Discordianism is a religion based on the “holy book” Principia Discordia (OR How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her). The book was written by Greg Hill and Kerry Wendell Thornley in 1963, under the pseudonyms Malaclypse the Younger and Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst. Discordianism is focused on the worshiping of Eris (Greek mythology), or Discordia (Roman mythology)—the Goddess of chaos, strife, and discord. Many classify it as a parody of religion, while others sincerely declare themselves as real Discordians. But what does Discordianism actually preach?

1. The Literal Meaning of Discordianism Let’s take a look at the history of Discordianism and see what it is really about. If read literally, Principia Discordia is centered around the worshipping of the Goddess Eris according to Greek mythology, or Discordia according to Roman mythology. She’s the Goddess of chaos, strife, and discord, However, there are many instances where the Goddess is united with the Void as well, not just as a separate deity. Principia Discordia explicitly mentions the version of Greek mythology but still holds the idea that Eris and her sister Aneris are daughters of the Void, who were later given a brother—Spirituality. That’s what is stated in DOGMA III-History 32, “COSMOGONY” of Principia Discordia.

Aneris is younger than her sister, and she is referred to as the Goddess of order and non-being, while her sister Eris is the Goddess of disorder and being. The barren Aneris becomes jealous of her sister, who was born impregnated, and begins to make the existent things non-existent. This explains the cycle of life, and why life begins and then ends with death: “And to this day things come into existence and perish the same way”—is stated at the beginning of the book. Zeus invites all deities to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, except Eris, as he knows that she will cause problems due to her nature. However, when Eris finds out about the wedding, she creates a golden apple with the word kallisti on it, which means “for the prettiest” or “to the most beautiful.” This apple starts a feud between three goddesses, until Paris awards the apple to Helen of Troy. Thus, Eris becomes the cause of the Trojan war. According to Discordians, Eris tossed the apple into the fray as payback against Zeus for not inviting her to the party.

The golden apple of Eris is considered the main symbol of Discordianism, and the event is dubbed “The original snub” in Principia Discordia. The character of Eris in Principia Discordia, however, is rather softer than the Greek version of the Goddess, who is portrayed mainly in a negative aspect, and positively only as the energy of chaotic creation. Although it may seem strange, it becomes clearer when we consider the fact that the entire religious system of Discordianism is based on the belief, worship, and glorification of this very deity. A saying from Principia Discordia tries to clear up this “fallacy:” “One day Mal-2 consulted his Pineal Gland and asked Eris if she really created all of those terrible things. She told him that she always liked the Old Greeks, but that they cannot be trusted with historic matters. They are victims of indigestion, you know.” (Principia Discordia, 1963)

2. The Metaphorical Meaning of Discordianism Now, let’s take a look at how we can understand Discordianism fully through its metaphorical meaning. After proposing the worshipping of Discordia and presenting the story like it’s presented above, Principia Discordia outlines three main fundamental principles: The Aneristic principle (principle of order), The Eristic principle (principle of disorder), and the principle according to which both of the principles are mere illusions. Because of these principles, a real Discordian believes that there are no distinctions between disorder and the void because the only difference between them is that one of them only refers to order. Let’s analyze these principles. From a philosophical perspective, both order and disorder are man-made concepts and represent artificial divisions of chaos, which is a stage deeper than the stage of making distinctions. With our conception-making apparatus—our reason, we see reality through our ideas-about-reality, which culture gives us and instills in us. Ideas-about-reality are mistakenly identified as reality itself, and as a result, inexperienced people are often confused by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see reality in a different way. We necessarily look at the world through windows that have built-in filters—concepts. Different philosophies take and use different filters. Through the window, we see chaos, and we turn and refer to the points of our filter to understand such chaos. The order, therefore, is in the filter. This represents the Aneristic principle.  (This is a lie,  perpetuating the false teaching that there is no absolute truth.  That everything is relative.)

Western philosophy has traditionally been concerned and occupied with comparing one filter to another, constantly changing the filters in the hope of finding the perfect one that will apply to all possible realities or searching for the absolute and universal truth. That is illusory, true Discordians would say. Some filters can be more applicable, more pragmatic, and more comprehensive. Others may be more beautiful, others may be more pleasant, etc., but none can be completely true. Chaos is simply unrelated and irrelevant information viewed through some particular filter or grid. But, like “relation,” “no-relation” is a concept as well. The male, like the female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is the “absence of female-ness,” or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. This artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.

To summarize, truth is dependent on the definition that fits the filter that one is using at the given moment, and the real truth—the metaphysical reality—is completely irrelevant to filters. In this context, Eris becomes the true patron of chaotic creation: “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.” (Principia Discordia, 1963) Principia Discordia often hints that Discordianism was founded as a dialectic antithesis to the other religions that are based on order. Also, as stated in the beginning, many also consider Discordianism as a parody religion—one that mocks the beliefs of others. However, Discordians themselves do not agree with that point of view. Some of them accept and embrace it largely as a joke, while others take it as a philosophy. There are also some who literally worship Eris as a Goddess. Thus, Discordians reject the view of themselves as following a parody religion, labeling it as untrue.

3. Titles and Status Structure in Discordianism According to Discordianism, “every man, woman, and child on planet Earth is a pope.” Principia Discordia contains an official papal card that can be reproduced and distributed freely to anyone. However, papacy is not gained through the possession of this card but rather informs the people that they are “true, confirmed and authorized priests” of Discordianism. Operation Mindfuck (OM) is the name of an important practice of Discordianism. The concept is not found in the “holy book” of Discordianism, but was invented and developed by Kerry Thornley and Robert Anton Wilson in 1968 in The Illuminatus! Trilogy, where Eris plays the main role. One of the practices was that any Discordian can name a certain project “Golden Apple Seed Mission” indicating that any other Discordian is welcome to participate in the realization of the project and in its wider propagation. One of those projects is the project titled “Project Pan-Pontification.” It consists of distributing the cards for popes, appeasing all men, women, and children as “a Pope of Discord.” Within Discordianism, there are five classes of saints who acted best and serve as examples for everyone. The highest-ranked class that makes up human beings is the second. The first class consists only of fictitious characters who can reach the idea of ​​Discordianism’s perfection. An example of a second-class saint is the self-proclaimed Emperor Norton, the emperor of San Francisco, California, during the nineteenth century. Despite suffering from mental illness, he was worshiped by the citizens of San Francisco. He is adorned with the title of a saint because he lived his life according to the truth as he saw it, and expressed disrespect for reality as others saw it.

4. The Unseriousness of Discordianism – Is It a Joke? From what has been written so far in this very brief overview of the system of this unusual religion, one can sense some eclectic features, which seem even comical. The comedy increases when we get to know the strict rule that Discordians have to respect all the time under any circumstances: “NO EATING HOT DOG BUNS!” and even more so when reading the book itself, which is full of humor, expressed through their dialectical form. However, it all makes sense when we consider the fact that a Discordian is never serious about anything, as is stated in Principia Discordia. However, Discordians can argue that the act of labeling Discordianism a parody merely reinforces the message of Discordianism. Just because something is untrue and absurd does not make it without meaning. Also, even if a religion is humorous and its scriptures full of ludicrousness, that does not mean its followers are not serious about it. Discordians themselves do not agree on the matter. Some embrace it largely as a joke, while others embrace Discordianism as a philosophy. Some literally worship Eris as a goddess, while others consider her merely a symbol of the messages of the religion.  Source

We should all know who is the biggest JOKER/TRICKSTER/CLOWN of them all!!  SATAN/THE ADVERSARY/THE DECIEVER/THE DEVIL HIMSELF

DOES EVERYBODY LOVE A CLOWN? RED NOSE DAY! Coming April 13 -May 21 – DON’T BE DECEIVED! RED NOSE DAY 2021

Lord of Misrule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Lord of Misrule (disambiguation) and Lords of Misrule.

In the spirit of misrule, identified by the grinning masks in the corners, medieval floor tiles from the Derby Black Friary show a triumphant hunting hare mounted on a dog.

In England, the Lord of Misrule – known in Scotland as the Abbot of Unreason and in France as the Prince des Sots – was an officer appointed by lot during Christmastide to preside over the Feast of Fools. The Lord of Misrule was generally a peasant or sub-deacon appointed to be in charge of Christmas revelries, which often included drunkenness and wild partying.

The Catholic Church in England held a similar festival involving a boy bishop.^[1] This custom was abolished by Henry VIII in 1541, restored by the Catholic Mary I and again abolished by Protestant Elizabeth I, though here and there it lingered on for some time longer.^[2] In continental Europe, it was suppressed by the Council of Basel in 1431, but was revived in some places from time to time, even as late as the eighteenth century. In the Tudor period, the Lord of Misrule (sometimes called the Abbot of Misrule or the King of Misrule)^[1] is mentioned a number of times by contemporary documents referring to revels both at court and among the ordinary people.^[3][4][5]

While mostly known as a British holiday custom, some folklorists, such as James Frazer and Mikhail Bakhtin (who is said to have borrowed the novel idea from Frazer), have claimed that the appointment of a Lord of Misrule comes from a similar custom practised during the Roman celebration of Saturnalia.^[6][7] In ancient Rome, from 17 to 23 December (in the Julian calendar), a man chosen to be a mock king was appointed for the feast of Saturnalia, in the guise of the Roman deity Saturn.^[1][6] This hypothesis has been heavily criticized by William Warde Fowler and as such, the Christmas custom of the Lord of Misrule during the Christian era and the Saturnalian custom of antiquity may have completely separate origins;^[6] the two separate customs, however, can be compared and contrasted.^[6][8] Many of the customs regarding the Lord of Misrule have been incorporated into modern-day Carnival and Mardi Gras celebrations.^[9]

On 1 January, AD 400, the bishop Asterius of Amasea^[10] in Pontus (modern Amasya, Turkey) preached a sermon against the Feast of Calends (“this foolish and harmful delight”)^[11] that describes the role of the mock king in Late Antiquity. The New Year’s feast included children arriving at each doorstep, exchanging their gifts for reward:^[10][11]

This festival teaches even the little children, artless and simple, to be greedy, and accustoms them to go from house to house and to offer novel gifts, fruits covered with silver tinsel. For these they receive, in return, gifts double their value, and thus the tender minds of the young begin to be impressed with that which is commercial and sordid.

— Asterius, in “Oratio 4: Adversus Kalendarum Festum”^[11]

It contrasted with the Christian celebration held, not by chance, on the adjoining day:

We celebrate the birth of Christ, since at this time God manifested himself in the flesh. We celebrate the Feast of Lights (Epiphany), since by the forgiveness of our sins we are led forth from the dark prison of our former life into a life of light and uprightness.

— Asterius, “Oratio 4”

Significantly, for Asterius the Christian feast was explicitly an entry from darkness into light, and although no conscious solar nature could have been expressed, it is certainly the renewed light at midwinter that was celebrated among Roman pagans, officially from the time of Aurelian, as the “festival of the birth of the Unconquered Sun”. Meanwhile, throughout the city of Amasea, although entry into the temples and holy places had been forbidden by the decree of Theodosius I (391), the festival of gift-giving when “all is noise and tumult” in “a rejoicing over the new year” with a kiss and the gift of a coin, went on all around, to the intense disgust and scorn of the bishop:

This is misnamed a feast, being full of annoyance; since going out-of-doors is burdensome, and staying within doors is not undisturbed. For the common vagrants and the jugglers of the stage, dividing themselves into squads and hordes, hang about every house. The gates of public officials they besiege with especial persistence, actually shouting and clapping their hands until he that is beleaguered within, exhausted, throws out to them whatever money he has and even what is not his own. And these mendicants going from door to door follow one after another, and, until late in the evening, there is no relief from this nuisance. For crowd succeeds crowd, and shout, shout, and loss, loss.

— Asterius, “Oratio 4”^[11]

Honest farmers coming into the city were likely to be jeered at, spanked^[12] and robbed. Worse,

“Even our most excellent and guileless prophets, the unmistakable representatives of God, who when unhindered in their work are our faithful ministers, are treated with insolence.” For the soldiers, they spend all their wages in riot and loose women, see plays perhaps, “for they learn vulgarity and the practices of actors”. Their military discipline is relaxed and slackened. They make sport of the laws and the government of which they have been appointed guardians. For they ridicule and insult the august government. They mount a chariot as though upon a stage; they appoint pretended lictors and publicly act like buffoons. This is the nobler part of their ribaldry. But their other doings, how can one mention them? Does not the champion, the lion-hearted man, the man who when armed is the admiration of his friends and the terror of his foes, loose his tunic to his ankles, twine a girdle about his breast, use a woman’s sandal, put a roll of hair on his head in feminine fashion, and ply the distaff full of wool, and with that right hand which once bore the trophy, draw out the thread, and changing the tone of his voice utter his words in the sharper feminine treble?

In The Golden Bough, James Frazer cites a Greek martyrology which claims that during Saturnalia in Durostorum on the Danube (modern Silistra), Roman soldiers would choose a man from among themselves to be a ceremonial “temporary king” for thirty days. At the end of that term, this soldier was to cut his own throat on the altar of Saturn. The Christian Saint Dasius was supposedly chosen for this ritual, but refused to participate, and was martyred as a result. Frazer speculated that a similar ritual of human sacrifice could be the origin of the British Lord of Misrule.^[13]

The Abbot of Unreasons by CruikshankIn the Tudor period, John Stow in his Survey of London, published in 1603, gives a description of the Lord of Misrule:^[1]

[I]n the feaste of Christmas, there was in the kinges house, wheresoeuer hee was lodged, a Lord of Misrule, or Maister of merry disports, and the like had yee in the house of euery noble man, of honor, or good worshippe, were he spirituall or temporall. Amongst the which the Mayor of London, and eyther of the shiriffes had their seuerall Lordes of Misrule, euer contending without quarrell or offence, who should make the rarest pastimes to delight the Beholders. These Lordes beginning their rule on Alhollon Eue [Halloween], continued the same till the morrow after the Feast of the Purification, commonlie called Candlemas day: In all which space there were fine and subtle disguisinges, Maskes and Mummeries, with playing at Cardes for Counters, Nayles and pointes in euery house, more for pastimes then for gaine.

The Lord of Misrule is also mentioned by Philip Stubbes in his Anatomie of Abuses (1585), where he states that “the wilde heades of the parishe conventynge together, chuse them a grand Capitaine (of mischeefe) whom they ennobel with the title Lorde of Misrule.” He then describes how they dress colourfully, tie bells onto their legs, and “go to the churche (though the minister be at praier or preachyng) dauncying and swingyng their handercheefes.”