DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Though all the things Vex listed there may or may not be "Discordian" (and frankly, I'm getting very about trying to pin down a mission statement that we all agree on), but I support it because they're good ideas.

Sometimes I prefer a lot of boring with big rewards.

The pranks pulled by the Yippies were great, but their tie to the Causes, led to them being easily boxed in with the hippies, labeled and then forgotten. We'd get the same treatment, but have the labels post-modern or 'moral relativists' stamped on us.

THE LABELS!
  \


I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

RAH!

[hooplala]

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In my recent Critique of Discordia, I ran into a lot of "I don't want to proselytize any Religion" and "What's in it for Discordianism?" complaints. These are valid concerns, and ones that I agree with, I might add. They do however betray an apparent inability on my part to clearly establish what the hell I am talking about. So, let me offer a clarification of some issues that were left unanswered in the last discussion.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DISCORDIANISM." I can say this with a straight face because I am, in fact, a Discordian. I do not believe there is any useful set of guiding principles, mythos, or imagery that could ever be compiled into anything even remotely resembling a Religion whose purpose is to "teach" people anything. You cannot teach anyone anything worthwhile by acquainting them with a static mythology and expecting them to "get it." They won't.

I am a Discordian, and I do not believe in "Discordianism." I believe, rather, in DISCORDIA, which is not a religion, or a "path," or a "journey," or any such bollocks. Instead, Discordia is a phenomenon. It is a peculiar situation that arises every time a bunch of disjointed, disconnected, Discordians cooperate against large odds to accomplish something.

So I am not looking to enlarge, enhance, or enrich "Discordianism" with new members. My aim is not to establish "us" as some kind of recognizable -- let alone respectable -- religious or philosophical sect. I like my Discord as it is: impossible to replicate anywhere. If it ceased to be that, it would cease to be useful to me.

So when I say I want to see DISCORDIA make an impact, here is what I'm talking about: I'm talking about a widespread knowledge that SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. Because look -- something IS happening: BILLIONS of people are being screwed out of their natural rights; liberty is being devoured by fear; cultures are drowning in oceans of bullshit; responsibility is being erased. Can we change any of that? No. But we can sure as hell make more people AWARE of it.

As for "Discordianism," as far as the Masses are concerned, that should be no more than a sticker on our product. Their shoes were made in China, and their mindfuck was made in "Discordianism." Let them know that the Legion of Dynamic Discord exists: but don't bother trying to tell them what it is, they'll just misunderstand anyway.

Ultimately, "Activitism" is not a requirement for all Discordians -- and it should be OFF LIMITS to anybody who wants to sell "Discordianism." But it is a sacred sacrament to those of us who count ourselves as Discordians who want to see DISCORDIA grow. Not as a movement, not as a philosophy, and sure as hell not as a religion -- but as a mysterious phenomenon that forces people to ask questions.

Nice.  As I have said, "Discordianism happens to me every time I walk out my door."

It's not a religion, it's an event.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

[hooplala]

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

[wade]

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

STEAL THIS MOVIE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5858962939917432628&ei=9vM1SdRij977Ac_b7KIJ&q=steal+this+movie

the life of abbie hoffman. sweet movie.  sad too.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't suppose they were "boxed in" with hippies at all because they were hippies? And called themselves "Yippies"?

Ignorance ITT.

Do tell.

Hippies were, by and large, about peace and love - which the Yippies were certainly NOT.  "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman has plans for several types of pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.  And the term "Yippie" was coined by the press based on their actual name YIP, or the Youth International Party.  They would be considered terrorists in today's culture.

Correct. However, because most of their 'terrorism' was of the pranking sort... and because they had a concept of freedom similar to the hippy movement of the 60's, they were easily labeled, and forgotten. The problem here with the label... is that once labeled it can be dismissed. "Oh it's just those hippies again..." and the impact is nullified.

However, I also think that all of this is beside the point, now that I better understand Vex's position.

[hooplala]

True.

[Honey]

i'm terrible with examples, i guess. so sue me. i guess focus more on the "liberty is being devoured by fear" point. this isn't just your average bland altruism that i'm trying to talk about, it's that the character of our society is devolving to a point where nothing important matters at all. and it isn't just general, out-there stuff. if i live in a town where everyone is buckled down and repressed for fear of what might happen if they're not, that makes it more difficult for me to exercise my own inherent freedom, and that isn't okay with me.

i'm not really trying to save the human race, but it would be nice to foster an environment where real freedom isn't synonymous with danger, and where individual expression can be appreciated for what it is rather than abhorred for what people think it might be.

like it or not, we all have a personal stake in the larger society we live in. i don't think i can come to terms or accept the notion that Big Things just don't matter at all, because they effect me. and when the Big Things that are happening, happen because people are generally too unconscious to notice what's going on around them, and I do notice them, then what absolves me of a responsibility to draw their attention to it? It's like being on a bus when the driver has a heart attack and the rest of the passengers are asleep, then deciding it isn't my job to do something about it.

I don't give a fuck about saving the world, but god dammit, these apes are trying to take me down with them and I want to do what I can to stop them.

vexati0n I think you gave very good examples in the op.  & I really liked your 2nd reply too.  Thanks & respect.

1 of the variables in this thing we call ? is the effect the internet has on communication.  It is more possible now to get a global (bigger picture) perspective on things.  There's also a lot of stuff out there making it harder sometimes to get a handle on things.  I appreciate on this site how people from other countries can give their insights to things goin on in US.  It can provide much needed clarity.  It's hard to look at something when it's too close to your face or "in your face."

Having said that, & not wanting to veer off topic, I wanted to ask you about something?

Why so many murders in the good ole US of A?

Australia   < 100
Canada    < 200
France   < 200
Germany   < 400
Japan   < 100
UK   < 100
USA   > 10,000

Variables I have considered (please correct me or add to this list or whatever):

•   Gun ownership?  (Canadians, fr'instance own a comparable # of guns)
•   History of violence?  (many countries have comparable histories of violence)
•   Media/Propaganda?  (art, music, moving images & religions that encourage violence)
•   Marketing?  (does industry benefit/profit from encouraging &/or marketing FEAR?)
•   Laws?  (including gun ownership, punishment for crimes, etc.)
•   Government?  (does the type or form of government promote?)
•   Culture?  (a big category, not sure how to break it down)

Some facts seem to defy reason.  Fr'instance a decrease in crime in a community would seem to correlate with a decrease in gun ownership.  Not necessarily so. 

After September 11th, there was a surge in gun ownership & the purchase of home security systems with an increase in the building of gated communities.  These seem to be more *reasonable* but are, in fact, more likely to be an emotional reaction to the horrors rather than a valid & reasonable corrective measure or deterrent.

FEAR seems to be the most lucrative commodity in the last twenty years or so.  Marketing FEAR as a commodity?   Look back to the time before September 11th?   There were precursors to the disasters we face.  With the September 11th tragedy, the *powers that were* were able to draw away from the very real (& near) economic & other related tragedies of today.  These very real signs of trouble were perhaps put aside to concentrate on marketing FEAR?  Probably a very large factor in the American peoples choice to elect GBushII for his 2nd term of office.   

An honest question now?  Why so many murders in the good ole US of A?  Is it related to marketing fear?  & whudabout all the (more recent) restrictions on freedom?  Any thoughts on this?  (& sorry if this is off your original topic which I really appreciated)
 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are lots of murders in the US because, as a society, we tend to be spoiled and selfish. Murder often appears to have one of these as a underlying cause, IMO.

[AFK]

I hate to be a picky data geek, but it is more helpful to look at murder rates.  Like X number of murders per 1000 people or something like that.  Raw numbers really aren't comparable considering the U.S is going to have a huge population compared to a country like Canada.  I'm not saying the US might not still be on top, but it is just better to use those kind of stats for comparison purposes. 

[hooplala]

Toronto's murder rate, per capita, is comparable to any large American city.

[Honey]

There are web sites that list per capita.  I'll come back with them if you wish.  I was really more interested in the marketing fear angle.  Hoping to clarify my thought processes on this a bit.  My decision to focus on something measurable rested on my desire to delve further into the idea of "freedoms."  I watched Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" & admittedly the recent viewing left questions in my mind. 

There's a scene where Michael Moore is interviewing a youngish guy with a family.  I believe they are either in a gun store or at a gun rally.  Not sure which.  What left an impression in my mind was his answer to a question.  Michael Moore said something like, I understand you are buying a gun to protect your family and home (based on previous questions).  Then he was asked something like, who do you imagine is a likely person that your family needs to be protected from?  The guy pointed to Michael Moore & said "You."  Then he proceeded to point to literally everyone else in the immediate environment, "him" & "her" & "that guy over there" & "this guy" & "that person".  Quite disturbing.  This guy apparently felt anyone & everyone was a potential threat to either him &/or his family.  Now however true that may be, having that "mindset" would almost certainly curtail his freedom in simply walking out the door of his home!  & perceiving that everyone is "armed" can only make it kookier.  Of course this is only his perception of reality.  If he went to a psychologist or psychiatrist & expressed these views, he would probably be diagnosed as paranoid or at least delusional. 

American people have had many measurable restrictions on their freedoms in the last ten or more years.  We also have had instances in the past where freedoms were restricted.  (the internment of Japanese Americans citizens comes to mind.)

"The Legalization of Racism"

Many have sought recently to excuse the internment as reasonable given the information available at the time. But this claim is belied by the fact that some observers denounced—during the War itself—the internment as militarily unnecessary. Yale Law Professor Eugene Rostow concluded in an article published in 1945 that the internment rested, not on military needs, but on "race prejudice." (Rostow) Dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision in Korematsu in 1944, Justice Murphy labeled the internment the "legalization of racism." (Korematsu opinion)

Case Excerpt
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Mr. Justice MURPHY, dissenting.

This exclusion of 'all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,' from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.

... [T]his forced exclusion was the result in good measure of this erroneous assumption of racial guilt rather than bona fide military necessity...

Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead, mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judgment, supplemented by certain semimilitary conclusions drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evidence. Individuals of Japanese ancestry are condemned because they are said to be 'a large, unassimilated, tightly knit racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion.' They are claimed to be given to 'emperor worshipping ceremonies' and to 'dual citizenship.' Japanese language schools and allegedly pro-Japanese organizations are cited as evidence of possible group disloyalty, together with facts as to certain persons being educated and residing at length in Japan...

[T]he retention by some persons of certain customs and religious practices of their ancestors is no criterion of their loyalty to the United States....

I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism... All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Legalized Racism: The Internment of Japanese Americans: by Anupam Chander

http://www.chander.com/docs/internment.pdf

& Albert Einstein once said something like, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

If thinking on the same ole same o status quo level provides solutions to problems, it may not be necessary to leap to another level of thinking.  It's when thinking on the same o same o level doesn't work is when people may think of giving another level a go.  For example, all peoples are concerned about the safety of their children, right?  Look at what this guy says about this & other security related problems.  Seems counter-intuitive maybe or intuitive when you think about the problem differently.

http://www.schneier.com/news-021.html

Security Evangelist
Minnesota-based author Bruce Schneier challenges the conventional wisdom about what makes people, corporations and nations safer in the post-9/11 world.

By Leslie Brooks Suzukamo
Pioneer Press
November 19, 2006

Want to keep your kids safe? Teach them to talk to strangers, says Bruce Schneier, a Minneapolis author who happens to be one of the world's leading security experts.

The Brooklyn transplant made his reputation as a cryptographer — his work has been mentioned in "The Da Vinci Code" and on the TV show "24" — and as co-founder of the network security company Counterpane, which was recently acquired by BT, the former British Telecom.

A geek's geek who gets treated like a rock star at hacker conventions and mainstream security conferences alike, he continues as chief technology officer of BT Counterpane, a Silicon Valley-based company that manages the security of hundreds of corporations worldwide. But he's spent much of the past few years trying to change the way most of us think about security.

In books like "Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World" and "Beyond Fear," he argues that well-intentioned public policies since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have actually made us more vulnerable, not less. He wants to change public perceptions by giving ordinary folks the tools to think about security the way he does.

But there's a catch.

"A lot of what I do is (analyze) risk," he said. "And risk is math."

Consider, for example, the risk faced by a lost child. Schneier says the safest strategy is for the child to pick out the nearest nice-looking stranger and ask for help.

That's the math part. By making the kid choose the stranger, and not the other way around, Schneier says the odds are that the child will pick someone who will help him. If he waits for an adult to help him, he's increased the odds that the adult is a predator who has targeted him.

"When was the last time you talked to a stranger and got mugged by him?" he asked rhetorically. "People are basically good. If that were not true, society would have fallen apart a long time ago."

Besides, he says, kids have good people instincts.

Schneier says that most people have a pathology about risk that prevents them from dealing with security threats rationally. 

He's dealing with that, though. "Rather than bang my head against the wall, I think it's a lot smarter to try to figure out where people's understandings begin, where their proclivities and pathologies come from."

HE TRUSTS HIS MATH
...

Even in the quirky and murky world of security, Schneier stands out. Computer experts are often accused of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt — they nicknamed it FUD — so they can promote technology, but Schneier is the odd-duck nerd who insists technology by itself isn't going to save us.

For example, Schneier believes security needs to be malleable, stretchable and pliable, so that when it breaks — and it will break — it breaks in a predictable way.

Predictable security buys you time for backup to arrive. A bank makes crooks hurdle layers of security — guards, a vault, an alarm system — to give the cops time to get to the bank.

By contrast, a hard but brittle system, once cracked, lays bare all its secrets like a broken piñata.

On the national security front, Schneier asks why we ban liquids from being carried on board airplanes instead of spending money to hire and train lots more guards to wander through airports and look for suspicious activity of all kinds. And he raises a larger issue: Is there a way to get ahead of the threats instead of reacting to each new one?

Though not yet a household name, Schneier's expertise is increasingly sought out after every well-publicized security lapse.

Take the case a few weeks ago of Christopher Soghoian, a 24-year-old Ph.D. candidate in the computer sciences from Bloomington, Ind. When he put a tool on his Web site that let anyone create forged boarding passes for Northwest Airlines flights, he said he was trying to highlight a flaw in the nation's airline security procedures that would allow someone to bypass the federal No-Fly list.

The FBI confiscated Soghoian's computers. When reporters called Schneier to comment, he told them that he had pointed out that particular vulnerability three years ago.

"I think we really need to ask why the government is shooting the messenger here, when it should be spending its time fixing this obvious loophole," Schneier told the Washington Post.
...

His security books are considered models of clarity and readability, even the first one, which bears the scary title, "Applied Cryptography."

"The first seven or eight chapters you can read without knowing any math at all," Walker said. "The second half of the book you can't export overseas — it's classified as munitions."

SEES LIBERTIES AT RISK
The American Civil Liberties Union lauds Schneier for opposing surveillance technologies and some anti-terrorism measures that he feels encroach upon civil liberties.

"Bruce knows we are heading toward a surveillance society," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. "He knows the solution is not to smash the technology," he said. "It is to put some chains on the monster, and that means laws and rules."

Schneier himself expresses concerns about some measures, such as the new abilities of a president to hold detainees suspected of terrorism indefinitely without charges. The son of a New York state appeals court judge, Schneier considers the Constitution and the law as "security devices" for society that safeguard liberties. He said the new anti-terrorism laws weaken privacy rights and put everyone's security at risk.

The government disagrees. "To say we're less secure since 9/11 is a ridiculous statement, given all we've done since 9/11," said Joanna Gonzalez, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The ban on taking liquids on airplanes, for instance, came in response to a specific threat, but the Transportation Security Administration is training officers to not only use technology like bag scanners but also to recognize suspicious behavior, she said.

"We're going to keep changing, and we're going to be a step ahead of them," she said.

Schneier's security peers sometimes think he overstates the threats.

"He tends to see Big Brother, and I tend to see it (the government) as too ineffective to worry about," said Marcus Ranum, the chief security officer of a rival company, Tenable Network Security. Ranum is better known for helping to develop and implement some of the first commercial firewalls in the early 1990s.

But Ranum and Schneier share a mutual respect, and have debated various security topics on their blogs.

Ranum compares Schneier to a brick maker who gradually started to see the big picture. Schneier learned how to build a house — the security system — once he realized that encryption alone — the brick — wasn't enough to safeguard secrets.

Fear seems to be more prevalent in US.  Why?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I know both Ranum and Schneier... I would never want to be between them in an argument about geek/tech/security. I mean, I may be big stuff at Limited Brands... but those bastards make me feel like "N00by N00b" the New Guy. I've heard both of their arguments on this a number of times and I think they're both right. We do seem to be moving toward a surveillance society, but thus far, the government does appear to be rather incompetent. Of course, I still entertain the argument that Bush Administration hasn't been intentionally evil the last 8 years, but possibly just completely inept and incompetent.

Then again, I do use PGP for almost all email communication and have a pretty healthy paranoia when it comes to the government. Just because they're incompetent doesn't mean you won't end up in GitMo...

[fomenter]

i kinda lean toward saying culture
•   Culture?  (a big category, not sure how to break it down)

a partial break down - things i see being fairly contributory
-wealthy scociety
-a advertising driven "having stuff is the measure of success/happiness"culture
-lots of people don't have stuff and see it as the reason they are unhappy or see themselves as unsuccessfully
-a historic/cultural love affair with outlaws
-drug laws creating opportunity for quick acquisition of stuff and outlaw status

this is a far from comprehensive list of Americas contributory cultural problems.

edit to add - we love solutions that seem quick and easy a cultural love of get rich quick