sega’s saga cinnabon saag

sadoo what have we been thinking about today

there is no today

yeah yeah what have we been thinking about

there is no we

i notice a recently opened .pdf of the scum manifesto on your desktop

there is no thinking

and a copy of industrial society and its future

the bombard heftiness residue in its palotin-merdre 2019 issue featuring can heftiness and even bombard survive distributed intelligence? contains an article on circumferential intelligence and its radical challenge that includes this chart –

mandate	scum manifesto	industrial society
overthrow	the government	the (technological) system [government will consequently fall]
eliminate	the money system	the (technological) system [the money system will consequently dismantle]
institute	complete automation	[it is precisely complete automation that must be destroyed]
destroy	the male sex	the (technological) system [gender is inconsequential, a distraction from the core mandate of destroying the (technological) system]

regardless of whether one follows scum or industrial this would entail a substantial remissioning of the bhr wouldn’t it

undoubtedly

what are you doing sadoo

picking my anus and flicking nanoturds at the unreaders

ooh add some to my count chocula please

these two texts – insufficiently compared in the professional comparing classes – are certainly bound and so one by their radicality and violence

but their violence is different

both authors attempted to kill people and industrial succeeds but the hoi polloi’s response to the two violences differs

it objects more to industrial

yes and no. that industrial’s violence claims a rational base disturbs the hoi polloi. scum’s easier to dismiss for them as she’s ostensibly more nuts and – as you know – her text goes so far as to cross certain lines facilitating the thought that it’s a parody

industrial was also a mathematical prodigy and professor

and the hp are trained to automatically respect such inconsequentialities

why not read instead the what in comparison at least may seem like a more balanced analysis, the social anarchists for example

these two radical texts do something others don’t. and can’t. they in a sense balance the accepted and pervasive insanity of our present world with a (commonly) unacceptable and recessive transgressive insanity – manifest in dominant society only through dreams, entertainment, art – and so distanced and ‘safe’ – and the private hells of individuals, which while ubiquitous are hidden

in other words, the imbalance of our present world demands their balancing imbalance

while they superficially and perhaps more substantively disagree they both are fundamentally oriented toward a massive intractable wholesale dissatisfaction with existing society and can see no way through but its pervasive and painful destruction

it’s true though industrial lacks a certain sense of humour that scum – intentionally or not – achieves

it’s important to remember that humour to the natural comedian isn’t humour

what is it

that’s a question only a natural comedian can answer

but indications are …

indications are humour to the natural comedian is what news or facts or expert opinion are to the hoi polloi

you mean – if i may say it – truth

if you must. root erupts through the hard sidewalk of society like an indifferent mushroom and spores what it spores. that root to the comedian is called humour by the hoi polloi but root to the hoi polloi is called sidewalk by the comedian … well … what of it

wait a minute, aren’t you quoting a future issue of the bhr

décervelage-clinamen 2027

how …

there is no today