what's Chaos
Magick for?"
"It isn't for anything. It comes with no belief system. It's just a set
of techniques and tools --"
"Which aren't any different from Ceremonial, when you get down to it,"
he insists, interrupting.
"-- and of approaches to techniques and tools," I finish. Then
addressing his interruption: "It's entirely about manifestation on the
physical. Look, what makes magick work is pretty much the same, whether
you take the psychological model or the
bastardized physics model. But it's Black Magick because it doesn't
require you to not do magick for your own material
benefit."
"But what's the point?" he asks again. "It's all juvenile 'me, me, me'
crap."
I remind him of our discussion about painting, and Dali's point that if
you have the skill to paint like a Master, you can paint
anything you want. "Pollock could actually paint a figure or scene if he
chose, yet after him there were imitators who only knew
the abstract, had not the skills, and brought only juvenile
sensibilities to the canvas. The result was also crap.
"Similarly," I continue, "there are aspects of the deconstructing done
from the Chaos stance that are no different from a 'school'
of art. There will always be hack followers who don't understand what
they're supposedly deconstructing. Doesn't mean we're
all selfish jerks."
"Maybe," he grudgingly admits.
"You sound like you're getting old."
"I am not!" Then he cackles, "I don't need glasses; I only see better
with them on. But seriously, it's just ridiculous to me."
I recall the night before when he argued in another context that if
someone believing they were Cleopatra reincarnate helped
them to get through the day, "Then alright." I drop it. He's an asshole,
too.
But he's got a point.
Why are Chaos Magicians such assholes?
"The first stage of seeing through the game can be a shocking
enlightenment that leads either to a weary cynicism or Buddhism.
The second stage of actually applying the insight to oneself can destroy
the illusion of the soul and create a magician."
That's a quote from Peter Carroll, Pope Pete in Chaos Magick circles. It
is the single most intellegent thing I've ever read from
him.
Most Chaotes, particularly young ones, are convinced they see through
the game, but they don't necessarily know the rules they
claim to be breaking. Still they're convinced of their own superiority.
When you're convinced of your own superiority, yet still
young and/or insecure, it's easy to show defensiveness by mockery and
derision. Such mocking can bolster your internal sense
of status, putting yourself above others.
My analogy for magical systems is that writers can tell many stories
about the same aspect of the Human Condition, regardless
of where the story is set. The details of plot and character make each
version of the tale unique, but if the theme is the same, if
the message conveyed is the same, then why get hung up on the details?
To some people the details are very important, even sacred. The first
flush of understanding the details for what they are
(window dressing) often engenders an arrogance that comes out in the
form of ridicule. "What?! You actually *believe* that
stuff?" It's a rude attitude, and thus Chaos Magicians are, rightly,
known as assholes.
They mock.
But there is another meaning for the word mock, as in making a mock-up,
a model that is not the real thing. That definition also
applies, because often in using their ecclectic techniques, people who
call themselves Chaotes have no idea what they're really
doing. It is like the facades of a town built for a movie -- there is
sometimes nothing behind it. Arrogance without substance is
also a trait that will earn the name "asshole."
I'd like to think I've outgrown this tendancy, but there are things I
still struggle with.
During Mass, whether Episcopalian or Gnostic Catholic, I don't say the
creed because I try not to lie, ever. In some views, I
am mocking the rite by refusing to participate whole-heartedly. In my
view, I would be mocking the rite by saying words I don't
believe. Yet it could be said that I would be a better Chaos Magician
(tm) if I could subsume my critical mind and fervently
*believe* for the duration of the Mass, such that the Creed would be
TRUE when I said it.
But...
Every time I'm conviced I know something, or start spouting a belief
system, especially in such a way that I might be able to
state a creed, I start looking for its foundation in my psyche. When I
find it, I break out the jackhammers.
Blazin' Tommy D.
Max <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<394E1472...@earthlink.net>...
Blazin' Tommy D.
quotes and apparently the entire post is by "Little Sister of the Order",
so if she's around then I address the following to her. My comments are
inserted as indicated:
Max <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<394E1472...@earthlink.net>...
| Why Chaos Magicians are Assholes
|
|
| An essay by the Little Sister of the Order
|
| Why are Chaos Magicians such assholes?
|
| "The first stage of seeing through the game can be a shocking
| enlightenment that leads either to a weary cynicism or Buddhism.
| The second stage of actually applying the insight to oneself can destroy
| the illusion of the soul and create a magician."
|
| That's a quote from Peter Carroll, Pope Pete in Chaos Magick circles. It
| is the single most intelligent thing I've ever read from
| him.
BTD: What is the illusion of the soul? What about the illusion that you
don't have one and if you were expected to give it up as valuable
consideration to receive something unknown in return, why would
anyone/anything demand you give it up or merely denounce it? There would
then appear to be some importance to it. Do you believe it's actually
possible to give up your soul? What about believing that you can IS the
illusion/delusion. It would be the ultimate, post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy, wouldn't it? Suppose you could give it up, received nothing in
return and all of the same things happened to you had you not given it up?
But this could leave you vulnerable and subject to the same sort of
manipulation you're trying to be free of. You might delude yourself,
believe you gave it up become a negative and thus an unwitting slave to
various practitioners. How would you know who to trust? And if you couldn't
trust anyone/anything, you would be nothing as you would have merely
erected a barrier from your perfection -viz., what it is you're actually
striving for rather than wanting to be rid of; otherwise you'd have no
means to ground whatever remained of you to the only reality to which you
are familiar. Is this illusion/delusion? What about conscience? No
conscience? Maybe a practitioner will have you –e.g., kill someone for
them.
|
| Most Chaotes, particularly young ones, are convinced they see through
| the game, but they don't necessarily know the rules they
| claim to be breaking. Still they're convinced of their own superiority.
| When you're convinced of your own superiority, yet still
| young and/or insecure, it's easy to show defensiveness by mockery and
| derision. Such mocking can bolster your internal sense
| of status, putting yourself above others.
|
| if
| the message conveyed is the same, then why get hung up on the details?
|
| To some people the details are very important, even sacred. The first
| flush of understanding the details for what they are
| (window dressing) often engenders an arrogance that comes out in the
| form of ridicule. "What?! You actually *believe* that
| stuff?" It's a rude attitude, and thus Chaos Magicians are, rightly,
| known as assholes.
BTD: You don't have to be a "chaos" magician to be a bigot or chauvinist.
Maybe a bigot or chauvinist is a chaos magician, then too, a bigot or
chauvinist might be a ceremonial magician. Is this your point?
|
| I'd like to think I've outgrown this tendency, but there are things I
| still struggle with.
|
| During Mass, whether Episcopalian or Gnostic Catholic, I don't say the
| creed because I try not to lie, ever. In some views, I
| am mocking the rite by refusing to participate whole-heartedly. In my
| view, I would be mocking the rite by saying words I don't
| believe. Yet it could be said that I would be a better Chaos Magician
| (tm) if I could subsume my critical mind and fervently
| *believe* for the duration of the Mass, such that the Creed would be
| TRUE when I said it.
|
| But...
|
| Every time I'm conviced I know something, or start spouting a belief
| system, especially in such a way that I might be able to
| state a creed, I start looking for its foundation in my psyche. When I
| find it, I break out the jackhammers.
BTD: I don't know what you mean by a creed. Seriously, what is this? Are
you saying that christianity has something to do with your soul?
Tom Schuler
"Max" <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:394E1472...@earthlink.net...
>
> This essay has caused a bit of controversy, and it's meant to
> point out why most other magicians think
> that Chaos Magicians (tm) are assholes.
Magicians in general are assholes.
> I, of course, am not an asshole,
Yes, you are. You just can't see yourself from the back.
> "-- . Look, what makes magick work is pretty much the same,
> whether you take the psychological model or the
> bastardized physics model. But it's Black Magick because it
> doesn't require you to not do magick for your own material
> benefit."
Now, see? Only an asshole would think that.
> "But what's the point?" he asks again. "It's all juvenile 'me,
> me, me' crap."
That's what juveniles do. Form egos.
> But there is another meaning for the word mock, as in making a
> mock-up, a model that is not the real thing. That definition also
> applies, because often in using their ecclectic techniques, people
> who call themselves Chaotes have no idea what they're really
> doing. It is like the facades of a town built for a movie -- there is
> sometimes nothing behind it. Arrogance without substance is
> also a trait that will earn the name "asshole."
>
> I'd like to think I've outgrown this tendancy, but there are things I
> still struggle with.
Like mocking Chaotes.
> During Mass, whether Episcopalian or Gnostic Catholic, I don't
> say the creed because I try not to lie, ever.
As soon as you speak, you fail.
> Every time I'm conviced I know something, or start spouting a
> belief system, especially in such a way that I might be able to
> state a creed, I start looking for its foundation in my psyche.
> When I find it, I break out the jackhammers.
See what I mean?
Robert Fanning
There are probably many assholes who are chaos mages.
There are many more assholes who are not chaos mages.
All can say is that the person who originated this post is
an asshole, whether or not they are a chaos magician.
Thus, writing posts like this proves you are an asshole.
--
Robert Fanning
ICQ# 21989006
roth...@iprimus.com.au (primary email)
Roth...@excite.com (secondary email)
Spammers, Junk Mailers and Flamers go on my block senders list.
Yes, I am aware of the irony of my last statement.
Fra Sigma Gamma
crusty old goobs tend to be cynical enough about the world, and have spent
enough time in it, to see the truth in the various statements put forth in
the essay.
It is true that there comes a time in Magickal training where some things
can be done in a manner which would seem to others like a rejection of
ritual. For example, there is a point at which the wards can be completely
set in an instant in order to get on with other work. Why? because the
magician has spent so long doing the ritual to evoke those wards that they
are existant in his auric field at all times and it is just a matter of
"lighting them up" so to speak.
It is a common experience of many true magicians that there are children who
reject the "established" systems of magick in the same fashion as they
reject their parent's "stupid rules". It is a rebellion without knowing what
they are rebelling against. There is nothing to gain by it. Every argument I
have heard (read) FOR chaos magick can only be considered valid after many
many years of study within a system. (See other post about Medicine being an
art!) Yes creation and experimentation is valid, but only after a certain
point and within a certain context.
Some of the line by line commentaries on the essay seemed pretty pointless
and only managed to continue to point out the ignorance of the posters. In
general Chaotes tend to talk too much, especially when they have nothing to
say. (I'm referring to life experience as well as the VOLUMES of one-line
posts (with no clipping) saying nothing.)
I'm amazed at the number of people on this NG who are interested (seemingly)
in changing people's minds about chaotes and then only go on to prove the
existing opinion of the magicians towards them. They continually prove their
ignorance, lack of knowledge and discipline as well as experience. ("I don't
know what you mean by a creed. " is just one stunning example.)
The worst thing is that in today's world with the number of valuable books
available, there is really no excuse for not getting an education. "But
there was no one to teach me!" they lament, but perhaps they were not ready,
had not done enough preliminary reading, or didn't look hard enough. There
are orders and schools all over the world. Some you may have to correspond
with, others may be in your home town. Check out the classifieds in "Gnosis"
magazine, find a starting point. Meditate on it and draw the teacher you
need. But rejecting all proven and successful forms because you cannot find
a teacher right away is, well, ludicris and self destructive not to mention
childish.
If you wish to "do" magick, and reject known forms and systems, at least
learn what they are first, how they work, what they have to offer. You might
be surprised at the number of tools that the "estabilshment" may have
available to you.
--
Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
-Fra Sigma Gamma
Quaesitor Veritas LVX
Max
<snip>
Allow me to clarify -- this post was not written by me. It is a copy
of an essay which was written by a chaote.
-Max
Chris Shepherd
>
> Being an asshole is independent of chaos magic.
>
> There are probably many assholes who are chaos mages.
>
> There are many more assholes who are not chaos mages.
>
> All can say is that the person who originated this post is
> an asshole, whether or not they are a chaos magician.
>
> Thus, writing posts like this proves you are an asshole.
> Yes, I am aware of the irony of my last statement.
Good. :)
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
Don't be humble, you're not that great.
Blazin' Tommy D.
"I'm amazed at the number of people on this NG who are interested
(seemingly)
in changing people's minds about Chaotes and then only go on to prove the
existing opinion of the magicians towards them. They continually prove
their
ignorance, lack of knowledge and discipline as well as experience. ("I
don't
know what you mean by a creed. " is just one stunning example.)
You criticized Prinn for claiming to invoke demons and then telling
everyone on another NG about him using the same words as Crowely's
assistant
in the Confessions book about him and Crowley killing a goat. I noted to
you that
it appeared to me that the statements were adopted from Mather's comments
in his
introduction to his Abra Melin translation.
I didn't identify the sources because I personally suspected that you're
as
full of shit as your description of some of the people you criticize but I
wanted to
be sure by satisfying myself {no offence Prinn, I'm unfamiliar with your
post}
You sent me this private e-mail in reply with all of this :). ;) about the
"Great
Work" your "work", &c. and when I told you I didn't know what you mean
by the "Great Work" you never wrote back. What a presumptuous little cur.
Your curiosity is Alchemy. Big Fucking Deal. I'm an Alchemist, swaggering
around
with Mussolini braggadocio, with the chin and the whole works - what a
fucking
joke. From the way you write and act I suspected you to be attempting to
arrange
"Rosemary' Baby" or something like that. Lack of discipline, indeed.
I'm a Jew, spelled with a capital "J" . I don't know what christians,
Aryan
or otherwise, do in their ceremonies, by what the author refers to as
"stating a creed".
To that extent I am ignorant, admitted it and asked for an answer. So why
don't you
give me one instead of telling me shit about your fucking aura. You are
apparently
just as ignorant as I.
As far as all of this business with souls, which you're obviously too
chicken
shit to answer, some people are apparently under the impression that
christianity,
which by definition is idolatry and blasphemy, has something to do with a
person's
soul -e.g., that if you denounce christianity that you lose your soul. This
is the
impression I had from reading the piece we're commenting on and I'd still
like to
know if that's what the author meant.
The significance of this is in terms of the notion (1) that there isn't
enough room
in your infinite mind for a soul, OR, (2) that you have to give it up in
order to gain the
powers of whomsoever it is that was cast out of heaven for refusing to obey
the creator.
That doing so supplants your soul with the infinite astral light of
divinity and then you become
the equal of the creator in all powers in which your being has the capacity
to control. So
that everything you imagine you'd like to do when you have a soul can now
be done without
one - like the guy that went in the drugstore, bought a box of tampax so he
could swim, play
tennis and go horseback riding.
Here's a tab of acid kids, see, these are the secrets of the universe,
wow. Okay, the
kids are all fucked up now let's proceed with the overthrow of government
and the establishment
of a military dictatorship, they'll be too fucked up or involved in
themselves to notice
until we're done. The straight ones? Scare the shit out of them with crop
circles and flying
saucers they'll vote christian right for sure.
I noticed on another group that Enochian magic was discussed and shied
away from
it, but what the fuck here's the jizz for Fried's asshole. Those with a
working knowledge of
demonology will notice in the Abra-Melin book that nearly every supposed
medieval Jewish
prayer tablet contains in the formula a demon associated with the end of
the world - consider
the effigies enchained at the London Guildhall.
So what do you do? Say fuck it, you want the juice, you don't care about
the back of
that which has a front? The top that has a bottom? You were initiated into
a Lodge, make a BFD
out of it and go around baiting people to break their oath? Fuck you.
Suppose you're swaying about with your magic wand la de da, and several
hundred others
throughout the world are doing the same - do you think you're going to
start hearing Quincy Jones?
How much are you willing to give for your self-aggrandisement and
pleasures?
Now I realize you have your Great Work which must really be something
since your are
perpetually posting to these various NGs, but you should read the Old
Testament sometime. It's
the story of my people. We got caught up in all kinds of shit throughout
time, were reduced to near
ruination by our own weaknesses and excesses and were eventually saved from
Egypt by Moses
through G_d whom we have our pact with as a result.
All of this Magick business is supposedly derived from Egypt, the only
aspects that are
oriental are those of Monotheism to serve as pretence to state there is no
evil. Otherwise, the result on
a people is that which the 10 commandments addressed. Most of these obscure
works which Magick
relies were written in the middle ages -e.g., the "Sepher Yetzirah". Most
of these writings are absolute
bullshit written by people in the Roman Catholic Church experimenting with
manuscripts and disguising
passages in books in the hope of preserving information lest it be lost
forever. Otherwise, the works
were written by people with the specific intention to destroy Judaism, much
the same as the
"Elders of Zion" papers.
The Holy Graal and the Gnostic Mass were specifically adopted to appeal to
Aryan Christianity
which developed in Germany in the mid 19th Century probably as a result of
the 1815 Legitimacy accord
I mention in another post. I know it served as a means to promote
Anti-Judaism in the anti-British Irish
evidenced by the Father Coughlin movement in the U.S. and had led to
colonization of South America
in the 19th Century. Maybe it was conferred to the Golden Dawn by the
Secret Chiefs. I don't know.
The concept of Aryan christianity, evident in pre WWII history books was
championed by Wagner, is
evident in the works of Nietzsche ( I believe his wife was involved in the
colonization movement) and is
referred to in papers regarding the Golden Dawn.
Essentially the Holy Graal path is a form of initiation seeking eternal
life promised by christ
based upon the belief that he was a Mage and that the church (I believe in
the South of France) was the
real church of christ. All of these 'creeds' are based upon the allegory of
re-establishing the Temple of
Solomon at Jerusalem, hence the name Templars and Masons, and of
establishing "the true religion" and
hence destroying Judaism.
The ceremonial system is probably Livonian in origin and in terms of
drawing circles, &c. is
apparent in most cultures.
The Golden Dawn system is in fact a hotch potch of various practices as
are Crowley's system(s).
So your criticism of the so-called Chaos Mages has no foundation in history
since all of these practices are
in fact the result of what Crowley described as Chaos Magick.
Crowley's Thelemite religion is founded upon his own revelation -
purportedly written down by
himself while his wife spoke in tongues scrying before the effigy of Horus:
obviously some variant on the
Abra-Melin initiation, I suspect one he was unable to complete, but
obviously, a revelation of his
own studies. If people want to follow this path of initiation it's their
right to do so as a matter of freedom
of religion. Personally, and without intending to offend anyone, it was
essentially a formula for establishing
Divine Right Monarchy based upon the end of the world in the Revelation of
John(?) a christian work.
{There are portraits of Mathers, apparently dressed as the King of Scotland
and Crowley dressed as
the King of England}all of which would have been facilitated by Britain's
surrender to the Nazis and the
annihilation of Russia - I imagine re-establishing monarchy there as well.
So much if not all of this path has
been rendered obsolete (unless you're a Nazi, for essentially that's its
only purpose). Maybe this was their
"Great Work".
The Temple of Set, makes sense, to the degree that there is no mention in
the Old Testament of
Satan and is pretty up front about its initiation policy which is
essentially that a Jew has to commit blasphemy
in order to join and denounce and defile G_d - which is really quite
chauvinistic and bigoted in the sense
that all you have to do if you're christian is denounce a man who was
essentially made into an idol by that
path of initiation which was, in part, the object of my query.
My oath is to G_d. I have free will. I know what I can and can't do. I
know my limitations
Thanks for hollowing your sorrow ass out so I could use it for my foothold
it's certainly unworthy
of my cock. Quit trying to give these youngsters a hard time most of 'um
probly ain't bilt right.
Pleasant dreams and Fuck you,
BTD
Michelle
A bunch of things that kind of prove the point.
8><===SNIP============
Chris Shepherd
> it's certainly unworthy
> of my cock. Quit trying to give these youngsters a hard time most of 'um
> probly ain't bilt right.
> Pleasant dreams and Fuck you,
> BTD
Umm, was there a reason to post this here? If you wanted to insult
someone you could have simply proven your unintelligence elsewhere (the
realm of private mail, perhaps?), but I don't care to read this crap
from you. I have yet to see you utter a single intelligible concept in
the magick.serious newsgroup, and if you do this again, you can wander
into the realm of my killfile.
Really, I believe you need some lessons in maturity.
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense
not to himself." - Guildenstern, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"
Fra Sigma Gamma
Most Jews I know write better than you, and certainly have a higher level of
language!
--
Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
-Fra Sigma Gamma
Quaesitor Veritas LVX
Blazin' Tommy D. wrote in message <01bfdae6$b26f11e0$db2a5e18@federalist>...
Blazin' Tommy D.
Say so
Otherwise, fuck you too
BTD
Chris Shepherd <william_s...@ealdormere.sca.org> wrote in article
<394FDED6...@ealdormere.sca.org>...
> > Thanks for hollowing your sorrow ass out so I could use it for
my foothold
> > it's certainly unworthy
> > of my cock. Quit trying to give these youngsters a hard time most of
'um
> > probly ain't bilt right.
> > Pleasant dreams and Fuck you,
> > BTD
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
I don't care
The personal attack was against you.
But I do appreciate your having
corrected your spelling of Jew with a
capital "J"
My post speaks for itself. It's there to read
you've no excuse not to too
Fra Sigma Gamma <gr...@thot.net> wrote in article
<VkR35.6455$227.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Parzifal
Quite right.
lol
Parzifal
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:00:34 -0400, "Fra Sigma Gamma" <gr...@thot.net> wrote:
: Actually I found the essay quite accurate. Perhaps this is only because
: crusty old goobs tend to be cynical enough about the world, and have spent
: enough time in it, to see the truth in the various statements put forth in
: the essay.
:
: It is true that there comes a time in Magickal training where some things
: can be done in a manner which would seem to others like a rejection of
: ritual. For example, there is a point at which the wards can be completely
: set in an instant in order to get on with other work. Why? because the
: magician has spent so long doing the ritual to evoke those wards that they
: are existant in his auric field at all times and it is just a matter of
: "lighting them up" so to speak.
:
: It is a common experience of many true magicians that there are children who
: reject the "established" systems of magick in the same fashion as they
: reject their parent's "stupid rules". It is a rebellion without knowing what
: they are rebelling against. There is nothing to gain by it. Every argument I
: have heard (read) FOR chaos magick can only be considered valid after many
: many years of study within a system. (See other post about Medicine being an
: art!) Yes creation and experimentation is valid, but only after a certain
: point and within a certain context.
:
: Some of the line by line commentaries on the essay seemed pretty pointless
: and only managed to continue to point out the ignorance of the posters. In
: general Chaotes tend to talk too much, especially when they have nothing to
: say. (I'm referring to life experience as well as the VOLUMES of one-line
: posts (with no clipping) saying nothing.)
:
: I'm amazed at the number of people on this NG who are interested (seemingly)
: in changing people's minds about chaotes and then only go on to prove the
: existing opinion of the magicians towards them. They continually prove their
: ignorance, lack of knowledge and discipline as well as experience. ("I don't
: know what you mean by a creed. " is just one stunning example.)
:
: The worst thing is that in today's world with the number of valuable books
Tom Schuler
>
> Allow me to clarify -- this post was not written by me. It is
> a copy of an essay which was written by a chaote.
Magicians are dangerous to themselves and others because they step outside
the rules, sometimes even their own rules. It often gets them sanctioned
for objectionable behavior.
Chris Shepherd
>
> Hey Chris, If you own this group and don't want me on it.
> Say so
> Otherwise, fuck you too
> BTD
Alright, seeing as this group belongs to those who participate in it,
let's have a vote then: Who would like Mr. BTD to leave the group
because of his recent posts? Just reply and put your name(or alias) on
the list after the last person.
Chris Shepherd
Fra Sigma Gamma
>
> -Max
Who was that in reference to, the one asking for the poll, or Sir
Flips-a-lot?
--
Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
-Fra Sigma Gamma
Quaesitor Veritas LVX
Max wrote in message <3950221A...@earthlink.net>...
> Learn to deal with other people.
>
> -Max
>
>
Max
Parzifal
Hmmm.
Nice
lol
Parzifal
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
: Hey Chris, If you own this group and don't want me on it.
: Say so
: Otherwise, fuck you too
: BTD
:
: Chris Shepherd <william_s...@ealdormere.sca.org> wrote in article
: <394FDED6...@ealdormere.sca.org>...
: > > Thanks for hollowing your sorrow ass out so I could use it for
: my foothold
: > > it's certainly unworthy
: > > of my cock. Quit trying to give these youngsters a hard time most of
: 'um
: > > probly ain't bilt right.
: > > Pleasant dreams and Fuck you,
: > > BTD
: >
: > Umm, was there a reason to post this here? If you wanted to insult
: >
Parzifal
erm...
It often gets them sanctioned for objectionable behavior.
Really?
You must have some nice aquaintances.
Parzifal
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:43:13 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Max" <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Tom Schuler
"Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
news:ui22ls8ci22ck2qi3...@4ax.com...
> > It often gets them sanctioned for objectionable behavior.
>
> Really?
>
> You must have some nice aquaintances.
Yes, I do.
Parzifal
I know you do Tom.
No friends but lots of aquaintances. Many of whom get sanctioned for objectionable behaviour I have no doubt.
Like gathers unto like.
lol
Parzifal
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:45:22 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
:
Chris Shepherd
> > > Say so
> > > Otherwise, fuck you too
> > > BTD
> >
> > let's have a vote then: Who would like Mr. BTD to leave the group
> > because of his recent posts? Just reply and put your name(or alias) on
> > the list after the last person.
> >
> > Chris Shepherd
>
> Learn to deal with other people.
>
> -Max
Well, as you added your name to the list, I'm assuming you're intending
to vote a yes. If not, then bother to read what I write next time.
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?
Tom Schuler
>
> I know you do Tom.
You know a lot less than you think.
> No friends but lots of aquaintances. Many of whom get sanctioned
> for objectionable behaviour I have no doubt.
There's your problem. You have no doubt.
Parzifal
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:55:04 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:s4b2lscejm7kkblr5...@4ax.com...
: >
: > I know you do Tom.
:
: You know a lot less than you think.
Possibly, but I know a lot more than you do. Mr placebo effect.
:
: > No friends but lots of aquaintances. Many of whom get sanctioned
: > for objectionable behaviour I have no doubt.
:
: There's your problem. You have no doubt.
Just so. Of those things I am sure about, I am quite sure.
lol
Parzifal
Tom Schuler
"Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com >
>
<steeping himself in bitter bile, imagining he's clever>
Just goes to show, it's not just chaotes who are assholes.
Parzifal
yes, you do seem to have a rectal fetish. I imagine that has gotten you into trouble on occasion.
Try to focus on life on the daylight side ot your anal sphincter please...
lol
Parzifal
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:04:33 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com >
Tom Schuler
>
> yes, you do seem to have a rectal fetish.
Your being an asshole doesn't excite me.
You should really get over this puerile resentment about having had your
ignorance and sloppy thinking exposed. You can't achieve any credibility by
lame attempts to insult me. You just end up looking more and more like a
complete waste of time.
Parzifal
I can stand it if you dont understand what I say Tom you are a dick pure and simple and everyone who spends time in your
paltry fiefdom either knows this or is ion love with you. I dont see what is wrong weith the simple pleasure of abusing
you, as with all bullies, you dish it out in alt.magick but cant take it. Why should I deprive myself of this small
pleasure. If you knew anything about magic I would have more respect, but as it is you are only a fraud, and a big
mouthed fraud to make it worse.
lol
now get stuffed you tortoise.
Parzifal
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:39:06 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
Tom Schuler
>
> everyone who spends time in your
> paltry fiefdom
I don't have a fiefdom. You are still caught up in your own imaginings.
> I dont see what is wrong weith the simple pleasure of abusing
> you,
More imaginings. You are not abusing me. You are simply making a fool of
yourself.
> If you knew anything about magic I would have more respect,
We've already established that what you call "magic" is nothing more than
your own fantasies. My having revealed that to you and to those who read
these threads is what pissed you off in the first place and what continues
to gnaw at you.
The only tactic you can think of to combat this distress is to make more
stuff up. This is just a spiralling cycle of error heaped upon error, which
is why it's such a waste of time.
Parzifal
go away Tom, you are a sad sad man. Go back to your catamites, they dont see how sad you are.
lol - what a wally!
Parzifal
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:37:29 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
:
abraxas
>
>
> go away Tom, you are a sad sad man. Go back to your catamites, they dont see how sad you are.
>
Again sir, what are your credentials, exactly?
-----yttrx
Jackie Patti
<39501211...@ealdormere.sca.org>...
>Alright, seeing as this group
I presume you are aware this is cross-posted to 3 groups?
>belongs to those who participate in it,
Which would seem to include The Blazin'd d00d.
>let's have a vote then: Who would like Mr. BTD to leave the group
>because of his recent posts?
Not me. I don't read his posts, they're too long. Doesn't mean I'd
want him to be "forbidden" to post, even if such a thing were possible
on an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, which is where I'm posting from..
You threatened to killfile in an earlier post. If he bugs you so
much, why don't you do so?
>Just reply and put your name(or alias) on
>the list after the last person.
>
>Chris Shepherd
Interesting vote where a method for voting yes is provided, but none
for voting no.
I think this thread has been pretty illustrative of it's subject line
thus far.
Chris Shepherd
> much, why don't you do so?
Actually, I did, the more effective version.
> >Just reply and put your name(or alias) on
> >the list after the last person.
> >
> >Chris Shepherd
>
> Interesting vote where a method for voting yes is provided, but none
> for voting no.
>
> I think this thread has been pretty illustrative of it's subject line
> thus far.
Yep, it has. And if you'd come to any realisation about the vote, you
would know that you could simply remove your sig from the bottom for it
to be counted as a no vote.
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"I either want less corruption, or more chance to participate in it." -
Ashleigh Brilliant
Chris Shepherd
Max wrote:
>
> Jackie Patti wrote:
>
> > Chris Shepherd wrote in message
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think this thread has been pretty illustrative of it's subject line
> > thus far.
>
> (Pssst! Chris was arguing *against* the chaotes.)
>
> -Max
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"I consider myself the luckiest man on the earth." - Lou Gherig
Tom Schuler
"Chris Shepherd" <william_s...@ealdormere.sca.org> wrote in message
news:3956D4FD...@ealdormere.sca.org...
>
> And if you'd come to any realisation about the vote,
You're being foolish. Alt.magick is not a democracy. It has no governing
agency whatever. Even if we were to go along with that sham, no one
possesses the power to enforce any farcical "vote".
Learn more effective techniques for dealing with folks whose words make you
feel uncomfortable. This "vote" tactic has fallen flat on its face.
Max
Arfh
Try stop responding to the loonie, and maybe it will go away... No one will
think less of you... :-)
-Blimp
Tom Schuler <d...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:cN955.20336$UT.8...@nntp1.onemain.com...
razor blades & cotton candy
>
> > Interesting vote where a method for voting yes is provided, but none
> > for voting no.
> >
> > thus far.
>
> would know that you could simply remove your sig from the bottom for it
> to be counted as a no vote.
This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy. If you don't
like who's posting, leave. It's that simple. Don't
believe that you can 'vote off' people based on nothing.
No-one has agreed with your vote, in fact, all the replies
have been saying you are being foolish, and yet you are
counting these as votes. (What you assume you can do with
these votes is a wonder to me.)
And it is not a vote if you cannot vote no as well as yes.
It's is a leading question and you are just baiting people.
Chris Shepherd really, I'd assumed you had little to no
concept of what politics are about, but really, this is
a bit over the top.
--Psyche
Tom Schuler
"Arfh" <gu...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:mMG55.1544$MS3....@news1.online.no...
> Good Mr. Schuler... This conversation is silly.
I think I've mentioned that. However, sometimes it's OK to talk with silly
people. It requires a little patience, though.
> Try stop responding to the loonie, and maybe it
> will go away...
He'll go away in any case.
> No one will think less of you... :-)
That's another point I have been making.
KeeCoyote
This is beginning to remind me of the quote by Samuel Clemens (Mark
Twain) "It does not pay to argue with fools. Some people won't be able
to tell the difference."
darrenls21
Chris Shepherd wrote in message <394F9F98...@ealdormere.sca.org>...
>Robert Fanning wrote:
>>
>> Being an asshole is independent of chaos magic.
>>
>> There are probably many assholes who are chaos mages.
>>
>> There are many more assholes who are not chaos mages.
>>
>> All can say is that the person who originated this post is
>> an asshole, whether or not they are a chaos magician.
>>
>> Thus, writing posts like this proves you are an asshole.
><snipsig>
>> Yes, I am aware of the irony of my last statement.
>
>Good. :)
>
>--
>Chris Shepherd
>Vice President, GDPS Computers
>Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
>
darrenls21
this discussion has gone
Tom Schuler wrote in message ...
-ZZ
"darrenls21" <darre...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3957c...@einstien.netscapeonline.co.uk...
> may i say at this point that i am most impressed with ih deep the tree of
> this discussion has gone
No you may not.
Hush.
- ZZ
Tom Schuler
"Parzifal" <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:haoflsca6fv4fho4v...@4ax.com...
>
> No-one *could* think less of him,
Oh come now. Have you so weak an imagination as that?
And you exercise it so regularly, too.
Usually what we exercise grows stronger, but in your case, it seems to be
growing smaller and smaller, taking the rest of you with it. It must be all
that bile you're soaking in.
Chris Shepherd
> agency whatever. Even if we were to go along with that sham, no one
> possesses the power to enforce any farcical "vote".
>
> Learn more effective techniques for dealing with folks whose words make you
> feel uncomfortable. This "vote" tactic has fallen flat on its face.
Actually, I was intending to post this only to magick.serious
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his
vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolņ Machiavelli
Parzifal
No-one *could* think less of him, tha man is a legend of under-achievement.
Parzifal
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:05:51 +0200, "Arfh" <gu...@flashmail.com> wrote:
: Good Mr. Schuler... This conversation is silly.
: Try stop responding to the loonie, and maybe it will go away... No one will
: think less of you... :-)
:
: -Blimp
: >
: >
:
abraxas
>
>
> No-one *could* think less of him, tha man is a legend of under-achievement.
>
Not unlike you, parceepal, eh? What what? Inventor of impressive personas
because you have none of your own. You are bland, flavorless, you are empty,
you are nothing. You are a liar (as has been shown beyond the shadow of a
doubt) and your pathetic attempts to ignore your debunkment have only shown
the rest of the class what a pathetic fool you really are.
I think you ought to be going.
-----yttrx
Max
> No-one *could* think less of him, tha man is a legend of under-achievement.
Insulting people that way is in poor style and makes you come off as quite
the dick.
-Max
abraxas
Fear not, Parzifal has been debunked as a fake and a liar over in
alt.magick.serious [sic]. This probably explains quite alot.
-----yttrx
Tom Schuler
>
> Actually, I was intending to post this only to magick.serious
Which is yet another reason to conclude that alt.magick.serious is anything
but.
Robert Fanning
What are you going to do about it?
--
Robert Fanning
ICQ# 21989006
roth...@iprimus.com.au (primary email)
Roth...@excite.com (secondary email)
Spammers, Junk Mailers and Flamers go on my block senders list.
I don't want to buy anything, give to charity or hear religious speech.
darrenls21
darrenls21
-ZZ wrote in message <3957d84a$0$19...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net>...
Parzifal
lol
doesnt stop you though does it Tom? just cant help yourself can you? Like a moth to a flame.
Someone knows more than you and you pick it up in a second. Fall all over yourself to pick a fight
and re-assert your imagined ascendancy.
lol
What a loser
Parzifal
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:41:21 -0700, KeeCoyote <"keecoyote<remove to email>"@iwvisp.com> wrote:
: Tom Schuler wrote:
: >
: > "Arfh" <gu...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:mMG55.1544$MS3....@news1.online.no...
: > > Good Mr. Schuler... This conversation is silly.
: >
: > I think I've mentioned that. However, sometimes it's OK to talk with silly
: > people. It requires a little patience, though.
: >
: > > Try stop responding to the loonie, and maybe it
: > > will go away...
: >
: > He'll go away in any case.
: >
: > > No one will think less of you... :-)
: >
: > That's another point I have been making.
:
: This is beginning to remind me of the quote by Samuel Clemens (Mark
Parzifal
nah... think I will hang around for a bit. You see, I like quality entertainment and as far as
jokes go you and your sidekick Psyche are about as good as they get.
LOL
Parzifal
On 27 Jun 2000 00:19:33 GMT, yt...@mutilation.net (abraxas) wrote:
: In alt.magick.serious Parzifal <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: > No-one *could* think less of him, tha man is a legend of under-achievement.
: >
:
: Not unlike you, parceepal, eh? What what? Inventor of impressive personas
Parzifal
really? how very upsetting.
lol
Parzifal
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:20:04 GMT, Max <ma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: Parzifal wrote:
:
: > No-one *could* think less of him, tha man is a legend of under-achievement.
:
: Insulting people that way is in poor style and makes you come off as quite
: the dick.
:
: -Max
:
Parzifal
well, if that is true Tommy lad you must have a right forearm like Popeye.
lol
Parzifal
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:49:18 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
: news:haoflsca6fv4fho4v...@4ax.com...
: >
: > No-one *could* think less of him,
:
: Oh come now. Have you so weak an imagination as that?
:
abraxas
>
> doesnt stop you though does it Tom? just cant help yourself can you? Like a moth to a flame.
> Someone knows more than you and you pick it up in a second. Fall all over yourself to pick a fight
> and re-assert your imagined ascendancy.
>
> lol
>
> What a loser
>
Wow, you really overreacted to that one, didnt you parcelfell? Whats the matter?
You got something on your mind? :)
-----yttrx
abraxas
>
> nah... think I will hang around for a bit. You see, I like quality entertainment and as far as
> jokes go you and your sidekick Psyche are about as good as they get.
>
Like shooting fish in a barrel, you pathetic worm. If I really wanted you to
leave, would I have told you to?
So beyond being a pathetic, lying charlatan, you are incredibly stupid as well.
Some mason. Its a good thing you probably arent one.
-----yttrx
abraxas
>
> really? how very upsetting.
>
Wow, youre really making friends wherever you go, eh parziphal?
People just LOVE you, dont they!
-----yttrx
Parzifal
probably....
not *quite* sure are you?
lol
remain calm
Parzifal
On 27 Jun 2000 20:38:24 GMT, yt...@mutilation.net (abraxas) wrote:
Fra Sigma Gamma
>but.
I would have to agree.
--
Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
-Fra Sigma Gamma
Quaesitor Veritas LVX
Tom Schuler wrote in message ...
>
Tom Schuler
"abraxas" <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in message
news:8jc1vq$11uk$4...@news.enteract.com...
>
> Never has been, since its very inception. If you want something
> other than noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
It's not just Usenet. Almost everything said or written about magick
consists of mostly noise. This is because it is difficult to say anything
about the experience of magick without the use of allegories and metaphors,
which are always inadequate in some way or another.
The diligent magician develops elaborate noise filters and changes them
periodically.
Tom Schuler
>
> doesnt stop you though does it Tom?
Nope. I'm just like that Energizer Bunny, except I piss you off more.
How does all that bile taste anyway?
PotniaTheron
Parzifal <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> lol
>
Are you capable of writing a post without this anachronym?
It makes you look nervous, laughing every time you write.
--
PotniaTheron (formerly Sved)
"Why not daub with bright green paint the smug low wall of assumption?"
-Jeanette Winterson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
richard sprigg
>
> In article <bivhls8jf9fsldjp2...@4ax.com>,
> Parzifal <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > lol
> >
>
> Are you capable of writing a post without this anachronym?
> It makes you look nervous, laughing every time you write.
I had assumed it was the onset of "Prunesquallor's Syndrome".
abraxas
>>Which is yet another reason to conclude that alt.magick.serious is anything
>>but.
>
> I would have to agree.
>
Never has been, since its very inception. If you want something other than
noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
-----yttrx
Fra Sigma Gamma
>noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
I recall a time, deep in my memory, that the usenet was the sole domain of
scholors and academics who were dicussing various points at a very high
level. Back then I accessed it through Fido-Net as direct access was
essentially reserved for universities and research facilities etc. Oh How I
recall....
--
Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
-Fra Sigma Gamma
Quaesitor Veritas LVX
abraxas wrote in message <8jc1vq$11uk$4...@news.enteract.com>...
abraxas
>>Never has been, since its very inception. If you want something other than
>>noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
>
> I recall a time, deep in my memory, that the usenet was the sole domain of
> scholors and academics who were dicussing various points at a very high
> level. Back then I accessed it through Fido-Net as direct access was
> essentially reserved for universities and research facilities etc. Oh How I
> recall....
>
Ahh...I remember those days too, surprisingly...
Were you perchance ever on Plato?
-----yttrx
Parzifal
sign of nervous laughter, more a good-natured chuckle. If it really rankles I can stop putting it
in...
Parzifal
Parzifal
Not at all (whatever that is!)
Just a light-hearted aspect on this wonderful life...
:-)
Parzifal
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 05:04:09 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
: PotniaTheron wrote:
: >
: > In article <bivhls8jf9fsldjp2...@4ax.com>,
: > Parzifal <rosae_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: > >
: > > lol
: > >
: >
: > Are you capable of writing a post without this anachronym?
: > It makes you look nervous, laughing every time you write.
:
: I had assumed it was the onset of "Prunesquallor's Syndrome".
richard sprigg
>
> Not at all (whatever that is!)
>
> Just a light-hearted aspect on this wonderful life...
Then by all means continue lollygagging.
better an lol than an sos.
Blazin' Tommy D.
> This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each other.
1st - The intent of some was/is to use this situation - viz., my use of
words
and descriptions regarding burning sigmoids, a foot up another's rectal
orifice, &c. to vindicate the idea of anarchy -e.g., if some members of the
group post nasty replies to my posts, make groundless ad hominum attacks
or avoid my posts I will eventually leave and that anarchy is vindicated by
achieving the same result Chrissy and Sigmoid seek by doing nothing -e.g.,
like Denny's being a whites only restaurant by simply refusing to wait on
Blacks.
2nd - Another aspect is that a few posters decided that I asked for verbal
assaults comprised of an advocacy to destroy Israel, advocacy that Hitler
tried
to make life better for people by announcing that I'm a Jew and refuse to
denounce
my Covenant with G_d. This resulted from Sigmoid's posts asserting that I'm
ignorant
and will continue to be subject to such ungrounded assault and disrespect
until I
denounce my Covenant and become initiated as a christian gnostic.
> Chris Shepherd really, I'd assumed you had little to no
> concept of what politics are about,
BTD: Actually, Chrissy appears to me to be quite adept at US Conservative
political techniques and could probably easily be elected to a high paid
office
in the GOP who adores such techniques and they are unquestionably grounded
in traditional american values which they seek to Conserve.
I can't even say that this is hidden beneath the facade of Magick as it now
appears to me to be inextricably intertwined yet no one is interested in
reading
about this or discussing it.
> If you don't
> like who's posting, leave. It's that simple.
BTD: This really is a good rule and I contend that it's the only rule by
which the
advocacy of anarchy might be vindicated. Anarchy is a postulate. It exists
as a
point from whence to philosophically argue.
> but really, this is
> a bit over the top.
BTD: Yes it is. A fellow Jew got a job tending bar locally and asked me to
go there.
I told him he was crazy, because most of the people that went there don't
like Jews.
But I did anyway. When you go to a place where you know you're not wanted
there
is a consciousness of the situation that doesn't otherwise exist. It is
difficult to decide
how far a person should appease themselves and where the line should be
drawn to
defend themselves - some people demand Rosa Parks still stay at the back of
the bus.
I stopped posting to .serious because Chrissy portends to own the list and
him and his
friend Sigmoid told me that I have to accede to Noachian law before I could
post there.
They clearly want said list as a means to breed subjects. I am not a
subject to anyone
so I don't post there and don't go there.
Finally, I admit that my intent in coming to these groups was to
objectively attempt to
strike up a discussion regarding the compatibility of Magick with Judaism
and vice versa.
I did not foresee doing so as analogous to a Black attempting to enter a
KKK meeting
or a Gay man being a Boy Scout leader. I also wanted to see if it would be
foreseeable
to have the various Temple and Lodges denounce Hitler's promise that this
would be the
Millenium for the Aryan Race and proclaim this as the Millenium for All
People.
I was willing to discuss this on an intellectual level but various members
insist I am incapable
of doing so and shall be denounced by nude appellations that I'm stupid,
ignorant and shall
supply no substantiation in support of these verbal assaults. No one here
is interested in
discussing this apparent conflict but others appear to acknowledge it in
demanding
denunciation of my Covenant.
I notice that the OTO Lodge in Beverly Hills (newsletter posted on line)
makes lip service
of this situation - hence, they acknowledge it exists - and agree to
discuss it at a future
time.
I am a member of the President's Council of the World Jewish Congress, so I
am aware of
this feeling towards Jews. I do not exaggerate when I say that upon my
empirical experience
in posting to other groups I have rarely encountered anti-Judaism to this
degree. While realizing
that I would encounter it, the degree has surprised me.
What more can I say?
BTD
>
> --Psyche
>
-ZZ
"Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:01bfe1ec$2d8733b0$db2a5e18@federalist...
> > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
>
> BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each other.
Nonsense.
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek
dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the
U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political
authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no
ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder
due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of
individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of
order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel
Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
- ZZ
darrenls21
think they own the world. i know this as i was once one of them. i finally
grew up (i hope)
Fra Sigma Gamma wrote in message ...
>>Never has been, since its very inception. If you want something other
than
>>noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
>
>I recall a time, deep in my memory, that the usenet was the sole domain of
>scholors and academics who were dicussing various points at a very high
>level. Back then I accessed it through Fido-Net as direct access was
>essentially reserved for universities and research facilities etc. Oh How I
>recall....
>
>Sub Umbra Alarum Tuarum Hashem
>-Fra Sigma Gamma
>Quaesitor Veritas LVX
>
>
>abraxas wrote in message <8jc1vq$11uk$4...@news.enteract.com>...
>anything
>>>>but.
>>>
>>> I would have to agree.
>>>
>>
than
>>noise on the subject, usenet is not the proper forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
-ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<395b8f00$0$15...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>...
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:01bfe1ec$2d8733b0$db2a5e18@federalist...
>
> > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
> >
> > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
other.
>
> Nonsense.
BTD: What means are available to me by e-mail so that I may physically
assault,
batter, plunder, ravish, maim or kill the person who makes a post I
disagree with?
In an anarchy if someone pisses me off, I can kill them or anything else I
want to do.
I rely upon my ability to survive as the fittest. It has been decided by a
particular
number that I am incapable of intellectualism so in anarchy I can kill them
if I choose.
In fact, I can kill as many people that disagree with me as I want and they
can do
the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what is stated with e-mail there is
no need.
>
> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from
Greek
> dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
> Date: 1576
> 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
> government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and
exercised
> by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> involving periodically held free elections
> 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
> 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in
the
> U.S.
> 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of
political
> authority
> 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or
privileges
BTD: I disagree with this definition on grounds of vagueness but accept it
for the
sake of your argument.
Any argument is comprised of one or various factions on one side of it or
the other
eventually causing one to surrender the point to the other, enter into a
decree, &c.
The easiest way to do this is by the mob - a bare transitory majority
-viz., some
will agree to one point but disagree on another, the disagreement may
appear to
the previous ever changing majority to be inconsistent but rationality has
no part
in pure majoritarianism.
An alternative to this is 'bringing one to the reason of the law' which may
happen
in a monarchy (as demonstrated by English common law and common law
judicial
action) or in some mixed government adopting aspects of democracy but it
must be
enforced by an established form of government in order to have force beyond
the
appeal's affect upon internal conscience.
This is not an anarchy. The importance of the subject matter in my post
which you
avoided to split hairs over a definition, affects me, and might or might
not
cause me to leave this group. If I do, either, the cause will be effected
by majority
as the only rational argument thus far made was offered by Psyche -viz.,
"If you don't like who's posting, leave. It's that simple".
BTD: There are no rules in anarchy except that there are no rules.
Therefore, the
group, by your own definition, is "more resembling a democracy" .
salute,
BTD
abraxas
> as Alistair Crowley once said "Magick is for ALL" not just for academics who
> think they own the world. i know this as i was once one of them. i finally
> grew up (i hope)
I think that when he said 'magick is for ALL", that he probably wasnt
referring to the 'unwashed masses' whom he evidently despised so much
during the sum of his life. See the first couple of chapters of _Magick
in Theory and Practice_ for an assessment of his definition of magick
itself. The meaning of "All" may become self-evident.
-----yttrx
abraxas
>
>
> -ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <395b8f00$0$15...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>...
>>
>> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:01bfe1ec$2d8733b0$db2a5e18@federalist...
>>
>> > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
>> >
>> > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
>> > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
>> > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
> other.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> BTD: What means are available to me by e-mail so that I may physically
> assault,
> batter, plunder, ravish, maim or kill the person who makes a post I
> disagree with?
You have no idea what anarchy actually is.
> In an anarchy if someone pisses me off, I can kill them or anything else I
> want to do.
This is not true, at *all*. You do not understand what anarchy means.
You've simply made up a meaning inside your head, accepted it as true, and
now expect everyone else to go along with it.
-----yttrx
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD
abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in article
<8jg7b7$1qgc$1...@news.enteract.com>...
Blazin' Tommy D.
I'm using the definition that ZZ posted - piss off at him and
his dictionary
Definition is proscribed to me as well as reason and argument?
abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in article
<8jg7ei$1qgc$2...@news.enteract.com>...
> In alt.magick.serious Blazin' Tommy D. <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > -ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > <395b8f00$0$15...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>...
> >>
> >> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> news:01bfe1ec$2d8733b0$db2a5e18@federalist...
> >>
>
-ZZ
> > > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
> > >
> > > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> > > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> > > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
> other.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> BTD: What means are available to me by e-mail so that I may
> physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, maim or kill the person
> who makes a post I disagree with?
Anarchy is not a Mad Max film.
> In an anarchy if someone pisses me off, I can kill them or anything
> else I want to do.
... and there will be consequences.
In a democracy, if someone pisses you off, you can kill them or anything
else you want to do. And there will be consequences.
It is the consequences that differ, not your ability to do those things.
> I rely upon my ability to survive as the fittest. It has been decided
> by a particular number that I am incapable of intellectualism so
> in anarchy I can kill them if I choose.
You can try.
> In fact, I can kill as many people that disagree with me as I want
> and they can do the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what
> is stated with e-mail there is no need.
I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
Could you rephrase it.
> > Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> > Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> > Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin
> > democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos +
> > -kratia -cracy
> > Date: 1576
> > 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the
> > majority b : a government in which the supreme power
> > is vested in the people and exercised by them directly
> > or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> > involving periodically held free elections
> > 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
> > 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic
> > party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when
> > constituting the source of political authority
> > 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions
> > or privileges
>
> BTD: I disagree with this definition on grounds of vagueness but
> accept it for the sake of your argument.
How would you prefer to define democracy?
> Any argument is comprised of one or various factions on one side
> of it or the other eventually causing one to surrender the point to
> the other, enter into a decree, &c.
> The easiest way to do this is by the mob - a bare transitory
> majority -viz., some will agree to one point but disagree on another,
> the disagreement may appear to the previous ever changing majority
> to be inconsistent but rationality has no part in pure majoritarianism.
Do you think mobs would never occur in an anarchy?
> An alternative to this is 'bringing one to the reason of the law' which
> may happen in a monarchy (as demonstrated by English common
> law and common law judicial action) or in some mixed government
> adopting aspects of democracy but it must be enforced by an
> established form of government in order to have force beyond
> the appeal's affect upon internal conscience.
>
> This is not an anarchy. The importance of the subject matter in
> my post which you avoided to split hairs over a definition, affects
> me, and might or might not cause me to leave this group. If I
> do, either, the cause will be effected by majority as the only
> rational argument thus far made was offered by Psyche -viz.,
>
> "If you don't like who's posting, leave. It's that simple".
>
> BTD: There are no rules in anarchy except that there are no rules.
> Therefore, the group, by your own definition, is "more resembling
> a democracy" .
Democracy is a form of government.
Anarchy is a lack of government.
alt.magick has no government.
- ZZ
abraxas
> I don't have a copy what does it say?
> BTD
>
Alot. Get a copy.
-----yttrx
Peter L. Kantor
Blazin' Tommy D. <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:01bfe1fc$f21b0b10$db2a5e18@federalist...
>
> BTD: What means are available to me by e-mail so that I may physically
assault,
> batter, plunder, ravish, maim or kill the person who makes a post I
disagree with?
want to do.
particular
> number that I am incapable of intellectualism so in anarchy I can kill
them if I choose.
they can do
> the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what is stated with e-mail there is
no need.
Actually, in a proper anarchy you would first ask permission of the
community to kill and maim and then would only undertake the act of doing so
if there was unanimous consent, including on the part of the victim, that
this action should take place. No, that's not entirely true, ostracism is
the only act that an anarchic community can take against someone that
doesn't require consent of all parties, only consent of those parties not
being ostracised. More permenant forms of ostracism may fall under this
heading, although to a real anarchist life is too sacred to trust to
consider such except where no other option presents itself. People have a
bad habit of confusing anarchy with might makes right and therefore using it
as a justification for violence. A true anarchist would ask permission to
loot and pillage and then would only do so if a reasonably agreement could
be reached.
Anarchy is sort of like a representative democracy where each representative
is only allowed to represent themselves.
Peter K.
Parzifal
Parzifal
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:51:47 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Joshua O'Brien
>
> I don't have a copy what does it say?
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/defs.html
> abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in article
Tom Schuler
>
> I think that when he said 'magick is for ALL", that he probably
> wasnt referring to the 'unwashed masses' whom he evidently
> despised so much during the sum of his life.
Perhaps magick makes one start washing and avoiding masses. Although some
of the students of magick that I've met hadn't gotten the washing part
straight yet.
Blazin' Tommy D.
-ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<395ba993$0$17...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net>...
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:01bfe1fc$f21b0b10$db2a5e18@federalist...
>
> > > > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
> > > >
> > > > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely
comprised
> > > > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for
people
> > > > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
> > >
> > In an anarchy if someone pisses me off, I can kill them or anything
> > else I want to do.
> > In fact, I can kill as many people that disagree with me as I want
> > and they can do the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what
> > is stated with e-mail there is no need.
> I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
>
> Could you rephrase it.
BTD: A guy is at my house. He's bigger than me and pisses me off
If I shoot him in a democracy there is a structure to imprison me, &c.
In an anarchy, you might think Geez if I kill this guy how many friends
of his do I have to kill too.
In e-mail cyber space you could piss someone off as much as you
want and they can't do anything about it. Anarchy has its own devices
to temper what people do to each other according to whatever human
nature delivered to a state of nature is. E-mail, as a cyber reality, has
no
tempering tools or devices than appeal to reason and conscience
(see original post).
>
> > > Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> > > Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> > > Function: noun
> > > Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> > > Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin
> > > democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos +
> > > -kratia -cracy
> > > Date: 1576
> > > 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the
> > > majority b : a government in which the supreme power
> > > is vested in the people and exercised by them directly
> > > or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> > > involving periodically held free elections
> > > 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
> > > 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic
> > > party in the U.S. 4 : the common people especially when
> > > constituting the source of political authority
> > > 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions
> > > or privileges
> >
> > BTD: I disagree with this definition on grounds of vagueness but
> > accept it for the sake of your argument.
>
> How would you prefer to define democracy?
BTD: Montesquieu in his "Spirit of the Laws" is the most relied upon
enlightenment authority for government types and their comparison to
others and the reality of mixed government.One example would be to allow
characteristics of democracy within a mixed system. My example of judicial
action. William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Law of England"
says that democracy lies with a jury as opposed to allowing a Judge
deciding
the facts. This occurred inside of a hereditary monarchy mixed with a
Parliament.
This would be excluded by the definition used and tends to detract form
an essential aspect of fundamental justice - Trial by Jury. There are too
many
examples to enumerate and explain. The book is well worth owning.
>
> > Any argument is comprised of one or various factions on one side
> > of it or the other eventually causing one to surrender the point to
> > the other, enter into a decree, &c.
> > The easiest way to do this is by the mob - a bare transitory
> > majority -viz., some will agree to one point but disagree on another,
> > the disagreement may appear to the previous ever changing majority
> > to be inconsistent but rationality has no part in pure majoritarianism.
>
> Do you think mobs would never occur in an anarchy?
BTD: Inevitably. Fascism started as anarchy with the black shirt mobs
facilitating Mussolini's dictatorship. It was a popular movement by an
offer
you couldn't refuse (bad pun since these aren't the same guys that the US
refers to as the Mafia - actually, quite the contrary).
Anarchy is the purpose of all revolutions, it is from this chaos that the
ruling
class comes to manifestation.
Look at the Temple of Set regarding the Order of Westphalia
(If my memory serves correctly) a form of judicial government organized
by Judges when the monarchy broke down. No doubt. If banks and money
existed you could bank on it. Read the definition you supplied.
>
> > An alternative to this is 'bringing one to the reason of the law' which
> > may happen in a monarchy (as demonstrated by English common
> > law and common law judicial action) or in some mixed government
> > adopting aspects of democracy but it must be enforced by an
> > established form of government in order to have force beyond
> > the appeal's affect upon internal conscience.
> >
> > This is not an anarchy. The importance of the subject matter in
> > my post which you avoided to split hairs over a definition, affects
> > me, and might or might not cause me to leave this group. If I
> > do, either, the cause will be effected by majority as the only
> > rational argument thus far made was offered by Psyche -viz.,
> >
> > "If you don't like who's posting, leave. It's that simple".
> >
> > BTD: There are no rules in anarchy except that there are no rules.
> > Therefore, the group, by your own definition, is "more resembling
> > a democracy" .
>
> Democracy is a form of government.
>
> Anarchy is a lack of government.
>
> alt.magick has no government.
BTD: Adoption of a rule is an act of majority. Majority rule is a form
of government. Acceding to your proposition would be an act by majority
rule, no different than voting to boot me from the NG. That's the origin of
your dichotomy. It is not categorical. Read your own definitions.
Anarchy is a postulate. At best it's a transitory condition.
>
> - ZZ
>
>
>
Fate's Knight
"Blazin' Tommy D." wrote:
> razor blades & cotton candy <psy...@evilone.org> wrote in article
>
> > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
>
> BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each other.
Democracies are only words, and anarchies are only violence? You are confusing
violent anarchy for anarchy. Not all anarchies are violent, nor is it implicit
in the definition. We do live by Hobbes' (or was it Locke's) natural law in
that all that we have here is what we can defend for ourselves; namely our
reputations.
>
>
> 1st - The intent of some was/is to use this situation - viz., my use of
> words
> and descriptions regarding burning sigmoids, a foot up another's rectal
> orifice, &c. to vindicate the idea of anarchy -e.g., if some members of the
>
> group post nasty replies to my posts, make groundless ad hominum attacks
> or avoid my posts I will eventually leave and that anarchy is vindicated by
>
> achieving the same result Chrissy and Sigmoid seek by doing nothing -e.g.,
> like Denny's being a whites only restaurant by simply refusing to wait on
> Blacks.
That's ad hominem, but to the rest of it. Stay if you wish, go if you wish,
this place is neither better nor worse for your leaving or staying. It won't
make any difference if anyone stays or goes. Alt.magick will always go on.
>
>
> 2nd - Another aspect is that a few posters decided that I asked for verbal
> assaults comprised of an advocacy to destroy Israel, advocacy that Hitler
> tried
> to make life better for people by announcing that I'm a Jew and refuse to
> denounce
> my Covenant with G_d. This resulted from Sigmoid's posts asserting that I'm
> ignorant
> and will continue to be subject to such ungrounded assault and disrespect
> until I
> denounce my Covenant and become initiated as a christian gnostic.
>
> > Chris Shepherd really, I'd assumed you had little to no
> > concept of what politics are about,
>
> BTD: Actually, Chrissy appears to me to be quite adept at US Conservative
> political techniques and could probably easily be elected to a high paid
> office
> in the GOP who adores such techniques and they are unquestionably grounded
> in traditional american values which they seek to Conserve.
Both sides have anti-semites. Both sides have strong ties to the Jewish
community.
>
> I can't even say that this is hidden beneath the facade of Magick as it now
> appears to me to be inextricably intertwined yet no one is interested in
> reading
> about this or discussing it.
This is not the forum for discussions of racism or creedism, this forum is for
the techincaly and scholarly discussion of magick.
>
>
> > If you don't
> > like who's posting, leave. It's that simple.
>
> BTD: This really is a good rule and I contend that it's the only rule by
> which the
> advocacy of anarchy might be vindicated. Anarchy is a postulate. It exists
> as a
> point from whence to philosophically argue.
In this case, it exists as a computer-generated abstraction. Anarchy is also a
state of mind and government. Not a postulate, it can exist as more than an
abstraction, see Russia1992
>
>
> > but really, this is
> > a bit over the top.
>
> BTD: Yes it is. A fellow Jew got a job tending bar locally and asked me to
> go there.
> I told him he was crazy, because most of the people that went there don't
> like Jews.
> But I did anyway. When you go to a place where you know you're not wanted
> there
> is a consciousness of the situation that doesn't otherwise exist. It is
> difficult to decide
> how far a person should appease themselves and where the line should be
> drawn to
> defend themselves - some people demand Rosa Parks still stay at the back of
> the bus.
> I stopped posting to .serious because Chrissy portends to own the list and
> him and his
> friend Sigmoid told me that I have to accede to Noachian law before I could
> post there.
> They clearly want said list as a means to breed subjects. I am not a
> subject to anyone
> so I don't post there and don't go there.
Good move, if you feel unwelcome, move on.
>
>
> Finally, I admit that my intent in coming to these groups was to
> objectively attempt to
> strike up a discussion regarding the compatibility of Magick with Judaism
> and vice versa.
Very compatable.
>
> I did not foresee doing so as analogous to a Black attempting to enter a
> KKK meeting
> or a Gay man being a Boy Scout leader. I also wanted to see if it would be
> foreseeable
> to have the various Temple and Lodges denounce Hitler's promise that this
> would be the
> Millenium for the Aryan Race and proclaim this as the Millenium for All
> People.
> I was willing to discuss this on an intellectual level but various members
> insist I am incapable
> of doing so and shall be denounced by nude appellations that I'm stupid,
> ignorant and shall
> supply no substantiation in support of these verbal assaults. No one here
> is interested in
> discussing this apparent conflict but others appear to acknowledge it in
> demanding
> denunciation of my Covenant.
> I notice that the OTO Lodge in Beverly Hills (newsletter posted on line)
> makes lip service
> of this situation - hence, they acknowledge it exists - and agree to
> discuss it at a future
> time.
I am a practicing Catholic. Some Catholic priests are anti-semitic, and preach
such from the pulpit. This does not make me an anti-Semite despite the fact we
both pay hommage (in one fashion or another) to the Catholic Church.
>
>
> I am a member of the President's Council of the World Jewish Congress, so I
> am aware of
> this feeling towards Jews. I do not exaggerate when I say that upon my
> empirical experience
> in posting to other groups I have rarely encountered anti-Judaism to this
> degree. While realizing
> that I would encounter it, the degree has surprised me.
> What more can I say?
> BTD
>
> >
> > --Psyche
> >
Fate's Knight
--
"It's 11:05. Do you know what your karma is?"
-- "Angel"
Blazin' Tommy D.
Fate's Knight <Fates...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<395C0896...@worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." wrote:
>
> > razor blades & cotton candy <psy...@evilone.org> wrote in article
> >
> > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
> >
> > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
other.
>
> Democracies are only words, and anarchies are only violence? You are
confusing
> violent anarchy for anarchy.
BTD: No, I'm using the definition supplied by the person that joined the
issue "ZZ".
Odysseus
"Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Fate's Knight <Fates...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <395C0896...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >
> >
> > > razor blades & cotton candy <psy...@evilone.org> wrote in article
> > >
> > > > This is not a democrasy, this is anarchy.
> > >
> > > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
> > > of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people
> > > to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each
> other.
> >
> > Democracies are only words, and anarchies are only violence? You are
> confusing
> > violent anarchy for anarchy.
>
> issue "ZZ".
>
He gave several. You have zeroed in on the one about a state of disorderly
violence, but completely ignored the one about a form of utopian community,
which is of course what ideological (as distinct from opportunistic)
anarchists are promoting.
Whether or not measures exist in a society to deter or punish violence is
independent of whether said society is a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy or
anarchy. Though as a practical matter, admittedly, an authoritarian
government (whether aristocratic, military or elected democratically)
typically has more obvious enforcement ability than a community that relies
on consensus. OTOH the rights of individuals and minorities usually suffer as
a result. You must have heard the old saw that Mussolini made the trains run
on time ...
__________
--Odysseus
-ZZ
> > > In fact, I can kill as many people that disagree with me as I want
> > > and they can do the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what
> > > is stated with e-mail there is no need.
>
> > I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
> >
> > Could you rephrase it.
>
> BTD: A guy is at my house. He's bigger than me and pisses me off
> If I shoot him in a democracy there is a structure to imprison me, &c.
> In an anarchy, you might think Geez if I kill this guy how many friends
> of his do I have to kill too.
>
> In e-mail cyber space you could piss someone off as much as you
> want and they can't do anything about it. Anarchy has its own devices
> to temper what people do to each other according to whatever human
> nature delivered to a state of nature is. E-mail, as a cyber reality, has
> no tempering tools or devices than appeal to reason and conscience
> (see original post).
That's not entirely true.
There are measures you can take against people.
I guess it would be difficult to act against someone who owned their own
ISP, but that would simply be the equivalent of them having a very big gun
in an anarchy.
> > > BTD: There are no rules in anarchy except that there are no
> > > rules. Therefore, the group, by your own definition, is "more
> > > resembling a democracy" .
> >
> > Democracy is a form of government.
> >
> > Anarchy is a lack of government.
> >
> > alt.magick has no government.
>
> BTD: Adoption of a rule is an act of majority. Majority rule is
> a form of government. Acceding to your proposition would be
> an act by majority rule, no different than voting to boot me from
> the NG.
The majority has no authority to boot you from the newsgroup.
> That's the origin of your dichotomy. It is not categorical.
> Read your own definitions. Anarchy is a postulate. At best
> it's a transitory condition.
The population of alt.magick is also transitory. There is no consistent
majority that acts as a body of government.
- ZZ
-ZZ
> > > BTD: Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely
> > > comprised of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no
> > > ability for people to physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish,
> > > main or kill each other.
> >
> > Democracies are only words, and anarchies are only violence?
> > You are confusing violent anarchy for anarchy.
>
> BTD: No, I'm using the definition supplied by the person that joined the
> issue "ZZ".
That's slightly misleading, isn't it?
You wrote "Actually it more resembles a democracy as it's entirely comprised
of words. It is not an anarchy because there is no ability for people to
physically assault, batter, plunder, ravish, main or kill each other."
before I commented at all.
As for the definition (from the Merriam Webster online dictionary), what
about "absence of government", "a state of lawlessness or political disorder
due to the absence of governmental authority", "a utopian society of
individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government", "absence or
denial of any authority or established order" or "absence of order" implies
a necessity for to physical assault, battery, plundering, ravishing, maiming
and killing?
- ZZ
Blazin' Tommy D.
Comments inserted:
-ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<395cc4e9$0$24...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net>...
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:01bfe23c$ef19e4f0$db2a5e18@federalist...
>
> > > > In fact, I can kill as many people that disagree with me as I want
> > > > and they can do the same. Anarchy would seem to temper what
> > > > is stated with e-mail there is no need.
> >
> > > I'm not sure I understand the last sentence.
> > >
> > > Could you rephrase it.
> >
> > BTD: A guy is at my house. He's bigger than me and pisses me off
> > If I shoot him in a democracy there is a structure to imprison me, &c.
> > In an anarchy, you might think Geez if I kill this guy how many friends
> > of his do I have to kill too.
> >
> > In e-mail cyber space you could piss someone off as much as you
> > want and they can't do anything about it. Anarchy has its own devices
> > to temper what people do to each other according to whatever human
> > nature delivered to a state of nature is. E-mail, as a cyber reality,
has
> > no tempering tools or devices than appeal to reason and conscience
> > (see original post).
>
> That's not entirely true.
>
> There are measures you can take against people.
>
> I guess it would be difficult to act against someone who owned their own
> ISP, but that would simply be the equivalent of them having a very big
gun
> in an anarchy.
BTD: You would be relying upon an outside power coming into your alleged
anarchy to take action based upon 'rules of decency' which are based
upon local government community standards. These, by your definition, do
not exist in an anarchy. Change your definition. I don't care. You're the
one
that invoked it!
>
> > > > BTD: There are no rules in anarchy except that there are no
> > > > rules. Therefore, the group, by your own definition, is "more
> > > > resembling a democracy" .
> > >
> > > Democracy is a form of government.
> > >
> > > Anarchy is a lack of government.
> > >
> > > alt.magick has no government.
> >
> > BTD: Adoption of a rule is an act of majority. Majority rule is
> > a form of government. Acceding to your proposition would be
> > an act by majority rule, no different than voting to boot me from
> > the NG.
>
> The majority has no authority to boot you from the newsgroup.
BTD: You admit speaking for a majority then?
>
> > That's the origin of your dichotomy. It is not categorical.
> > Read your own definitions. Anarchy is a postulate. At best
> > it's a transitory condition.
>
> The population of alt.magick is also transitory. There is no consistent
> majority that acts as a body of government.
BTD: Democracy does not require a government body. Ask New Englanders
about their Town Halls.
> - ZZ
>
>
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
-ZZ <hyphen...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<395cc989$0$24...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net>...
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:01bfe241$7e268af0$db2a5e18@federalist...
>
> > > >"absence of order" implies
> a necessity for to physical assault, battery, plundering, ravishing,
maiming
> and killing?
BTD: No.
> - ZZ
>
>
>
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
Odysseus <odysseu...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<8jhknq$pv6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bfe241$7e268af0$db2a5e18@federalist>,
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > BTD: No, I'm using the definition supplied by the person that joined
the
> > issue "ZZ".
> >
>
> He gave several.
BTD: He gave two.
You have zeroed in on the one about a state of disorderly
> violence,
BTD: If these words are in one of the two definitions you allude to
it would be under anarchy presuming that true it is a particular
within that defined category.
>but completely ignored the one about a form of utopian community,
> which is of course what ideological (as distinct from opportunistic)
> anarchists are promoting.
BTD: If so then they don't understand inter alia that anarchy is a
postulate. You tacit admission is inferred by your usage of words
-viz, "ideological"
Sir Thomas Moore coined the term Utopia in his work of the same
name published in 1516 as an imaginary island where the inhabitants
enjoyed a life of social and political perfection. To whom you refer
appear, then, to confuse and confound anarchy and utopia.
How would you -e.g., enforce the continuance of anarchy -e.g., if a
group forms therein and wants to organize to form a government
(self governing or otherwise)? At that point it ceases as anarchy and
comes to order by consensus or despotism.
"Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick is the GOP version of
what all of this means in terms of political science.
"Social Statics" by Herbert Spencer is the Libertarian version.
I prefer
"Spirit of the Laws" by Montesquieu, the "Law of Nations" by Vattel and
"Commentaries on the Laws of England" by William Blackstone.
All of which are accepted authority by the US and British High Courts
as well as various International Bodies.
>
> Whether or not measures exist in a society to deter or punish violence is
> independent of whether said society is a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy
or
> anarchy.
BTD: you are correct as to the others but a society is not an anarchy
because society is an order. The government types you mention are means
to enforce the continuance of the society. Anarchy does not have this.
Anarchy and utopia are not congruent.
Though as a practical matter, admittedly, an authoritarian
> government (whether aristocratic, military or elected democratically)
> typically has more obvious enforcement ability than a community that
relies
> on consensus.
BTD: a community that relies on consensus is a democracy.
OTOH the rights of individuals and minorities usually suffer as
> a result. You must have heard the old saw that Mussolini made the trains
run
> on time ...
BTD: I presume you refer to despotism? Here are some 'hasty
generalizations':)
"Leviathan" by Hobbes - argues that man is essentially evil and requires
tending by Church and government. It is the basis of Conservative
constructs.
John Locke - argues that man is essentially a social creature and enters
into society by free will, surrendering only so much of his natural rights
to government in exchange for which he enjoys protection of the remainder
and may acquires private property and the protection thereof.
It seems to me that it's Rousseau those you allude are looking for.
Daring to be presumptuous, Rousseau is expressly honored in Crowley's
Gnostic Mass cf. "New Atlantis" by Francis Bacon.
Rousseau's work apparently influenced the French Revolution cf.
"What is Property" by PJ Proudhon.
darrenls21
Blazin' Tommy D. wrote in message <01bfe1ff$bcb805b0$db2a5e18@federalist>...
>I don't have a copy what does it say?
>BTD
>
>abraxas <yt...@mutilation.net> wrote in article
><8jg7b7$1qgc$1...@news.enteract.com>...
>> In alt.magick.serious darrenls21 <darre...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> > as Alistair Crowley once said "Magick is for ALL" not just for
>academics who
>> > think they own the world. i know this as i was once one of them. i
>finally
>> > grew up (i hope)
>>
>> I think that when he said 'magick is for ALL", that he probably wasnt
>> referring to the 'unwashed masses' whom he evidently despised so much
darrenls21
interpritation. crowly was a scientist but not an academic. he would try
anything as long as it works, that was the essence of his philosophy, he
despised the fakes in life as do we all.
perhaps i am ignorant, but the unwashed masses if you will are those who
would defy their own goals thorugh their own red tape.
no disrespect to you, your message was well stated even if i did not agree
with it.
abraxas wrote in message <8jg7b7$1qgc$1...@news.enteract.com>...
abraxas
> i got the softback version of the bool and obviously it's open to multiple
> interpritation.
Though it is open to multiple interpretation, there is one and only one
*correct* interpretation.
> crowly was a scientist but not an academic. he would try
> anything as long as it works, that was the essence of his philosophy,
I'm not sure I agree with this statement...Can you back it up with
some evidence?
> he
> despised the fakes in life as do we all.
> perhaps i am ignorant, but the unwashed masses if you will are those who
> would defy their own goals thorugh their own red tape.
>
No, the unwashed masses are the 'eternal sleepers' in gurdjieff's [sic]
reasoning.
> no disrespect to you, your message was well stated even if i did not agree
> with it.
>
Thanks...I think.
-----yttrx