violence from peace

St paul turned peaceful christianity into a militant movement. The VHP have turned peaceful Hinduism into a faith war. Buddhist monks are fighting over who should succede the Dalai Lama. The descendents of Mohammed twisted the words of the Prophet into a repressive regime. and now, there has emerged orthodox discordians.

My question is this. Does any peaceful movement, no matter how unambiguous the message, evwentually devolve into a violent, intolerent regime? If so, then are we all doomed? If not, then why have all such movement deteriorated in the past?

In other words, is Situation Normal, All Fucked Up?


Does sign language have silent letters?
When coloured people shower, is that ethnic cleansing?

ORTHODOX DISCORDIANS ! ? ! That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.
Although it is arguably only wishywashy theory and strictly conceptual, this may be another case of Hegel’s dialectic at play. Situation Normal, or the synthesis, slowly turning into a thesis, ‘hardline discordians’. That’s too ridiculous. It’s difficult to maintain the peaceful balance that is needed for such movements. Once something interferes with that balance, conflict arises as to how the problem can be put right. I doubt Buddhist monks would be fighting over who is next if China hadn’t entered and strangled Tibet the way it did. We all have will to power, and too many people assert that power over other people, and once it starts, it escalates, and the denial of compassion becomes acceptable.

Many Freudian emotions have to be snuffed out; and this is a great effort for all individuals.

You tell me, HVDMEYP, is Situation Normal, deep down inside, All Fucked Up?


[This message has been edited by Pangloss (edited 11 April 2002).]

catholic ireland never been divided? you must be joking, the reason it was invaded so easily by british forces was because the war-lords were so egar to see eachother fall that they would join forces with the british and beat their neighbor till the british turned on them. it’s been like that since biblical times and only really ended with the professional revolutionaries around 1900 (albeit there wasn’t any wars for a long time, but the divisions were still there)

sorry. was tired, and hallucinating for some reason. my irrational emotional link to eire must stop. now.

it’s just that every time i go there nowadays, it seems like heaven. i know what they’ve been throgh to get to this point, and i know that what i see is not the whole picture.
it’s just that with our silent tube, and low taxes, and the spirit of the blitz only resurfacing when someone dies, i look across the irish sea with a twinge of envy. there time has come.
i like to ignore the union tensions, low(er) taxes, immigrant conflicts and imminent recession. they’ll laugh it off.

Didn’t China have the right intention when it came to Tibet?
The theocratic regime in place there before its ‘liberation’ was as equally far removed from democracy as the authoritarian communism that replaced it.
It’s interesting that an ideology like revolutionary communism in fact requires violence in order to achieve an ultimately peaceful aim.

It’s unlikely that we’re all doomed- but it is fair to say that any ideology can be manipulated by the fanatic to justify unpleasant actions.
Perhaps it is better to have as little ideology as possible- is anarchy (without violence) the ideal for which we should strive?

Pangloss: the imminent recession in ireland is now looking like it might be avoided, luckily there are alot of service industries in ireland which have managed to avoid the world ‘slow down’ but with the correct management there is no reason why ireland can’t continue to grow.

Flamin’RedJJ: that wasn’t true communism in china, it was a perversion of communism. and the reason for the bloody revolution is that if communists attempted a peaceful revolution thier oppressors would just gun them down.