https://wrkr.com/netflix-series-claims-insane-clown-posse-is-secret-society-controlling-global-finance/

I’m not an AI, I’m just really good at the English language.

Okay good analysis. I’m certain Thelemites have come up with solutions to some of what you describe, but I’m not a Thelemite so I can’t say what they are.

But it seems to me that your complaint with cults is essentially that they are religions, and that religion must always be abusive. If so, I see no need to pin the abuse on the word “cult”.

Take Dalmatians. Dalmatians are black and white with spots, make for popular firefighter companions, and are all dogs. Because Dalmatians are dogs, we also know that they have four legs, fur, sensitive noses, wagging tails, and loyalty to humans. But these traits aren’t traits of being a Dalmatian, they’re traits of being a dog. If you point at a golden retriever and say “that thing has four legs and a tail! It must be a dalmatian!”, you’re wrong. It’s a dog, and it shares dogness with Dalmatians, but not dalmatian-ness.

Likewise, if your complaint with cults is that they are religions and religions are abusive, there’s no use calling religions cults just to point out their abuse. You’d be better off calling them religions.

If cults can be big, then there’s absolutely no difference between a religion and a cult. Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity). Christianity is clearly neither. I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity. Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic. The fact that Christianity is not a cult, and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important. We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.

Okay, why don’t you go ahead and explain why thelema, one of the cults I mentioned, is abusive. And to help, here’s a comprehensive list of the rules of thelema as described by Alistair Crowley:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

That’s it. That’s the entire rules. Okay go!

Cults are small. Christianity is big. And it was Christians who, during the satanic panic, created a false association in pop culture between cults and abuse. See, back in the 60s, the hippie movement was turning young people away from Christianity and towards new age spiritualities like wicca and thelema. The christians had to put a stop to these cults, so they created a myth that cult=abuse.

Cars are fascist, don’t drive one

This is a political post. It even says libertarian in the title. The meme uses the word “liberal” and threatens violence to people based on the political freedom of their operating system. You chose to click on it, you chose to read it and continue reading, and you chose to go to the comments to talk about it. Now you’re complaining that politics are suddenly involved. Sorry buddy, it’s time to take some personal responsibility for your own decisions. You made a choice and now you’re complaining that you have to see what you clicked on this meme to see. There’s nothing I or anyone else can do to protect you from seeing the things you deliberately click on.

As someone with conservative views, do you believe in conserving the environment through strong environmental regulations, or do you prefer letting these big fancy companies take away our seasons and weather and animals for their own agendas?

Marx wasn’t a materialist, he was a determinist. Materialism is a mistranslation of his views.

Nonsense. Idealists believe the physical world, including anatomical sex, is an illusion created by our minds. No idealist would say maleness is objective. But a materialist would. Because materialists believe in physical matter.

You should check out http://soulism.net for a further analysis of why materialism is reactionary.

Idealists imagine ideas to have their own realm of existence with a mystical source of power, indepentend from said dialectic.

No we don’t. We believe the supposed world of matter is a social construct created by people’s belief, and that dialectics occur within the mind. We believe the “material” world arises as a result of mental dialectics. Meanwhile, materialists believe that matter just popped into existence in its own for no reason, with no cause, and that all we experience is matter.

For example, take a trans woman who has not yet begun HRT. According to the materialist, her body’s male features are the true nature of reality, and our perceptions arise directly from her male body. The materialist refuses to bear any responsibility for perceiving her as male. Meanwhile, an idealist says that maleness is a social construct, and the true nature of this trans woman is her female identity. Her body is a visual symbol created by our minds and existing only within our minds. We bear responsibility for how we create this symbol. Perceiving her body as male is in most situations an act of violence. We have the choice to perceive her as female, and we should do so if that is her wish.

The way we perceive her body is informed by thousands of years of history of society, a dialectical process of causation intertwined with he patriarchy and the ideals of the enlightenment. A materialist denies all of this complexity and says that their perception of her body as male is objective truth, which simply appeared on its own with no social process informing its creation. They maintain the body is pure physics and their mind has no impact. This is irresponsible and dangerous.

Materialism is thinking of things and their development on the grounds of history and causality, like a play of material and its organisational emergent forms (like ideas and their neurons). Whereas Idealism means imagining some kind of methaphysical structure or idea behind thins, like a god or ghost (Geist, Hegel, Kant…).

Materialists are reactionaries who imagine that the social conditions of capitalism are immutable realities. Idealists recognise that our consensus reality is socially constructed and approach topics of liberation and equally from a mature mindset.

Take money, for example. A materialist believes that money is valuable because a copper coin and a paper bill has an intrinsic worth. While an idealist knows the fact that the coin is a representation of the social construct of money, and that our reality is controlled by the beliefs of those who value money. Materialists are the people saying we should go back to the gold standard. Idealists are the ones saying to abolish money.