Topics

Whilst wandering around my mother-in-law's home, I got to thinking about the nature of a "religion" that two pot-smoking teens started in a bowling alley. Is it possible not to take such a movement seriously enough? If it hadn't been going on for over 50 years, would we take it with the passion (or involvement if passion is too strong of a word) we do today?

Personally, I realized that if someone came up to me and told me all about this joke religion that "follows" Eris, which was some Greek goddess that helped start the Trojan War, I would have chuckled, but wouldn't have thought much of it.

I think about silly things, I suppose, but I was curious if anybody else thought it was possible to be not serious enough about Discordianism.

(Let's not tackle the idea of being too serious about it. I've seen that conversation play out before. Of course, this one may have, too, but I can't find it.)

So, it's been awhile since I've written some total shit and had it torn apart from the community, so here it goes.

I'm No Discordian
So, you want to be a Discordian, huh?

Don't even bother. It isn't something you want to be.

Why? Well, it's simple: it's not as easy as it looks.

Look, when I first joined Discordia, I did it for all the wrong reasons. I was pissed at the Establishment. Christian jerks were damning me to Hell. People were blind sheep.

Most importantly, I wanted to be different.

Oh, that. Different. That's what drove me and, odds are, drove many to Discordia's arms. We wanted to change the world. And to do that, all we had to do was sit on our asses and wait.

Except, we forgot a detail. We became what we raged against.

Sitting on are asses, we became part of the Establishment. We damned people to the land of Thud. We were following influential Discordians, a herd of black sheep following a whacked-out shepherd.

In sum, we were just like we were before. No less different.

Face it. You're a Discordian because you wanted to seem weird. No shame in that. That was another reason I joined.

However, let's think for a second.

Did the Establishment do anything to us? Never harmed me. All the Christians I knew never once said I was going to Hell. And everyone I knew was quite out of their minds.

Were we really pissed at anything? I think we made it all up.

Sure, there's more to Discordianism than meets the eye. But that's the problem with most of us. We see the damn posters, but do we hang any of them up? We vow to make the day weirder, but by lunchtime, we've all but forgotten about this.

And then, some of us have the balls to take Discordia too seriously.

What a laugh.

There's always someone fighting about what makes a "real" Discordian, usually by people who thought it meant being totally offensive and a complete dick.

Well, I'm not going to lie. I'm no Discordian. But I'll still carry the flag.

Who knows. Maybe I'll be leading my own little herd one day.

Until then, I'll just think of other people's original thoughts.

P.S. Of course, I could also be the only idiot here without a fucking clue. That's been know to happen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4863490/Books-given-away-for-free-at-one-of-Britains-biggest-warehouses.html

Why, god, why?!

[Gay Daddy Mormon]

I was bored and wasn't sure if it was OK to post a poem here, so I went and did it anyway. This is a combination of boredom, blasphemy, and the inability to write well.

Gay Daddy Mormon
My father, the Gay Mormon
He married four men
The first one was Randy
And he finds him quite dandy
The next was Taylor
Whom he fucks like a sailor
Then there was young Barry
Daddy broke his cherry
Lastly, there was me, his son
And he gave me something that burns like the sun...

The book, called...well, Femina Sapiens: A Study of Women Through Imagery: The First Truly Thinking Human Beings, was written by Dr. Francesco Aristide Ancona. It more a series of essays then an actual book, but he talks about how women are what inspired humans, and actually presents the argument of a creator Goddess. I just this book up, so right now he talks about how it was the female that started thought in Homo sapiens, so I haven't gotten to too much about the Goddess, but I skipped around a bit and found everything interesting so far. Might be worth picking up if you're into that sort of thing.

And just in case I don't provide enough info, here's the blurb from the book:

Were women the first truly thinking human beings? Were women responsible for the development of human intelligence? Femina Sapiens explores the are and artifacts of prehistoric and primitive imagery to discover the truth, that Homo sapiens is a misnomer. "Thinking man" is simply incorrect. The first "thinking" human beings were thinking women, Femina sapiens.

Succinctly, Part One argues for the feminine origin of human thought and creativity. Beginning with an analysis of a veritable "sphinx," the "Venus of Laussel," Femina Sapiens reveals an enigmatic message just starting to unfold. Is this "Venus" the herald of "Truth"? Does it prove that women were the first human beings capable of analogical thought and what has been deemed "time-factored" thinking? And was its creator female? As importantly, does prehistoric are provide further examples of humanity's origin from the external feminine?

Part II of Femina Sapiens takes us into the Goddess narrative, where we journey towards our spiritual epiphany, towards our atonement with the one true deity from Whom we come and to Whom we return.

It sounds a bit pagan there at the end, but he does take things from all different cultures.

Sometimes, we all get unlucky and waste our money on books that should have never have even been put to pen and paper, let alone seen by a editor and sent to print. Now, I've always believed it was a good thing to watch each other's backs, so to help us here save some money and perhaps what's left of our sanity, I've decided to establish a thread to tell each other about the worst of the worst.

I'll start with a book all the way back from 2004 called "The Illuminati Manifesto" by Solomon Tulbure. Now, it makes sense this book got past the editor, as it was published by one of those internet publishers, so grammar and such wasn't corrected. That's its first strike against the book.

Next, the guy claims to be head of the Illuminati that started over in Bavaria, and the reason they came out of hiding was because they needed new recruits for something big. That something big? Dismantling organized religion, of course, and forcing people to be free and think for themselves. If they don't, they don't deserve to live and should be either be killed or forced into slavery.

And lastly, he's a Ayn Rand whore. Enough said.

Who's next?

P.S. If there is another thread like this, and I'm copying it (I've been known to do that), sorry.

Once more, we find ourselves on the parapet of change. No more then a few short months, Americans will be voting for the chance to elect either an African American that actually seems to be spouting sound ideas, or yet another white man that see Bush's current approval rating as a good enough excuse to continue the crap. As an American, all I can say is...whatever.

Sure, Barack sounds like he would be a good guy. Hell, he isn't even president and already he's flying around world and making the people overseas go wild with a patriotism that Americans should be feeling without having somebody killing hundreds of us. In Germany, they were waving flags as if they lived here in the States. Why the hell don't we do that?

And it isn't to say McCain isn't that bad of a man, either. He has a lot more sounder polices in mind then Bush does, but he still seems to want to keep the current engine of ignorance going along. Plus, him touring America just makes him look like he's not even concerned with the world stage. It makes me wonder how much of an isolationist he is.

However, even if both are better, I can't help but to see downfalls. If Barack is voted in, I fear it would only be as a novelty president. President only because he's black. And McCain? An only more efficient warmonger. As a Discordian, or maybe just as an asshole, I can't see any true change coming along. Just more fuckups. For me, the end of the American Empire is close. How much longer can we last?

I'm counting the days.

[The Ten Commandments of Discordia]

[All right, I stole the actual commandants from one of those Discordian Book...I think it was the Book of Eris. In any case, I fancy myself as Discordian Theologian, so I felt it in my right to comment on them. If anyone feels like I'm wrong in any way, shape, or form...well, that's fine. I really don't care.]

Reverend Never's Sermon: This Week: The Ten Commandments of Discordia (Discordian Commandment by Ginohn, sermon by the wasted acid head homeless man in my basement. I call him Jerry Bob.)

1. Thou shalt have no other house before me.

Yes, children of Eris, this is very simple to understand. Most people these days are devoted to the house, be it called Church, Mosque, Synagogue, whatever. But, there is more devotion to the house then to the god, thinking that the church is the salvation when it is, in most cases, the god. Plus, god doesn't need your money. Worship *insert god's or mortal you who look up to name here*, not *insert religious temple name here* and you'll have a better life. Maybe.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven neighbor.

Graven, here, means "fixed upon the mind." Basically, then, this means don't concern yourself with the neighbors and/or other people's thought about you. And besides, those that spy on the neighbors are either rich stuck-up bastards or trailer park trash, and you're not like them, right?

3. Thou shalt not kill the Lord thy God.

God, in this idea, is the highest form of self. It's the voice in your head that tells you what to do. Of course, you may call it instinct or intuition. Whatever it is, people ignore it. Over time, this, well, kills it. Listen to it, it has had 5,000 years or so to perfect itself, I'm sure it's right now.

4. Remember to steal the days.

A mantra of the Hedonist, this says live your life to the fullest. Seeing as this has been repeated billions of times by wise men throughout the ages, I didn't see any reason to waste your time explaining it.

5. Honor thy father in vain that thy Sabbath day may be long.

Whatever day you decide to be your day, let nothing stop you from enjoying it. It's your day, after all, do whatever you please. Just don't be too heartless. Remember, you still have six other days that you have to deal with people and some of them might get mad at you for not honoring them on your holy day.

6. Thou shalt not take the name of thy mother.

You are your own person. Simple, really, no need to go too deep into this. Hell, change your name. That'll show them you are your own person! Try Max Powers or something.

7. Thou shalt not commit witness.

This is the most important, so keep it well to your heart: Do your best to avoid jury duty and stay out of court. Why is this so important? Because it interferes with all the other commandments, of course. And, besides, who can have fun on in jury duty.

8. Thou shalt not keep it holy.

"Only the good die young," said a wise man. You're not going to have any fun if you keep holy. Unless you're Discordian. Holy things are fun in Discordia.

9. Thou shalt not bear false adultery against thy images.

Damn, I don't know...Eris is a little unclear or I just don't really care...uh, don't be vain. You know, stop looking at yourself naked in front of a mirror say you look disgusting or...something.

10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's gods.

Don't let anyone tell you what god to believe it, if you choose to believe at all. Simple, eh?

All in all, a happy ending, hmm? And remember, always, to always remember. Or something. Yeah.

Reverend Never: Do you believe in God?
Me: I'm not too sure if I do.
Never: Why's that?
Me: The idea that an intangible being created everything just seems to much like a copout. Instead of actually trying to find an answer, some people just seem content to just place all under the 'God' file.
Never: Well, you could just be making thing more complicated then things are. It could be just that simple.
Me: It could be, yes, yet science makes new discoveries every day. They're constantly figuring things out.
Never: Sure, they figured out that it's gravity that's keeping people from floating out into space, but they have yet to where or why gravity works.
Me: You're going to dredge up that old argument?
Never: Well, it's not only that. What about atoms? We know they make us, but what makes the things that make the atoms?
Me: Some scientists have noted that the electrons or whatever they are called come in and out of existence.
Never: First, so? Why do they come in and out of existence, and how does random electrons doing as they please form us and the universe? Second, why only some scientists?
Me: Well, some scientists are just as dogmatic as religious folk; sometimes even more so because they are supported by facts. They would hate to think that their law 'matter cannot be either made or destroyed' could be false.
Never: Before you answer my first half of my question, do you believe electrons come in and out of existence?
Me: Well, yeah. I mean, I can't be made of the same number of atoms I was made of when I was smaller. Or, take a tree. The idea that the same number of atoms that make up a seed make the tree. Where does all the extra atoms come from? If the 'matter cannot' law is true, wouldn't the universe be shrinking rather then expanding?
Never: So then you would agree with me that science can't explain everything?
Me: I never said it did. I just said I'd rather know an answer then assume one. I just said so in a rather roundabout way.
Never: So then why wouldn't the idea of a God satisfy your unknowns? If you don't want to assume an answer, then how do you explain things that you don't know?
Me: You mean like the way I explained why I didn't like the God Theory?
Never: Yes. You just can't explain everything away.
Me: I suppose it's how I view things. I see God as a logic puzzle of philosophy. Others view God as a fact. 'You cannot leave the observer out of the observation,' or however the quote goes.
Never: That raises another question. Is God a facet of spirituality or of science?
Me: Both. Spirituality is something humans feel and humans can be, just to cut the explanation a little short, experimented on.
Never: You mean, answers found to?
Me: Yeah.
Never: Spirituality is an emotion that people can feel. Emotions do exist, be they are chemicals of the brain or not. Using your train of logic, God exists.
Me: No, spirituality, the feeling that something greater, is real. If that thing actually exists is a different question. The being called 'God' is outside the emotion and isn't part of spirituality. If anything, God is more of a question of science. Still, it works for both. Of course, we could be asking the wrong questions.
Never: Huh?
Me: We keep asking if God exists. It's only part of the question. See, we humans and our universe live in finite space, and God, if the rumors are true, is a being of infinity. Our question should be, 'Does God exist in a finite environment?' The answer there would be no.
Never: How so?
Me: Infinity can't fit inside boundaries.
Never: But our universe doesn't have a wall surrounding it, does it?
Me: Depends on what scientist you ask.
Never: Of course, the Multiple Universes theory. But what then is in-between the universes?
Me: Well, this is where things get tricky. If you take a thing of finite space, say like a planet, that means there is less infinity then there was before because that infinity is being taken up. I mean, where does the infinity go when you put something in it? Can infinity be displaced? If so, where does it get displaced to?
Never: Well, I...uh...
Me: Infinity can't be displaced; it has nowhere to go. So, there is no such thing as 'infinity' and would mean that God is logically impossible. Unless you can believe in less infinity then before...
Never: Err, logically, then, perhaps. But, God can do whatever. All-powerful, isn't--
Me: All the terminology we put to God is human. God, if in existence, isn't human and not subject to human thought or words.
Never: So, what are you saying?
Me: God could exist, but if It does, probably not in the way humans think.
Never: So, you're agnostic about the whole thing?
Me: Didn't I mean when I said I wasn't too sure.
Never: I suppose so.

Ever see those posters that praise those from these eras? Well, someone had brought a few to my job and I thought it was a bit...well, boring. So, I fixed it up.



[attachment deleted by admin]

A not-so-long rant. I was bored, but also didn't have the energy to really think about what to put in. Sad, isn't it?

The Christians have been waiting 2008 years for it...
The American people have been waiting for it for five years...
The world has been waiting for it since man first learned to kill another...
A friend of mine has been waiting for them to end for two years now...
I've been waiting for since I learned about it...
You might have been waiting for it yourself...

We've been all waiting for the same thing. We've been waiting for something called "shit that's never going to happen."

As a not-so-interesting note, I am a reverend of the Universal Life Church, so I got to thinking what my first sermon would be like. Well...

In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Now that that's been said, I would like you to totally disregard the rest of that holy book because that's about the only part that makes any real sense. Just get rid of the damn things; I don't care how. Hell, burn them for all I care. Winters do get pretty cold around here.

Want to know why I told you to get rid of those books? Take a look around you! In case you haven't noticed, the calendar says 2008, not 28. Whatever that book spouts is irreverent to today's standards and morals. I mean, we no longer stone gay people. Why? Because you don't stone people! Only assholes do that, and you don't want to be an asshole, do you?

"So, then, Reverend, what do you recommend we read?" you ask. Again, I don't really care, I just don't want you reading the bible and thinking it has to be true because, by God, the church says so. Well, this church says not. If the bible was written today, we would call the author a sadistic, amoral monster who's God seems to suffer from some serious metal disorders. If you must read the bible, then only consider it to be a very poor attempt to put gore-porn into a written medium.

If you want to really know what God wants, good luck. It happens to be quite tightlipped these days, so I won't even begin to tell you that I think I know what It wants. I don't, and neither does anyone else.

Then, what is my purpose as a Reverend? For me, it's twofold. Firstly, I'm not going to try to change your mind or your beliefs, I'm going to try to make you think about them. I can come up with some pretty insane things, but I can make it make sense. As Robert Anton Wilson said, "Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill."

Along the same lines of quoting people, Robert Ingersoll said, "I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous--if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men." One must never think that they are absolutely right, for they will find that are, for the most part, absolutely wrong. Even 1+1 doesn't always equal two.

Robert Ingersoll...bight man. He also said, "If there be gods we cannot help them, but we can assist our fellow men. We cannot love the inconceivable, but we can love wife and child and friend." Good lesson, if you ask me, because that whole quote tells you what it means. Got to love it when you actually understand what a religious person tells you. Got to also love it when he likes to keep things short because he's got better things to do then talk to you people.

Thanks for listening. Now get the hell out.

With the voting season coming soon, and the fact I have nothing better to do being a constant, the question of wither or not voting should be compulsory, free choice, or just to fuck it completely and let the strongest lead us all until someone stronger comes along, comes to mind. Of course, each comes with its own pros and cons, but then there never is a totally perfect way of doing things. But what matters is that we look at each of them, picking our sides, then starting a revolution...err...movement towards supporting your side. I'll show you the side you might want to join; I'll let it up to you on how to show your support.

First up on the block is our current way of voting for our leaders: completely free for us to choose to vote or not. Now, while it seems to have worked well over the years, past 200 and so years, when you look back on the whole thing, this system has produced some pretty bad results. Never mind our recent years, but think Regan, Carter, and the other presidents that didn't do shit or wrecked things...all of them came to be because the people voted for them.

"Well, yeah," you say, "that's how it works. It's just a popularity contest, after all." I could agree with you on that point, but the only reason we vote for our said candidate is because they are aligned with our choice party. Face it: if you belong to your party and you're going to vote, you're going to vote party, even if you disagree with that candidate.

"True," you speak up again, "but, if I really disagree with the person, then I just won't vote." Ah, there, there is the problem with free choice voting. The fact you can decline your right to vote makes the whole system unbalanced, as certain groups of people tend to vote more then others. While I'm not about to go out and research who votes more, I just want you look to the past eight years and tell me which groups tend to vote more.

Now, while this doesn't seem to be a major problem, you forgetting one thing: your own
thoughts. See, while I can't totally say it's wrong not to vote if you don't care about who wins or not, or if you truly don't like any of the candidates, I will say it is wrong for somebody not to vote if they believe that one of the candidates is a good choice. Not only are you denying yourself your own freedoms, but any complaints coming out of your mouth for an opposing administration makes you a hypocrite. See, people who voted have the right to complain, after all, they didn't vote for the guy. But you, Mister and Misses Votenot, shame on you. For all you know, you could've tilled the vote, but you had to be lazy.

This also brings up the issue of the voting age. At the beginning of high school, I could have sure damned well told you that I didn't want Bush, as did most of the people I went to high school with (it also had a little something to do with the rumors of a draft, but for the most part, we really didn't want the man). Now, right there, that could have been a lot of votes for Kerry. In fact, Kerry would've won if high school students were allowed to vote. You may not agree with me, but a lot of them have pretty strong opinions, and at times, seem more capable of choosing a president more rationally then any other citizen, which, may I remind you, students are also citizens.

So, after bashing the hell out of our current system, what one good thing could I say about? Well, I suppose it does allow a little more freedom then the other two systems would, but, as you might soon see, that might not matter.

Compulsory voting in the land of the free...sounds like an oxymoron, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. See, I can break down the types of voters down into three groups: the people who vote anyway, the people who have a person in mind to vote for but just don't find the time or are lazy, or the group who just really doesn't care. These voters should have a different view of compulsory voting, but doesn't mean they should hate having to vote.

For the first group, it doesn't really matter if they are forced to vote or not. They would vote even if they didn't have to, so being forced to doesn't really change anything for them. There really isn't anything here to elaborate on, so on to the next group.

The next group is comprised of the people who either want to vote but can't because of time constraints or won't vote because they're lazy. The time constraints can be anything from work to school to anything really. This can easily be solved with making voting a national holiday, like Christmas. Of course, the nation shouldn't stop just because it's a national holiday, but the employer should expect tardiness if they don't close. But what if you're already stuck at work or something like that? Well, we have door-to-door carolers, why not door-to-door poll workers? I could see that catching on. Same principal applies to the lazy, or the bedridden. Just send a poll worker to their house and have them vote on the spot.

Now we have the group that doesn't care. This is sort of like the first group in that it shouldn't really matter if you vote. You see, they don't care to begin with, so for them the most it'll be is a trite little annoyance to actually move their arm and hit one of the little boxes with a name next to it. Done, in a little under five seconds, and then back to the uncaring.

"Wait," you yell, "I don't believe in voting!" What the hell is wrong with you? You believe in mountains, don't you? If don't vote because you believe it doesn't work, then you're perfect for the corporate world. Your superior is the richest guy there, even if he doesn't know what he's doing. You may never see him your entire life, but he's pulling the strings. Your kind starts running the nation, that's how we'll end up. You'll just start listening to somebody because, while what they say may make no sense, it's just easier to comply then to complain. Our nation would just become one giant job...and nobody likes their job unless their on top. So vote, and be glad to know you might have a hand on electing a guy who make might sense of things.

So, really, compulsory voting doesn't restrict much in the way of freedoms. It's not like people are telling you must vote for this one guy, but rather we're telling you have to vote for somebody, preferably the person you want.

The last type of voting isn't so much voting as it is a social Darwinist dream. Sort of. Letting whoever is in power stay in power might work in some places, but how did that one person get into power? Revolution, that's how, the loss of life. If we in America let the strong become president by means of revolution, then the strong has to stay in power by staying strong, that's is, making sure their army will be strong enough to repel counterrevolutions. And with our nation filled with many ambitious people, that's going to cause a lot of death.

Yet, in America, we see power more as money then anything, so perhaps it would be run by the richest guy...that is, Bill Gates. Bad idea here, too, because, the rich become rich though corporations and all they know is how to make money for themselves. They'll run the nation as a giant corporation focused on making money while you make minimum wage or less. Or worse, no jobs because they're all overseas. With no jobs, we'll get pissed, lead a revolution, kill people, and because it was a civil revolution, that is, a revolution led against people in our own county, I have the feeling that paranoia and the constant fear that somebody will lead a forceful change will be ever present, leading us back to the first model.

So, voting is a good idea to keep around, unless somehow we get along without leaders or we become a sort of hive mind. The odds of that, of course, aren't very high. I'm going to say leadership though strength alone isn't going to happen anytime soon.

In the long about way of saying it, it would seem compulsory voting is a good idea, or at the very least, it's a logical idea. I suppose people wouldn't like their freedoms shoved down their throats, but, really, don't some people need to?