Tyranny of choice and illusion of choice

Both the tyranny of choice and the illusion of choice are example extremes of strategic conclusions to an enclosure initiated by someone tactically claiming to offer a framework of freedom while actually implementing a rigid proscription designed to interfere with the actual function of that freedom.

This enclosure is enacted by deliberately obfuscating the difference between levels of framework and of action. Allowing this confusion is dangerous and those doing it to another are doubly so.

The defense is not, as it might seem, to simply play Rage Against The Machine on repeat and do whatever one wants, fuck ’em. Rather the defense is to develop one’s own considered code of behavior and stick to that and that alone. Further defense is had by simply not participating in the manipulation game being played on others and being attempted against oneself. The defense against the manipulation of an extrinsic code is to have a solid and sure foundation in an intrinsic one.

These fanatics, these fanboys, are looking not to develop other fanboys, nor are they looking the help people make rational choices for themselves. Rather, these radical enclosure strategies are aimed at creating hostages, unable to make any choice but the one predetermined on their behalf.

These fanboys do not want other fanboys because that would be a potential status threat. Nor do they want rational actors to make their own ways, because then they might chose otherwise, again a threat the the desperate need for self-gratification through vicarious control and validation.

The radical fanboy is in fact a control-freak looking for victims, but using the rhetoric of advertising to negotiate a sale through manipulation. The radical fanboy seeks sycophants to the character flaws of the fanatic themselves as both a way to prop up their position and to marginalize potential threats to that position. The foundation of the radical fanboy is in fact not the ostensible object of their fandom, but rather is the desperate need for ego gratification.

Another form of this that is not deception but is either conscious or unconscious conceit is the way that all Libertarians advocate for individualism but always seem to assume that others will make the same choices as they. People suffering from this form of conceit seem to always be confused when people who have freedom of choice chose something different. I marvel at the similarity to the paternalism of parents that cannot fathom their children’s choices.

And here’s a clue to the nature of this dysfunction: it is at base a form of paternalism. And, when one person assumes this kind of hierarchical position of judgement over the choices of another, they are exhibiting a level of control freakishness that is dangerous to themselves and others. They are in fact insinuating they have the right and ability to know better and more than the other. This is a textbook example of one form of interference in the rights of another, and certainly seems to me to be internally inconsistent with the ideal of Liber OZ and the framework of the Law of Liberty.

At it’s core, campaigns of doctrinal purity are antithetical to actual individual freedom, but the trap of assuming that others would make the same choices is one that many Libertarian thinkers seem to make over and over so that’s a recurring endemic pattern.

No one may tell me what Thelema is or what Thelema is for me. Of course, they can express what Thelema is for themselves, but they no authority to speak. The only authority is to the Class A materials and comments each person for themselves. That does not contemplate in any way someone’s right to determine my will for me, quite the contrary.

But even Thelema within OTO. But, the authority of Baphomet, Hymenaeus Beta and the grand master is the authority on OTO. But the the former is larger than the latter, and the latter is neither sufficient nor necessary for the former. However, the former is necessary for the latter, but not sufficient. Therefore, promulgating Thelema is necessary for promoting OTO, but promulgating Thelema does not require OTO. The corollary Is quite obviously, that anyone trying to tell another that their Thelema is not Thelema is doing so without any authority whatsoever. However, there are authoritative voices which can speak to what forms of Thelemic activity is appropriate for OTO or not, and those are the voices of Baphomet, and the leadership of OTO where that leadership is acting on behalf of and based on the authority of the appropriate office.