drauf gewutzt ! *g* nun ein text aus den vielen 'büchern des schatten' die im internet umhergeistern....
is leider englisch, werde mich hüten ihn zu übersetzen^^
Women vs. Men
By: Michelle Hass (in conversation with Scott Szakonyi)
"Ok folks, Loki and I have been chatting, and we're ready to raise a ruckus that might go on for
months."
Chiniginish and I relish the challenge... with Coyote looking over our shoulders and chuckling...
"Here's the question: Are women superior to men, and if so, why? I think that women are
superior to men in the modern world because evolution is lagging society. Most of the evolution
of the human race (about 60 million yrs) took place in hunter/gatherer tribes, where aggressive
behavior on the part of the male hunters was a survival trait, and relating/caring behavior was a
survival trait for females. Now, in the 20 thousand or so years since we have become agrarian,
the need for male hunter aggressiveness has gone the way of the Dodo, while the need for
relating/caring behavior has become primary. Where does this leave us?
"Well, as I see it, women are almost ideally suited to the overcrowded, communication-intensive
environment that we call modern society. Men, on the other hand, are like people with no arms
playing handball. It's not that we're bad folk, it's just that we were designed by evolution for an
environment that hasn't existed for 20 thousand years, which is a real drop in the bucket in terms
of evolution. Evolution isn't going to be giving us any help for at least a few million years;
maybe never since we are constantly screwing up the gene pool with our wars that leave the
genetically defective to breed and send the genetically preferable off to evolutionary dead ends.
So all we men can do is try to better ourselves and ask for patience on the part of women, who
must feel like the entire male sex has completely missed the boat."
Well, you've got a nice point, but it assumes something that I believe 'taint necessarily so. Is male
aggressiveness part of nature or nurture? The jury seems to be coming back from a long period of
deliberation, and it looks like the verdict is nurture.
This very nicely dovetails with my own theory of what thelemites refer to as the "procession of
the aeons". In Crowley's notorious Liber Al vel Legis, we are said to be passing from an aeon of
belief in suffering male gods and patriarchy to an aeon of belief in the value of Self and of
partnership between the sexes. Crowley called the old aeon the "Aeon of Osiris" and the new the
"Aeon of Horus, the Crowned and Conquering Child." The enthroned Child is not masculine or
feminine, but androgynous/gynandrous. The aeon before the Osirian was that of Isis, an aeon of
Great Mother Goddesses and matriarchy.
My chronology is a little different than that which Crowley attributed to these three epochs of
human history so far. Crowley declared that the Aeon of Horus began with the Spring Equinox of
+1904 Common, just before the writing of the Book of the Law. I maintain that the change is still
taking place, and had its roots in the +1700s Common. The writings of the philosopher Locke
were some of the first to make a very important quantum jump, and provided ideological impetus
for the vital changes that have and are taking place.
What Locke asserted was that government did not rest on Divine Right, but on the consent of the
governed. Human beings were not born to different castes, some fated to serve while others were
fated to rule by the grace of the gods. Human beings were born equal, and had certain rights as a
birthright: Life, Liberty, the right to pursue Happiness, and the right to security of private
property.
This assertion shows up in Liber Al as these statements:
"Every Man and Every Woman is a Star."
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law."
"Love Is The Law, Love Under Will."
"Thou hast no right but to do thy Will."
In a little less arcane language, these statements run thusly:
Every Individual matters.
Every Individual has the right to live, be free and pursue Happiness (harmony with one's life's
purpose, or True Will) as they Will.
These rights stop at the boundary of the Wills of others. Live your life as you see fit, but mind
your own business and above all, harm nobody. This includes yourself in a very conditional way.
You do have the right to self-destruction, but if you truly believe that you matter, why would you
want to?
These assertions are usually encountered firstly in a Locke-inspired document that has passed
into the history of this country, the Declaration of Independence. If there is any one document
that is a trigger point for the New Aeon, it's that one. The American Revolution was the first time
monarchy was cast aside in favor of democracy of a representative sort. Democracy was tried
before, but never quite this way. And despite several course corrections that needed to be made,
(the abolishment of Slavery, the giving of Women, Blacks and Amerinds the right to vote) and
some that still need to be made (the granting of total equality for all races and sexes, a shift to a
more direct method of participation, ie Cyber-democracy) the democratic experiment in the
United States is the most enduring of all.
Before the 1700s, government was imposed from above, not thought of as flowing from the
consent of the governed. Individuals were not accorded rights as a birthright, but were granted
rights by the king, usually on a class-by-class basis. Human beings were dealt with as masses and
classes, on a Collective basis.
Coincidental with these developments was a surfacing of hermetic thought in a more widespread
way then ever before in history. The Rosicrucian and Freemason movements brought
hermeticism to a wide audience. Within the ranks of Freemasonry were both common and noble,
and often commoners would be lodgemasters in lodges frequented by those of noble birth.
Hermetic orders ennobled not by birth, but by level of knowledge and initiation and (hopefully)
by level of spiritual attainment.
Derzeit ist die Registrierfunktion deaktiviert. Wer einen Account möchte: Mail an wahrexakten @ gmx.net mit Nickwunsch. Geduld, es kann etwas dauern, bis Ihr eine Antwort bekommt. 
) jagen ist wohl deshalb verboten, weil es das tier meist nur verletzt, wodurch es zwar noch lebt aber verblutend irgendwo im wald verendet, oder ?
und bleibt ja immernoch die frage, probiert man einen nichttödlichen schuss auf einen 'feind', der damit endet das der kerl trotzdem noch ne granate in die stellung der 'eigenen' gruppe schmeisst ? rein militärisch gedacht jetzt^^
vielleicht rechtfertigen solche waffen ja demnächst kriege^^ sollte man aufpassen...![Od]I[n](/data/avatars/m/0/419.jpg?1565031238){kind=avatar}
den muss man erstmal verkraften^^
