Murphy’s Bye-Laws

The G20 Summit, something I would normally ignore, has come to my proverbial backyard and has drawn my attention to the protesters and the ratcheted up police-state that spontaneously sprout up around such glaring symbols of exploitation, injustice, and power. When I first heard of the event coming to town I was inexplicably anxious to be there and find some way to protest. This reaction, springing from anger and frustration with nary an outlet, was inexplicable because I had decided some time ago that protesting is not my thing (after an April 15th protest at a US Post Office) and that I cannot stand to be in a very large crowd – especially when a good portion of the crowd are bend on violence (talking about the LEOs, of course). Returning to my senses, I instead started mental preparations to absorb all of the misinformation about anarchists that would flood the news. As some of this flood is now bearing down upon us, I thought I might try to levy some sense to keep my feet dry.

There are many lessons and talking points to be taken from such a highly visible event: governments’ totally saturated role in economies; industries’ totally saturated role in government; the “Us vs. Them” attitude of law enforcement officers; the complete trampling of rules, rights, and passionate dissenters with zero consequences – maybe a promotion; the nature of propaganda and getting a message out; the superficial complaints of various protest groups about the fruits of injustice represented by the G20 rather than the root of the tree producing it; the media coverage and language used to cover the protests and why this propaganda is more effective than that of the protesters; and finally why should anyone care about any of this. I’m tempted to just stop the post now after that long list of talking points but, grudgingly, I’ll continue to flail my arms recklessly in the dark in hopes of hitting on some sort of point.

Read the rest of this entry »

The elections season is finally over.  No court battles.  No Recounts.  No Controversy.  The corporate consumption mechanism has the airwaves back to plant their ideas in your brain.  The election is over and the people’s voices were heard…or were they?

When it is said that someone’s voice is heard, isn’t it usually referring to the airing of that person’s original thoughts and opinions?  If an actor is reading from a script they didn’t write, their voice wasn’t heard, even thought they were physically speaking.  So how does an election actually equate to voices being heard?  And whose voices?

The election process in this country starts out with petitions.  Some petitions require a multitude of signatures to be accepted and the candidate added to the ballot; some petitions require a small fraction of those signatures so long as the candidate has the proper party affiliation.  In the very first stages, then, it seems a small portion of people have a bullhorn while muffling the voices of the rest.  Thankfully for the whole process, “the people” have a memory span of about two shakes, and they forget all prior knowledge in order to put their voice into the chorus already written by the few.

As the nomination process progresses through to the actual general election, fewer and fewer “voices” are being heard.  The voice of special interest and power players compose the chorus and direct the now-actors with the bullhorn of the corporate media.  When the election finally arrives, the scripts are written, vetted, and approved.  The voter simply chooses the script they wish to read and their “voice” is added to the chorus.  By this time, they have already forgotten that this wasn’t actually their voice but continue to believe it anyway.

All the world is a stage, and we are merely players.  Bravo, and I’m ready for my close-up.

It’s been a little over a week since we landed back in the country, and we hit the ground running. The journal I was trying to keep of the trip was left in the dust of our perpetual motion when in Ireland, and it has yet to catch up and be a complete telling of the trip. I’ll get to it before too long, I promise. A particular event from the trip, though, is the catalyst for this post, but it has very little, if anything, to do with the trip itself.

A running theme of a worrisome number of my posts center around me drinking then subsequently getting into debates about various tenets of anarchism versus the alternatives. After every such incident, I always look back and reflect how I could have made my points better or refuted points by the other parties. I don’t want to blame the alcohol solely, since I doubt I would fare much better stone sober, but I can say for certain that even the most minor inebriation doesn’t help. Such was the case one evening while we sat and chatted amongst ourselves after the pub closed around midnight.

A__ had dozed off in the chair and D__ and S__ and I were left to converse while the alcohol and general exhaustion slowly pulled us under the surface of good judgment. I don’t know how or why the subject was breeched, but it was laid upon me to present the blueprint of the anarchist society that I envisioned. Let me now refer the readers to two previous posts that, when parts of each are blended, resemble the conversation of this waning Irish evening. The first is The “What-About[s]“ in which the typical pattern such discussions ultimately take is laid out. I followed the advice I included in the post to a point, but was unsuccessful in swaying the other party to my view. This often happens in debate, where the fundamental premises can be clarified and still found to disagree. This disagreement lied in one party’s belief in the sanctity of individuality and the other party’s insistence on collectivization usually for the sake of expediency and utility, similar to the observations put forth in Liberal Descent or Open-Minded Liberals Have No Room For Dissent.

Overall, I feel like my position was much clarified in their minds and I became more familiar with the details of a different “what-about.” Strangely, as happens frequently, A__ was hypothetically killed or maimed in order to try and sway me to a point, and failing yet again. The whole thing boiled down, in my mind, to trying to speak to what’s best for someone else – a must when fates and fortunes are collectively tied together. I still side with Dr. Szasz and say that I can’t possibly know better than the person themselves; and therefore, I won’t even try.

Then I saw heaven open, and I saw a white horse! The One who rode him is called `One who can be Trusted’ and `The True One’. He punishes and makes war in the right way.

 His eyes were like a flame of fire. On his head were many crowns. He had a name written on him, but no man knew what it was but he himself.

Revelations 19:11-12  (Worldwide English Bible (New Testament))

In libertarian circles, debate and invective have been swirling in recent months based on differing opinions of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a multi-term Congressman from Texas.  Why is a Republican candidate drawing the attention of libertarians (and party Libertarians)?  One direct answer to that question could indeed be that it is the second coming of Mr. Paul – he ran for president in 1988 under the Libertarian Party banner.  A more general answer is the focus of many mainstream libertarians recently on fiscal and entitlement policy; which, if the eyes are squinted just right, looks sort of, maybe, like the Republican Party – or their supposed platform, anyway.  Mr. Paul’s governing philosophy is refreshing (compared to other choices) in certain (not all) areas of policy-making to libertarians (like hanging out with ugly and dumb people to make one’s self look better or feel smarter by comparison), but does this deserve the reverence and fanaticism some of his followers are overcome with; fanaticism strong enough for previously-avowed anarchists to attempt to confiscate the non-believing heretics’ libertarian credential cards?

Personally, I don’t care to involve myself in the debate beyond stating my reasons for not entering.  Read the rest of this entry »

I have come to tell you that you are free. Many ages ago, My consciousness left man, that he might develop himself. I return to find this development approaching completion, but hindered by fear and by misunderstanding.
You have built for yourselves psychic suits of armor, and clad in them, your vision is restricted, your movements are clumsy and painful, your skin is bruised, and your spirit is broiled in the sun.
I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are free.

Eris, the Greek Goddess of Chaos, Discord, and Confusion
(a.k.a. Discordia, in Rome)
Principia Discordia —><—

These are the words that were first spoken to Omar Ravenhurst and Malcalypse the Younger that launched Discordianism, fnord. I’m not a religious person, but these words spoke to me. They spoke to me after I wrote Anarchy: Much More Than Nothing, and it lifted my spirits to find confirmation in these words.
The Principia Discordia has a fuzzy history, which is laid out in the beginning of the book. I had heard of it while the old publisher Loompanics was going out of business and dismissed it as a large tome. I kick myself now, as some of the graphics are illegible in the pdf, and it would have helped to perhaps have the printed version, which I suspect could be photocopied sheets stapled together (or not, fnord).  (Edited to add that Rev. St. Syn, KSC of POEE.co.uk pointed out a new hardcover edition available for purchase. A link is in his comment below.) It also turned out to be quite short and readable, mixing humor and philosophy in a happy mix of chaotic bliss. I recommend this book for everyone who has ever heard the word “anarchy” and thought of chaos.

To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.

The Curse of Greyface included making the main polarity along the lines of order and disorder rather than creative and destructive. All this can be found on the 70th page of the pdf or what could possibly be the 63rd page of the book. As I tried to convey with uncertain results in the above-linked blog entry/essay, all abstract, artistic, right-brain creativity springs from disorder. By some coincidence, creative disorder also happens to fall on the right side of this game matrix. As the book lays out, amidst substantial disorder and tangents, the goal of Discordians should be proving that disorder can be creative and not destructive and that choosing order can also result in destruction.

The distinction between creative and destructive order and disorder is but one important observation emanating from this book. Another would include skepticism (the Fifth Commandment – pg. 4) among others. For what only took me a few hours to get through while examining all the pages in depth, the book has had a lasting effect. I would whole-heartedly recommend that everyone read through it at least once, preferably twice.

ALL HAIL ERIS! —><—