An analysis of 2006: Discordianism and the Pagans

[Cain]

I'll be sure to remember this thread next time I consider penning something a little longer, as to avoid wasting my time.

[hunter s.durden]

Quit being a fag Cain.

You have fans out here.

Keep writing.

[That One Guy]

I agree with Hunter, Cain. I thought this was an extremely well-written summation of the Paganism vs. Discordia situation. Very helpful to get me caught up to speed on the underlying situation.

If it's TL;DR, then why post that? If you REALLY want the info, you'll take the time to read it. If you don't care, don't read it.

I'm a long-winded bastard with my writing, but I don't expect every single person to read it. However, I write as much as I feel the need to to get what I need to say said. If that's a novella then it's a novella. If it's War and Peace, then it's long-winded with lots of Russian names written out in full every single time. If it's a sentence then I probably forgot something.

Write what you need to write. People will read it.

Here's your summary:

This is the improv version for non-Discordians, if you want to see it.

An analysis of the Pagan "critique" of Discordianism



Note: this was written in the aftermath of the entire MysticWicks debacle, which many of you may recall. However, it was only recently completed after I found the file in a barely accessed folder. Also, I make no apology as to my harshness of language or dismissal of idiotic positions that have been held. You will be able to tell if this applies to you or not by the described false beliefs and lies contained within. If they do not apply to you, then it is safe to assume that any generalized insults do not either.



,ÄúOne learns most precisely how the system operates by observing how it operates on its most precise enemies,Äù
-The Situationist International

Their doctrine, if such a term can be used in describing their delirious ravings, . . . is a sort of radical revolutionism with an underpinning of nihilism. . . . A monument of imbecilic fanaticism, written in a pretentious jargon, spiced with a barrage of gratuitous insults both of the political system and society in general
-Taken from ,ÄúThe Discordian Threat Explained,Äù, a highly paranoid and anonymous leaflet distributed over the south of the UK in 2006.

"A radical is nothing but a liberal with a big mouth. And a militant radical is nothing but a big-mouthed liberal with a Che costume. Balls. We're the real radicals, George.,Äù
-Mavis, The Eye in the Pyramid.


There are many who do not understand Discordianism. And somewhat less who want to make sure no more understand it. Because of this, one must consider both the ways in which Discordianism is misinterpretation and for what ends. Sometimes the motives are obvious, other times less so.

As of the present, the majority of the works about Discordians by others have been done by Pagans and there much of the blame must lie for many misinterpretations. When we consider the additional events of 2006, these are only the logical conclusions of much of the slander and misinformation that has been spread.

The most common of these tactics was to simply treat Discordianism as a parody religion that only a fool would believe in. If it was treated as a purely artistic project that only a simpleton could mistake for a real religion, its proponents are at once are sidelined. Of course, this is to totally ignore several points because they raise uncomfortable questions about the validity of other faiths, but it also fails to draw a distinction between religion, spirituality and irreligion. The foremost is what the vast majority of Pagans take part in, the second some Pagans and Discordians both take from the form of their belief system and the final is a purposeful creation of a spiritual system that undermines religion instead of meekly being alternative to it. The Church of the Subgenius would probably be the only other example of this and it is rooted in Discordianism anyway. Because of its hostility to mainstream religion, irreligions must be denied validity.

Among those with slightly more intellectual honesty, you will find most seek to downplay or ignore your contributions in an inter-religion dialogue. To accept the opinion or help or argument of a known Discordian is to acknowledge validity to the irreligion and its beliefs. Since Discordian values are set up to mock their own systems of implausible and unsustainable belief, it implicitly implies their own incorrectness (ignoring for now the admirable ,Äúquantum agnosticism,Äù of many Discordians, such as RAW, in this regard) and questioning their faith. Obviously this only applies to those who have a superficial understanding and reading of Discordianism. As the status of a person as a Discordian becomes better known, this reaction will become more common.

Of course, the next major avenue of attack is to seize upon the word ,Äúchaos,Äù while gripped with a primordial fear of anarchy, the collapse of civilization, the permission of everything and all the other desperate fantasies of intellectually stunted and repressed demagogues. Because simply reading a book is too much hassle when deciding to condemn something, the clarified Discordian definition of the word is overlooked, as well as the dialectic between Disorder and Order that is expressed. To accept that chaos is the synthesis of these two notions, that allows evolution, creation, possibility and chance, as well as understand the Discordian position of supporting one extreme to aim for the synthesis, well would require a knowledge of Western philosophy beyond that of most Pagans (while that the last statement was meant to be purposefully insulting, it is true that many are very unaware of developments outside mainstream Christianity and their own faith ,Äì over the last 2,400 years in some cases).

From the more 'intellectual' factions, we often learn that Discordians are abstract theorists, whose support for their position is intellectually based, either in a Hegelian system or philosophical anarchism. Sometimes this veers off totally into the often ludicrous world of ,Äúchaos magick,Äù, something we are certainly responsible for spawning but on retrospect probably should have put up for adoption. This tendency runs up against the problem that if these ,Äúabstract,Äù thinkers are off in some ivory tower, how do they exert the influence that causes them to be discussed in the first place? Why is it that publications that formerly suppressed any mention of Discordianism now find themselves obliged to take up ,Äúchaotic themes,Äù if they want to maintain any pretense of being abreast of contemporary reality? In short, because we apparently exist in a world of abstraction and theory, our activities and forms of dissent and attack against regimented society, authoritarian institutions and individuals are denied coverage.

Another image sees Discordians as active, to be sure, but only a curiously limited level. This claim is fairly familiar, that Discordians are active, but only within the student movement and among certain ageing Yippies and other counter-culture movements of the 60s and 70s who ,Äúought to know better,Äù. In short, we are a contemporary form of Dadaists, who run amok performing street theatre, practical jokes and constitute a lunatic fringe of activists who oppose current society and certain individuals. Here of course, we are given more credit, but who has heard of Yippies being despised by a broad section of the Pagan movement? Much less while being philosophical anarchists? This criticism often comes from the politically left inclining Pagans, for a very simple reason. In effect we are their bad conscience, who unlike them, are able and willing to act on the physical level to achieve our goals. In short, we do not make recourse to ,Äúmagic,Äù to disappear our problems, nor do we hide our timidity under a religious cloak of universal law.

While on the general subject of politics, it was important to note the many criticisms and confusion that occurred in this area. Discordianism is of course not a political philosophy, though many of its followers take an interest in it and apply certain Discordian ideas to the practice and proper conduct of government. Pagans surprisingly have some very broad and often contradictory political positions in relation to their religious beliefs. Most interesting was the emergence of ,ÄúConservo-Paganism,Äù which is neither conservative as Burke or Oakshotte would understand the term, nor particularly Pagan. Instead, it seems to be an attempt by ,Äúreligious right,Äù and free market ideologues to create a new market while splitting the usual left-environmental concerns of most Pagan groups. In addition, it is only comprehensible through the distortions of the US political system, where the meanings of political science terms have been so corrupted by populist discourse they barely resemble reality. In this case, to be a Conservative is to support the Republican party, despite its hijacking by Dominionist and Evangelical groups who would gladly see most Pagans denied constitutional rights and freedoms. Naturally, the centrist and neo-liberal Democratic Party is considered ,Äúleft wing,Äù, a vague and some would say meaningless term in a country with no history of a popular socialist party.

In other words, debate was framed under the US model, with all its misunderstandings and rhetoric. Naturally, there was disagreement with virtually every established position. We were considered anarchists because we criticized Marxism, right wingers for criticizing liberals, liberal radicals for criticizing Marx and conservatism (of the new and old varieties), socialists by the libertarians, technocrats by the primitivists and vice versa. In short, no one person could actually define our political thinking and so create false theories with which to contrast with their own beliefs. We would then be berated for not acting as a ,Äúliberal,Äù or ,Äúsocialist,Äù or whichever chosen theory should, in the mind of the attacker, be our system. Naturally, we were more liked by certain liberal sections, but mainly because we concentrated on NeoConservatvism for our attacks. Our reasons for this should be obvious, namely at the time this was the dominant force among both Congress and the Executive and allied states often fell into line regardless of their own political ideology (the UK, Israel, Australia). Attacking a group that essentially had no current power is pretty worthless, hence our sidelining of Democratic policy up until the point of the 2006 elections.

As I'm sure none of you need telling, the idea of a unified Discordian viewpoint on virtually anything is nonsense in itself, but it did not stop certain factions from seeking one, in some cases explicitly. Naturally, the complaint from this that arose was that Discordian thought was ,Äútoo complex,Äù or ,Äúcontradictory,Äù for people to understand and thus should either be abandoned or simplified. What was actually meant was that the person in question did not like Discordianism because it did not place demands on them like other religions, did not require slavish devotion to a single or two mythical characters and in short did not give them a step by step guide in how to deal with life without recourse to their own brains. Rather than admit this, they transfer their confusion and dislike onto the masses.

Finally, the reaction of authoritarian personalities to the presence of Discordians is fascinating. Putting aside concerns previous to any contact (involving favourites of the leaders and economic concerns that directed interest in certain ways), it was still a most enlightening experience. Quite obvious attempts were made to intimidate and reduce the influence of the Discordians through various tactics of removing writings from their proper place and sidelining our theories to only those who sought them out knowingly. In addition, we were placed under additional scrutiny and surveillance. More often than not an authority figure would deal with a Discordian in a far stricter manner than those of other beliefs, simply because of their recognition that we were their natural enemies. Reasons beyond this were not needed, since we were able to accurately critique their systems of control and coercion while at the same time making fun of them and refusing to be intimidated. In addition, several Discordians have managed to garner a sizeable if superficial following among certain Pagans and there was a very real threat of the place of the leaders as the centre for authority being undermined. Of course, this eventually reaches a breaking point where Discordians are expelled or otherwise coerced into passiveness so that we could no longer counteract their leadership. What was most interesting was this was framed as a Discordian problem and they and their allies were the only targets, yet it was also denied to be one because of the retaining of a couple of token dissenters, normally the more mystically inclined or those who had not yet given sufficient grounds, in terms of threat to authority, for their removal. In short, an attempt at a moral split between Discordian factions.

[Random Probability]

I think Silly was teasing the poster above him.

(I hope)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'll be sure to remember this thread next time I consider penning something a little longer, as to avoid wasting my time.

Thread drift on a discordian board?

Heavens. 

At least you don't have that dumbfuck Cowass following you around deliberately crapping on your stuff.

I read this when I first opened the thread.  I am sure most others did, too.

TGRR,
Stopped getting pissed about this ages ago.

[Cain]

No I'm annoyed because apparently my writing is "too long" for the 5 minute attention span morons to bother with.  Oh, and apparently I'm an "imbecile" as well.

[DJRubberducky]

*sigh*

You know, I really try to make the Zen contribution to these boards by *not* posting inane crap in threads which contain useful information.  So if I have read something and can't think of anything to say rather than "wow, cool" or "yeah, I agree", I don't make any posts at all.

Do I need to start, so that you can tally postcounts both for and against to determine your time-worthiness, or can you accept that some of your fans are trying to respect you by lessening the chance of thread drift?

[Cain]

Actually, I pretty much do your style as well, DJR.  Compared to what I read, what I post on is minute.

And its also the people who it came from.

But hey, they don't want anything over a paragraph from me, its no sweat.  I'll just save anything requiring more than a minute of thought for my own site and leave this place over to conversational jabberings.

[Payne]

I can see what Cain means. he puts a lot of effort in, and people will look at the length and say fuck it.

In honesty, my reply "divide in conquer doesn't work on us?" was actually a question, but oh well...

Keep posting as you are Cain, and even if all I have to say is "mittens" or a short little question, i'll say it.

[cyberus]

You know, I really try to make the Zen contribution to these boards by *not* posting inane crap in threads which contain useful information.  So if I have read something and can't think of anything to say rather than "wow, cool" or "yeah, I agree", I don't make any posts at all.

This is my general position also.  Personally, I tend to prefer paragraph form when it comes to reading shit online.  Reads more fluidly.  When I read things with lots of line breaks, it seems like the ideas can stop dead in their tracks.  While some people can do it well, I'm not one of them, and I wouldn't advocate everyone post in that style.

PS- While I wasn't around for the main MW debacle, I found this piece quite informative, and I especially liked the version for non-discordians as it ousts a lot of generalizations and stereotypes people who have heard of discordianism, but not in any learned sense, may tend to have.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Official apology - I was skimming and thought you'd quoted something the pagans had written 

I'll read it later.

[Triple Zero]

i think i read it first or second time i came across it. at least one of the versions (there's two of them right?)

it was an interesting summary of .. well the thread title

knowing myself that i have a hard time committing to reading anything long from a computer screen without getting distracted (i usually need to print the long things posted on this board if i really want to read them), i got through this pretty quickly, meaning you did a good (excellent, even) job on the writing.

[LMNO]

I'm gonna record this.

[Cain]

I suggest the second one, it flows better, IMO.

[LMNO]

Good thinking.


Any particular background audio you think would work best?