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
