/gov/ - Governance

>political axes
We're full of complete idiots, apparently.
>posted by grayface anti-erisian
No surprises there.

>>1603
>grayface anti-erisian
what makes you say that?
of course political axes are stupid. I'm asking the question because the responses to the thread will give me a sense of what kinda people there are here.

>I'm asking the question because the responses to the thread will give me a sense of what kinda people there are here.
You could simply lurk and find out, dweller.

also >totalitarian >traditional
very odd that you would want to browse an imageboard devoted to the goddess of chaos, populated by followers of a religion founded by libertarian hippies for the express purpose of freeing ourselves from dogmas. But I guess greyface dumbshits have been pretending to be "occult" since forever.

>>1606
Everything is a dogma, anon.
Tradition-wise I'm in favor of  establishing/honoring erisian traditions.
If you think Discordianism is nothing more than a parody created to piss off anyone who's not a hippie then you've got a shallow view.

>>1607
>Everything is a dogma, anon.
not catmas!
>Tradition-wise I'm in favor of  establishing/honoring erisian traditions.
in which case you have forgotten the most important one, which is to disestablish/dishonor erisian traditions.

download.png
[Hide] (85KB, 800x650)

>>1601
We already had this thread

>>1607
Name one erisian tradition grayface scum.

>>1610
Bullet hell cat posting

>>1611
That's just an erischan tradition

>>1608
>which is to disestablish/dishonor erisian traditions
Says who? You must've read it somewhere. Dumb popes always believe what they read.
>>1610
That's what i meant by establish. Those holy days oughta be good for something.

>>1609
The least thread >>78 was 3 years ago but was more active. 
Did we lose users?

>>1614
They are fighting Taliban in Afghanistan. We will see user increase after they defeat Taliban. It isn't weird a cabbage like you won't know this thought.

>>1615
Why the fuck would they be fighting the taliban

>>1616
you should lurk more.

>>1617
I've lurked enough. Seems to me you're fucking retarded.

>>1618
If you don't know why we fight more you clearly didn't.

>>1619
Can you speak english?
I've lurked long enough to know you're speaking gibberish

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (153.7KB, 1449x969)

i think i broke 8values

**many of the questions misinterpreted my answers, these aren't very reflective of my values*

>>1621
Sometimes they just state a reasonable statement and assume you affirming it means you give a fuck about it.

>>1613
>Says who?
me.
>>1622
this is the main reason why political quizzes are garbage. Not really different from "what kind of Hot Pocket are you?"

>>1621
>globalist
>pacifist
>equality
>secular
>progress
>multicultural
Holy shit, thats horrible.

all the food groups.jpeg
[Hide] (53.7KB, 474x474)

>>1623
w-what kind of Hot Pocket am i?

>>1625
I don't know, you need to take my quirky quiz to find out! http://goatse.cx

>>1624
Cry more grayface

>>1627
>grayface is anything I don't like
what a fucking greyface

>>1628
Nah mate, grayface is complaining about people having different beliefs, and not being funny while doing it.

>>1629
then you should've called out >>1603 for improper usage.

>>1630
Why? That cabbage was rightfully pointing out such tests are dumb.

>>1631
thanks for clarifying you can't read

>>1632
Someone's grumpy again

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (188.8KB, 477x269)

>>1630
>totalitarian anti-change 'we need order and control' ideolovalues
>not cursed o' grayface

>>1634
How is it anti-change or grayface?
Would you call western democracies pro-change? You're just saying random shit.

>>1635
>How is it anti-change or grayface?
Uniform change seeks to stifle people's ability to change themselves, centralizing all the change under a dictator or a committee. You get one moderate shift, usually towards populist values, and then stagnation.

>Would you call western democracies pro-change?
Hell no, corporate techocracy is all about keeping the things the way they are, and is even prepared to utilize totalitarianism in third world countries to ensure that. There's countless historical examples of this.

>>1636
Is it worth valuing individual change if it has no repercussions?
The path of individualism gives the reigns of the social process to the social hierarchy. They become obsessed with material nitpicks just to get a step up on that ladder.
It's not the individual that matters, but their ideas.
I'm not a fan of centralization. I believe in a decentralized discordian society where each cabal rules an episcipality however they please. A sort of confederation of totalitarian city-states
In historical terms, I think totalitarian regimes bring about the most change of all. They actively involve ever facet of society in the geopolitical puzzle looming over them.
Extremism leaves no taboo untouched, which allows for a much more dynamic range of change and societal interchange.
Your mention of stagnation imply that such a thing is worth worrying about. Entropy is just another part of change. Topics like death and poverty shouldn't be abstained from when it means diversifying the ways someone can experience the world. Change isn't always going forward, backwards counts too.

>>1637
>incoherent wall of text
I'll try to respond every fragment nevertheless.

-Why would being against totalitarianism make me be for extreme individualism? The social hierarchy is something totalitarians often raise on a pedestal, while anarchists try to dissolve it.
-Raising ideas over individuals is the idealist politics that makes world a miserable place to live. If the only part focusing in individual needs is some marketing team looking to sell you bullshit products that also isn't good for anyone. Real question is how to put ideas in practice so that the individuals collectively feel better.
-You cannot have a decentralized totalitarian state, there is no way to enforce the totalitarian values, whatever they may be, without top down control.
-History focuses on warfare and totalitarian states are especially good at making that happen. Just look at the totalitarian states today and see their contributions to the science, arts, social developement: yes, absolutely nothing. Most notably that fat korean guy managed to invent a nuclear bomb over 50 years late.
-Stagnation is anti-change
-Death prevents a person from experiencing a world in any way and poverty limits your options down to the narrow path between death from overworking and starvation.
-Oscillating between going forwards and backwards isn't change.

>>1638
>social hierarchy is something totalitarians often raise on a pedestal
The key word here is often. I'm not trying to recreate the past. I want the social hierarchy to be as confusing as possible. A non-euclidean ladder would be best.
>anarchists try to dissolve it.
Historically anarchist groups have had leaders. The closer you are to that leader the higher your social value is. Otherwise, mob mentality often favors the bravest or the oldest. It's no different from tribe/pack mentality. They have very simple social hierarchies.
>Real question is how to put ideas in practice so that the individuals collectively feel better.
Why is that the real question? There will always be people who will not appreciate something as long as they do not know its opposite. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding marketing teams. Seems like a strange rant.
>You cannot have a decentralized totalitarian state
Yes you can. That top down control exists in those decentralzied entities, aka the city states. Together those city states make up a confederation. If one city is overthrown other cities will just invade. The constant tension, balance and geopolitical jigsaw puzzle of the different cities would make for an interesting scenario full of change. Call it peer-to-peer totalitarianism.

>>1638
>>1639
>totalitarian states do not contribute to science, arts, social development
The DPRK is a very small country. One of two currently existing totalitarian regimes. It is isolated and victim of mass embargo. Of course it would develop a nuclear bomb only 50 years late. That aside, historically totalitarian regimes like Germany during WW2 have been on top of the game regarding science and the arts. So much so that America captured their scientists. However, I don't think any of those things are essential factors to constant change and variety. If anything, science has progressed too fast. If we hadn't invented the plane so quickly we could have had an age of zeppelin connoisseurs.
>Stagnation is anti-change
False. Stagnation is change. I don't know how you can argue the opposite.
>Death prevents a person from experiencing a world in any way and poverty limits your options down to the narrow path between death from overworking and starvation.
Would you rather live a short and eventful life or a long and boring one? Poverty doesn't equal starvation or overworking. You can be poor and content. I'm not implying people should stay poor. I'm saying there should be economic variety. Change to diversify your outlook. People need to experience death to experience life to the fullest, and vice versa.
>Oscillating between going forwards and backwards isn't change.
Why? Why isn't it change? You're changing people's lives for the better or worse. Their experiences and their views. How is that not change?

>>1639
>Historically anarchist groups have had leaders.
The existence of leaders does not imply the existence of a state or state-like hierarchy. If my bud is a better leader than me when we're backpacking we're not forming a tiny state.
>The closer you are to that leader the higher your social value is.
this is precisely the kind of pecking-order mentality that anarchists wish to dissolve.
>That top down control exists in those decentralzied entities, aka the city states. Together those city states make up a confederation.
Those city-states would have to have some kind of method of reaching consensus, so it would only be totalitarianism in each city-state, not a wider totalitarianism in the whole confederation.
You are correct though that decentralization is not the antithesis of totalitarianism. Capitalism is a prime example of how there does not need to be a single controlling entity for peoples' lives to be very controlled.

I found this place completely at random draw. Which seems fitting? I have no idea what you are all on about.
>pol-ax
No god damn clue and doesn't seem like it ever mattered. Which ever side rused me the best I suppose.

Feel like something big is gonna happen soon, and I don't know where I'm gonna be when it happens, where I should be, and where I should go. That's assuming I even survive long enough for that to even matter.

>>1642
>I found this place completely at random draw.
How does that happen? Surely you were referred here by another website.
>Feel like something big is gonna happen soon
Geopolitically there is always something going on.
Russia threatened military action if Ukraine joined NATO.
NATO says it is now considering letting Ukraine join.
That sort of stuff.

>>1643
>How does that happen?
Surely you have spent much time typing random URLs into the search bar in the hopes that Eris will deign to give you a website to browse

>>1644
only like 5 weeks at a time but then I started clicking the blue links

>>1641
>The existence of leaders does not imply the existence of a state or state-like hierarchy.
It usually implies the existence of a group with a very visible dominating influence on the oligarchy of violence. Whoever controls the violence controls the state.
>Those city-states would have to have some kind of method of reaching consensus, so it would only be totalitarianism in each city-state, not a wider totalitarianism in the whole confederation.
Correct

>>1647
>It usually implies the existence of a group with a very visible dominating influence on the oligarchy of violence. Whoever controls the violence controls the state.
Here you sound like you are assuming that any form of social organization is necessarily based on violence and the threat of it. Yes, violence is among the things the society has to control, be it preventing it, directing it, or arousing it. For example having cultural violence happening from minority of homophobes towards another minority of homosexuals isn't easy to solve without no capability of violence at the disposal of the social organization. On the other hand most people tend to cooperate better when there's no guns pointed at them, especially in organizational forms beneficial to them and not just the leading elite.

>>1648
What a weird example.
Anyhow, people usually don't have to have a gun pointed at them. Just having people with guns and authority walking around the streets is a good enough of a reminder. That is what the monopoly of violence is. Any social organization that does not use violence is only subordinate to any organization that does. These will appear out of thin air.

>>1649
>What a weird example.
Violence against minorities is something that happens after over millenia of cultural propaganda against them. I wanted to point out that violence isn't only a state thing.

It's different to have the people with guns patrolling the street if they are protecting your interests. One anarchist critique of police in every western country is that they are more likely to suppress economic damage caused by strikes, theft or whatnot than damage caused to regular citizens from hate crimes or sexual violence. Wouldn't you rather have a police force that exists for the people rather than for the economic intrests of the governing elite?

>>1650
I think that's a heavily biased view.

>>1651
I think you are biased when you say it's biased. I'm not claiming you aren't correct, you just aren't adding anything new to the conversation

>>1652
Nor does a biased view.
>>1650
>violence isn't only a state thing
that much is apparent to literally everyone, isn't it?
The monopoly on violence is something completely different from just normal violence.

>>1653
Expand on how it is biased instead of complaining.

>>1654
A strike is a mass protest of people. It can be peaceful or violent. In case of violence it can turn into a riot, which is very dangerous not only for the private companies whose shops are being stolen from, but also for the government who might have to handle a potential local insurgency. They are at risk of losing the monopoly on violence there, just like how it happened in eastern Ukraine.
Hate crimes and sexual violence are usually not organized and not in an easily discernible location. They happen in private settings and are often one-on-one occurances.
Furthermore, the topics themselves are opinionated as different people believe there to be different meanings to the words. A sizable portion thinks hate crimes don't exist in the first place. This in effect makes it impossible for a policing force to discern what happened in a situation they were not a witness to. It's night impossible to police such a thing.

>>1654
>>1655
In addition, barely ever is any physical harm done in such a situation. If there was, how do you prove it was a hate crime? How do you prove it was based on sex, sexuality, world view, etc?

>>1656
>barely ever is any physical harm done in such a situation.
untrue in the light of history. Nobody wouldn't be complaining if it wasn't words coupled with physical violence.

>If there was, how do you prove it was a hate crime
That's the words part. In times before internet people used to be very open about being bigots, and that hasn't really changed. If some fuck keeps shouting in their twitter how they wanna kill all the homos, and then goes and beats up one it's not really that hard to do the math.

>>1658
Okay, but the western world isn't in the past anymore. If anything the whole push to include minorities in everything against the will of the public majority is just aggravating tensions and bringing that violence back.
I don't know why we are talking about this by the way. It has little to do with change or changing the dynamics of politics. Moral laws deserve to be more bizarre than "sticking up for the little guy". Amorality is where it's at.

>>1659
>Okay, but the western world isn't in the past anymore.
it this then
>the whole push to include minorities in everything against the will of the public majority is just aggravating tensions and bringing that violence back.
Then why this. Why is group wanting to be included causing a violent response if it isnt for old hatered bubbling under?

>It has little to do with change or changing the dynamics of politics. Moral laws deserve to be more bizarre than "sticking up for the little guy".
If people keep reacting violently to something as banally weird as buttsex, you got no chance of introducing anything truly strange into the reality.

>Amorality is where it's at
Amorality is the status quo in the business world, fully explored, and very much predictable by game theory. I need truly new and interesting ways to live, not the same shit in different packages.

>>1660
>Why is group wanting to be included causing a violent response if it isnt for old hatered bubbling under?
Because that group keeps altering in nature. It's a push for X, but by the time that X is halfway through the door it starts to grow a tail with even more new values people have to accept.
It's a whole push for "progress", but the definition of inclusivity is becoming so stretched that you're alienating the normal person.
I'm beginning to feel the whole trans thing is more like a trend, like the whole my little pony shit was. It just doesn't appeal to everyone. Especially not to people who haven't been in that sphere of influence.
For old people it might well be old hatred, but most young people aren't raised to be homophobic. They still end up being it, just because they're surrounded by people who tell them what they should think. It's all so pink and weird that it really doesn't suit a lot of people's style. There's a reason they're a minority.
>If people keep reacting violently to something as banally weird as buttsex, you got no chance of introducing anything truly strange into the reality.
You might very well be right about that, though it might seem more acceptable if it comes in different shapes and sizes.
I'm not trying to push strange concepts onto the common masses, although that would be funny. I think it'd be more interesting for Discordianism to truly come into its own by developing its own culture, language and songs. I'd want to start an commune to raise an isolated new generation of children with those kinds of values. I think that's one way to create something interesting.
>Amorality is the status quo in the business world
Widely applied, though not often to full effect due to humanity's outcry. I think it'd be more interesting if applied on the human level.

>>1661
>Because that group keeps altering in nature. It's a push for X, but by the time that X is halfway through the door it starts to grow a tail with even more new values people have to accept.
Like what? To me it sounds more like you haven't used time to figure out what a thing is and when you find out new sides about a thing you think it has morphed although it stayed the same. It's also possible you are slowly sinking deeper into anti-thing propaganda. Be less vague  what do you mean by this? Is it just the usual slippery slope argument about the next step being necrophilia or some shit?

>It's a whole push for "progress", but the definition of inclusivity is becoming so stretched that you're alienating the normal person.
A typical person is quite ok with queer people. Some feel attacked by how other people choose to live for some dumb reason.

>I'm beginning to feel the whole trans thing is more like a trend
Nope, know your history

>most young people aren't raised to be homophobic.
You don't understand how cultural phenomena like homophobia function. When I was kid, "gay" was readily used as a slur, it wasn't that long ago, and I still hear it from the moutgs of local schoolchildren. At the same time we got massive online propaganda machines spewing out false information and memes just because some fundamentalist millionares got too much money on their hands. It's really just an ancient, toxic meme designed to push sexual uniformity on people.

>I'd want to start an commune to raise an isolated new generation of children with those kinds of values
Sounds like a cult, be careful those usually end up going really fucked up for several reasons beyond your control.

>I think it'd (amorality) be more interesting if applied on the human level.
That's just garden variety sociopathy. If you haven't ever come across one of those people, it's really more pathological than interesting.

>>1661
>I'm not trying to push strange concepts onto the common masses, although that would be funny. I think it'd be more interesting for Discordianism to truly come into its own by developing its own culture, language and songs.
Yea and that's possible for discordianism, because you cannot become discordianist without contact with the discordian knowledge, community and/or art. You cannot be victimized for being discordian because anybody doesn't even know what it is. On the other hand you can born to be gay, surrounded by only straight people, who sure as hell think they know what gay is and are sure to tell you all about it. It's the reason queer people are so damn loud. It's outreach. There's some poor kids who think they are unnatural and disgusting for their identity, because that's all they've ever heard from their family. Feel to flee to your solitary commune and let the grayfaces think everyone else is a grayface too, and enforce grayfaceness on every soul around them. With some luck you are able to live the rest of your life afraid that they'll seek you out and burst your bubble. Then again, if you'd really want to make this world weirder, you wouldn't insulate yourself from it, you'd stay and fight. Which it's gonna be grayling?

>>1662
I think this is just devolving into a boring loop of a conversation that's been had a thousand times before. It's not interesting. Why did you choose to talk about this subject?

>>1664
>begins to strawman so hard that they think the conversation is predetermined
Whatever dude, you don't need to keep going if it's uncomfy. I just honestly think some of your views are harmful and you may end up hurting yourself if you don't part with them.

>>1665
It is predetermined.
I'd rather hold harmful views than boring ones.

>>1666
>social justice has gone too far
>only way to rule is by violence
>amorality is fun
Having the starter set channer toxic masculinity belief-system on an imageboard is somehow not boring?

Capture+_2018-02-20-18-55-59.png
[Hide] (142KB, 620x776)

>>1601
Are we discordians so bored of the Erisian mysteries that we must play the game of governance? I conspire that OP is Greyface behind a monitor or a cabbage whom found himself in a silly place

Regardless, I do like the points you all give. You all give a lot for a mind to chew on. So, in thanks, I will give a few of my thoughts political. Specifically what my ruminations upon the chao lead me to believe. Perhaps I'm crazy though: but I cannot see myself.
I believe mankind suffers its maladies because we take too seriously what the gods made for fun. I think we all get off on the wrong foot and treat each other as things, demographics, categories, nouns, etc.; when in reality, we are verbs. Every individual is a collection of choices and actions, out of the infinite and into the infinite with Eris dancing our parts with us (whether we like it or not). I think it's worse when we treat ourselves as things. Mankind is born free, yet verily he chains himself. Is identity a fnord or was it ego? I think, nowadays, that identity is the hallmark of a sick ego (all of which are fnords, in some sense). One which takes things too seriously. Treating others as things surely is a sin under Eris; if not that, then surely treating ourselves as things would be considered sin? 

Tbf, I also conspire that I am a web-spinning spider named Toby who is dreaming of being a human.

>>1667
I don't want to rule by violence. I want to rule by confusion.

>>1716
>I conspire that OP is Greyface behind a monitor or a cabbage whom found himself in a silly place
If you believe a fondness for totalitarian regimes is a common/grayface trait then you're blind to the world. It's a thousand times easier to find a "freedom fighter" than an "anti-freedom fighter".
>Treating others as things surely is a sin under Eris
Sins do not exist under Eris. If such a rule existed she'd have broken it by kickstarting the Trojan War.

>>1717
Sorry, I did not define what I had meant. I do not mean sin in that stale sense of spiritual law. I'm not even against sin. I indulge in it myself (at least, what I've come to call sin). We humans are quick to blame the gods or the world. We think they devise our fate. Yet man, in our choices, assigns griefs greater than the grief which fate assigns. 

I would add to this list 'sins' ignorance and inaction. These 3 'sins,' are repugnant to the individual, if not the discordian. Though, in cabalistic fashion, I've also twisted 'virtue' into my vernacular. The 3 virtues to combat the 3 sins would be spontaneity, knowledge and a 3rd thing which I have yet to name (or maybe I lost it); but equates to the realization that those things out there are actually verbs, too.

I think this fits quite well into the ideal of the Original Snub. Eris understood that she was not treated as an equal or treated as a thing (the first sin committed against her, but she does not turn away as they did, she played by their rules). She, being Snubbed, devises a plan and uses the Gods' own natures against them (here knowledge has defeated ignorance for Eris, but the Gods' ignorance damns them). With the Golden Apple thrown she celebrates with a Hot Dog (spontaneity defeats inaction. Zeus yielded to inaction in favor of Paris and everyone got screwed).

>If you believe a fondness for totalitarian regimes is a common/grayface trait then you're blind to the world
I think you misunderstand me, I am not against regimes either totalitarian or non-totalitarian (take your pick). I am against the political idea of ideology. Conclusions are just dead ends. Though how I connect between this and my discourse on identity is beyond my scope. But I am getting there. 

>easier to find a "freedom fighter" than an "anti-freedom fighter".
Have you ever wanted to meet an anti-freedom fighter? That may be the problem

California_Uber_Alles.webm
[Hide] (2.7MB, 480x360)

>>1717
>If you believe a fondness for totalitarian regimes is a common/grayface trait then you're blind to the world.
it's pretty retro, sure. But totalitarianism is making a comeback in a major way! All the tastemakers are getting hip to the idea that being crushed under the boot of the collective is desirable and good. Party like it's 1935 babey!

>>1718
I dunno I don't see much pride in being an individual. Individualism is rampant today and I want none of it. I'm more than okay with being a throwaway joke rather than one of a million "main characters".
>I am against the political idea of ideology. 
We can agree on that. Confusion is key.
>Have you ever wanted to meet an anti-freedom fighter?
Yes.
>All the tastemakers are getting hip to the idea that being crushed under the boot of the collective is desirable and good.
All people desire different flavors of boot.
In all fairness, being a freedom fighter is more fun in a world where they are actively repressed. I aim for entertainment.

>>1719
>>1720
Woops, forgot to mention post number

>>1716
indeed, this is part of the reason why a political compass thread is inherently greyfaced as are all political ideologies. Someone who identifies with a label (i.e., they identify as gay, straight, black, white, socialist, conservative, or even anarchist) is someone who has grown to love their chains. This is especially true of anyone who identifies with a label that falls along red versus blue lines. It may be indeed that such a person is really accurately described by such a label, but if those adjectives become part of the noun which is "me" it corrupts and warps. It is a sign of the great triumph of advertising that so many people not only see the world in terms of these adjectives, but they see *themselves* in terms of these adjectives, and put social pressure on others to do the same. It's not a long shot from there to straight up bootlicking. It's fnorded up man.

>Tbf, I also conspire that I am a web-spinning spider named Toby who is dreaming of being a human.
Somewhat dope. Moderately based.

>>1720
>I'm more than okay with being a throwaway joke rather than one of a million "main characters".
I can demand no otherwise from you. There is no one we can be but ourselves. We are given the draw by life, we just gotta play that hand or fold. 
I'm unsure if defending individualism was my goal upon reading back, but I do like this spot. Since I am here, might as well go with it.
 I would say it is individualism which has ruled all man since Prometheus came to the apes. For though violence has gotten us this far; disobedience, recalcitrance,  rebellion have brought us farther to this point. Look at our Erisian movement, for example. None of these things could not exist nor bring change if not for individualism.

I cannot deny the line, the factory sealed fnord for sell in every pocket. For the right price one can be just one of many. Drafted, consumer-consumed, included, represented, being a part, etc. Whereas (forgive my absolutisms) the true individual, the one out of many, that verb, possess all of mankind's virtues with none of the vices.

>>1722
also before someone comes in saying "buh buh it's cool and Discordian to lick the boot!" only if you make a silly face and smile at the cameras while doing it. Tongue that boot like it's your mom's pussy. But typically those wearing boots don't like that, they're always obsessed with their image and if you don't take them seriously it's actually worse than if you actively resisted them.

Some kind of eristocratic regime of course would not have this problem, but then it wouldn't be a typical totalitarianism but instead more of a totaliterisianism, where we are all required to disobey and disrespect (or else!).

>>1724
>it wouldn't be a typical totalitarianism but instead more of a totaliterisianism, where we are all required to disobey and disrespect (or else!).
Was Emperor Norton playing 23d chess all those years ago? If Hubbard told Bob the Secret: perhaps Emperor Norton painted a map for us. Perhaps every man, woman and child is in fact a sovereign.

>>1725
but of course, what is a pope without papal states?

I want to lick the boots of a web-spinning spider named Toby who is dreaming of being a human because it's like a four for the price of one deal and I'm cheap like that.

>>1723
>I'm unsure if defending individualism was my goal upon reading back
I'm unsure what your point was at all, reading back.
>Look at our Erisian movement, for example. None of these things could not exist nor bring change if not for individualism.
The thing about Discordianism is that it's easy to focus on the more colorful and interesting people who have come to represent it such as emperor Norton and Hung Mung.
But in the Erisian movement - as is true everywhere - there too are people that are unfit to be individualists for their sheer lack of creativity.
Ponder the streets and wonder why everyone's wearing brand clothes. Their individualism ends by climbing the social ladder created by local standards. In other words, they wear expensive-to-buy shit to get others to be impressed by them. They only live for themselves and others' impression of themselves.
A true individualist would not care for others, but in that same sense often falls into the same trap of finding a subculture that represents them. Such is human psyche.
>disobedience, recalcitrance,  rebellion have brought us farther to this point.
Sure, and as such an erisian should always rebel. This also means you must rebel against freedom. That is just the way it goes.

>>1728
>it's easy to focus on the more colorful and interesting people who have come to represent it
If we sit around waiting for the next Emperor Norton or Hung Mung we might as well disband the discordian movement. I undestand where you are coming from, however the world belongs solely to the living. It's up to you or I or whoever wants to, to do something with the Movement. We can't expect the dead to do all the work. Eris most certainly won't.

>there too are people that are unfit to be individualists for their sheer lack of creativity.
I do not believe individual implies creativity. I agree somewhat. But we are all better artists than we realize. I believe the reciprocity between individuals is the key. The Principia was written by 2 authors (maybe more, depending who you ask). Emperor Norton certainly hired a great PR agent. 

>They only live for themselves and others' impression of themselves.
Is a distracted, blunted life bad? Perhaps the apparent lack of individuality denotes hints that we may actually dwell within the realm of the dead? Cosmic conspiracies aside: I do believe that those people wearing brands and damning each other as nouns, are still individuals. No matter what, they still possess self determination and free will. They chose for themselves how they live (i would hope). You yourself point out that every individual finds an in-group eventually. There is a gamble for everything, it's up to us to decide if the gamble is worth it.

>>1728
I question ultimately the rejection of individuality, both of others and ourselves. When people started believing the Greyface and peeped about only to find dishonorable things. I cannot help but lament, our species is tricked or overrun by cabbages. We damn each other and abase ourselves. We think only of ourselves among others and think only of others when we are alone. Our toys are gilded chains 
I hope, as my grand ambition, to trick this species of space monkeys into realizing that nothing is true and everything is permitted.
>This also means you must rebel against freedom. That is just the way it goes.
You are not wrong. I would say that loyalty to anything would imply the willingness to betray it. The alternative, you become chained to it and it dictates your thoughts, choices and actions. I believe even freedom does this. Though I would prefer to say freedom is merely having nothing left to lose; in reality, it has become a cold ideology as well. I haven't figured out my gamble on this part or even where I place such a bet. But when I find it, I shall consider it

>>1730
>nothing is true
including the statement "nothing is true"
>and everything is permitted
including the unpermitting of everything

Thelema is some dumb bullshit that trust fundies made up so theyd have an excuse to have orgies. But you dont need an excuse to have an orgy, you can just have one.

>>1731
no you can't

Freedom is just another four letter word, but with some extra letters tacked on to the end for aesthetic purposes.

>>1729
>If we sit around waiting for the next Emperor Norton or Hung Mung we might as well disband the discordian movement.
Of course, but we must be willing to sacrifice some parts of ourselves that we believe to be unoriginal. Our ideas are more important than our egos.
>The Principia was written by 2 authors
Even there, it's plain to see which ideas were authored by who. It seems Malaclypse had a much deeper imagination than his counterpart.
>Is a distracted, blunted life bad?
Yes. If one's mind is too dim to grasp greater things, I believe greater things must imposed upon them. People usually get more original the more they are pressured. Suffering builds character.
>when I find it, I shall consider it
I look forward to your findings.

9efe844f1c3985bdb3097a1021aa81f856eecd27ea9e062bcbd0cb4700d0e0ab.png
[Hide] (650.2KB, 720x960)

>>1733
the "dom" is silenjt

>>1736
Yes and sometimes the "free" can be silenjt too. It's like with those self-flying cars, you've really got to pick your spots.

>>1643
Basically looked down a list of other "chan" sites and clicked. I don't even know why I remember to check back here ether. Entertaining and interesting threads though.

xjpQna05Aag+XjqAIKAKKgCKgCCgCioAioAgoAo2CgBKQRtkpnacioAgoAoqAIqAIKAKKgCLQBAgoAWmCTdQlKAKKgCKgCCgCioAioAgoA.cioAgoAoqAIqAIKAKKgCLQBAgoAWmCTdQlKAKKgCKgCCgCioAioAgoAo2CgBKQRtkpnacioAgoAoqAIqAIKAKKgCLQBAj8P6fvURLn8DeuAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC.png
[Hide] (109.8KB, 800x650)

No matter how hard I try, I come out soclib.

Futarchy is my ideal political arrangement.