The basis of thelemic political philosophy is intelligent selfishness.
Cavemen did not begin to hunt in groups because they thought group work was 'nobler'. They began to hunt in groups because together they could kill bigger animals more easily. The effort of each individual was smaller, and there was more meat for all.
Modern societies too often demand more effort from the citizen than he or she would exert individually, and offer less returns for the effort made.
When you protest, your Establishment (whether it be organized as a 'democracy', a dictatorship, 'socialism', or communism) replies reminding you of your 'moral duties' of humility, patience and self-sacrifice. All governments are unanimous in reminding you to think of what you can do for your country, and not of what your country should be doing for you.
In a thelemic society, it is the Establishment that must be a function of the individual citizen. The citizen should continuously ask himself or herself whether he or she profits by being a member of the society. If you give more than you receive to any community, your society is not well-organized, and it should be modified. If it cannot be modified, it should be destroyed, and a more efficient society erected in its place.
Certain moralists assert that it is good to train human beings in self-sacrifice. This conception dates from the Aeon of Osiris, and it is so emotionally ingrained in the human psyche that even Marx fell for it.
The results of such training are twofold: weak-willed individuals (always the majority), when trained in self-denial, become the puppets of the strong-willed. These, trained in self-denial, automatically become leaders in the name of the common welfare, and unconsciously restrict and terrorize the masses.
Perhaps now O.T.O. members will understand what Thelemites mean they speak of of societies organized along Old Aeon lines as slave societies. If a human being is unable to move at will upon the the earth (that is, if you lack only one of the rights claimed for you in Liber OZ), this human being is a slave.
The abuses that the silent majority suffer at the hands of the elite are due to the fact that we are conditioned to the ideas of altruism, abnegation, and self-sacrifice. Our tyrants do not tyrannize us from malice. They are as stupid as we are. The process is entirely mechanical. It is the 'historical determinism' of a society organized along the lines of the Old Aeon: the Aeon of Osiris, the Aeon of Self-Denial, the Aeon of the Slave Gods.
We must teach each other that the only protection we have against this stupid and blind servilism is a healthy and alert egoism.
Let us help ourselves. As the collective unconscious says through the voice of an old saw, 'God helps those who help themselves.'
We are God. There is no other God than we.
- Marcello Motta (from “Of The Political Aims of the O.T.O.” - spelling as in original)
The social awareness of a healthy citizen should be nothing more than an extension of the human instinct of self-preservation. The morality of a healthy citizen should be the expression of intelligent egoism.
A citizen should sacrifice for society only those rights he or she considers less valuable than other rights he or she expects to increase by life in society. If you deprive yourself of any of your rights and, as a result, notice a decrease in still other rights which are more important to you, you have stopped being a citizen. You have become a slave.
Also, with relation to my 'neighbor' - that is, another citizen - my feeling of human solidarity should merely be my expression of my personal convenience. He (or she) and I are two hunters after big meat. If he or she helps to increase my welfare, I shall cooperate in increasing his or hers. But if he or she does not contribute to my comforts, I do not have the slightest obligation to help him or her, and if he or she interferes actively with me I have a MORAL DUTY to react, and to kill him or her, if need be, to guarantee my freedom. 'The slaves shall serve.'
If the two hunters, hunting together, are not going to get more meat with less effort, why hunt together?
Thelemites, therefore, always expect from society more than they contribute to it. Society must always pay back MORE than he or she expends with it. Otherwise, why live in society?
If a business venture shows no profit, a sensible business man liquidates his assets and tries something else. Any business venture MUST be profitable, and life in society is essentially a business venture.
A society that does not PROVE to the citizen that it is more profitable to belong to it than to be alone, or to be a member of another society, is a con game. It is a society that forces the citizen into the role of a person who gives more than he or she receives, spends more than he or she earns, wastes his or her life without sufficient compensation, works without being paid a decent wage.
This is the basic definition of a slave.
A Thelemite, therefore, measures the society in which he or she moves, *at each moment*, by the basic yardstick or his or her *personal convenience*.
'Think of this, if an order is spiritually empowered and you attract eachother don't you think it can use some of its leverage to get you where you both want? If it can't then maybe its too weak or unspiritual to be worth joining?
'You have heard me speak respectfully of the supernatural energies that vibrate around us in this country. But I have no special fondness for the practices of possession. An initiate is not the same as a mystic. Being an initiate—having an intuitive comprehension of what reason cannot explain—is a very deep process; it is a slow transformation of the spirit and of the body, and it can lead to the exercise of superior abilities, even to immortality. But it is secret, intimate; it does not show itself externally; it is modest, lucid, detached. That is why the Masters of the World, initiates, do not indulge in mysticism. For them, a mystic is a slave, a site of the manifestation of the numinous, through which site the signs of a secret can be observed. The initiate encourages the mystic and uses him as you might use a telephone, to establish long-distance contact, or as a chemist might use litmus paper, to detect the action of a particular substance. The mystic is useful, because he is conspicuous. He broadcasts himself. Initiates, on the contrary, are recognizable only to one another. It is they who control the forces that mystics undergo. In this sense there is no difference between the possession experienced by the cavalos and the ecstasies of Saint Theresa of Avila or Saint John of the Cross. Mysticism is a degenerate form of contact with the divine, whereas initiation is the fruit of long askesis of mind and heart. Mysticism is a democratic, if not demagogic, phenomenon; initiation is aristocratic.
Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco
Thelema in a nutshell: Sit down. Shut up. Do your adorations. Silence is Golden. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, Love is the law, love under will.
…Magick, generally speaking, still does not recognize the ego-inflationary aspect of its own system - which is why there are so many casualties….Achad, theoretically, was educated in the notion of “destroying the ego” by crossing the Abyss, (so called) but it did not save him from inflationary activities of the ego such as asserting the equivalence of his own grade of Neophyte 1=10 with the supernal grade of Ipsissimus 10=1.This is asinine from the ordinary point of view and doesn’t make sense….the every process of Magick puffs up the ego. This may be desirable up to a certain point….
The second difficulty our contemporary faces is the following: even if he does possess an ethical project able to structure his existence, taken from himself or from elsewhere, he must keep it to himself. Whoever holds the key to a life-giving hope normally seeks to share his convictions. And anyone would naturally prefer to uphold a universal conviction rather than a uniquely personal value.
But our contemporary distrusts those who defend values, that is, those who want to found values in truth. He suspects that values will transform themselves into absolute truths as soon as they find proponents to defend them. He fears nothing more than the fanatical domination of a moral project. And because of this fear, he circumscribes the defenders of certitude within a perimeter of safety, where he can cautiously watch over them.
So it is that the individual who develops a moral project and decides to equate his destiny with it becomes dangerous. He is suspected of judging others by his decision, and of secretly harboring the desire to force others to imitate him. It is true that every individual choice implicates all of humanity by forging—even unconsciously—a model that becomes a standard, or a sort of unofficial point of reference.
Moreover, any coherent ethical project takes on overblown proportions in the face of the deconstructed nature of contemporary ethics, and immediately threatens it, for chaos is uncomfortable, and nothing is more reassuring than certitude. He who deliberately embarks on a project of this nature—he who chooses meaning—implicates, like it or not, the whole of society, and tends to transform a value into truth, which revolts contemporary man. This is why our contemporary so conscientiously tries to protect himself from the dangerous whisperings of seekers of meaning and strives to conserve a smooth and colorless society peaceful in its indetermination. The only defendable ethics is the ethics of complacency.
Enjoined to invent for himself his own norms, and forbidden to speak about them once he has found them, the contemporary individual is finally reduced to doing without a structured ethics at all, either because he finds that he is not clear-sighted or patient enough to invent one, or because he becomes discouraged by a project that is valid only for himself and derided as soon as it has universal pretensions.
Subjectivism does not in fact engender the end of all striving after the good, nor does it produce cynical men. It engenders the end of a structured good, of projects that lead to the 'good life.' The desire for the good, characteristic of man as a moral being, must then express itself in an impulsive way, and so it finds a place for itself in the ethics of complacency. The good can no longer manifest itself through global and long-term visions, rather only through fragmented intuitions.
- Chantal Delsol
Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the Year I (— 30th of September 1888 according to the false calendar)
WAR TO DEATH AGAINST VICE: THE VICE IS CHRISTIANITY.
Article. I. — Vicious is every sort of anti-nature. The most vicious sort of human is the priest: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be engaoled.
Article II. — Any participation in church services is an attack on public decency. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.
Article III. — The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.
Article IV. — The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it soiled with the concept of ‘impurity’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.
Article V. — Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: one is excommunicated from honest society by doing so. The priest is our Chandala, — he should be quarantined, starved, driven into every sort of desert.
Article VI. — The ‘holy’ History should be called by the name it deserves, the accursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘Savior’, ‘Redeemer’, ‘Saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to qualify criminals.
Article VII. — The rest follows from this.