Subgenese in 2nd Millenium

From: Eden Smallwood <zeppenwolf@geocities.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2001 3:56 PM

Recent events involving Islamic terrorists has gotten
me to ponder whether or not official church nomenclature may
need revision.

I'm thinking about the word "Pink". First, I have to
disclaim any expertese in the true definition of Pink- I don't
count myself as a full "Doctor" of SubPhilosophy- I'm just
a Subgenius Tadpole, if you will.

But to hazard a quick definition, let me say that to be
Pink is to have sold out to the politics of popularity. Not
a perfect definition, I already know, but I think it's close
to what we mean. Agreed?

Finally, my concern is with the inadequacy of Pink to
deal with brainless Jihad monkeys killing in the name of God.
It seems to me that Pink is partially ethnocentric to Western
civilization, it's almost a specifically American thing, in
a way. Does anybody know what I mean? I guess I don't mean
"specifically American" in the sense of "exclusively", but in
the sense of having a more fertile breeding ground, the US
is the best Petri dish in which Pinkness can culture itself.

Having spent $30 for my right to act stupid, I expect
immediate action in addressing the problem of what to call
the kind of idiocy from other parts of the world we've
largely ignored until now, for which Pink doesn't seem to
fit perfectly.

Unless my admittedly limited understanding needs revision.

What sayest thou, other paid up and pensive readers?

Eden
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org>

> But to hazard a quick definition, let me say that to be
> Pink is to have sold out to the politics of popularity. Not
> a perfect definition, I already know, but I think it's close
> to what we mean. Agreed?

No.

Pinks are those who are not SubGeniuses. If you are not with us, you are
against us until such time as we come into our birthright and destroy you
utterly.

You can be a "latent" SubGenius - which is a SubGenius who hasn't got right
with "Bob." But either you are, or you are not, SubGenius. You can be a
miserable misanthropic cornholing curmudgeon who didn't give a rabid rat's
liver about what anybody else thought of him, and still be a Pink (although
it would seem unlikely.) Popularity is simply a fairly reliable indicator,
and neither it nor its lack are sufficient nor necessary to tell which race
you belong to.

"Pink" seems to me to be a perfectly useable all-purpose term for all the
sheeplike humans of the world, whether they be baaaa-ing after Jerry Falwell
or baaaa-ing after Osama or baaaa-ing after Ford, Sony, and Coca-Cola.

St. Marc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eden Smallwood <zeppenwolf@geocities.com>

In article <fl%A7.2767$Sd.259683@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disciple@templeoferis.org> wrote:

* Pinks are those who are not SubGeniuses.

Well that's easy.

* If you are not with us, you are
* against us until such time as we come into our birthright and destroy you
* utterly.

Disappointed in your use of the second person.

* You can be a "latent" SubGenius - which is a SubGenius who hasn't got right
* with "Bob." But either you are, or you are not, SubGenius.

Hmmm I sorta felt that freewill figured into it. But I defer,

Eden

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>

The term "Pinkness" implies more a lack of flexibility, and a kind of
mental and, oh, I guess you could say "spiritual" cowardice or laziness
or disability, depending, than anything especially cultural. It's
easier for us Westerners to imagine Western style "Pinks" than it is
for us to apply to term to people of other weird human cultures,
because we don't really understand SUBGENII of NEXT DOOR much less
other cultures, so it's hard to imagine what, say, a "PINK" Bushman
would be like. But I am sure that Bushmen suffer Pinkness in much the
same proportion as everybody else. It fucks up Slack.

For instance, a queer SubGenius once told me, "I hate most queers,
because most queers are like most non-queers -- PINK!"

Pinkness has nothing to do with race, creed, or religion, nor with
"I.Q.," but with SLACK or the lack thereof.

I personally would not want to have to walk along a line of people
picking out who I thought was "Pink," and who wasn't.

I likewise do not like to go judging who is a "Bobbie" and who isn't.

I do however reserve the right to ignore or avoid people I plain don't
trust.

--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 140306, Dallas, TX 75214
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>

In article <fl%A7.2767$Sd.259683@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, St.
Marc the Perpetually Amused <disciple@templeoferis.org> wrote:

>
> "Pink" seems to me to be a perfectly useable all-purpose term for all the
> sheeplike humans of the world, whether they be baaaa-ing after Jerry Falwell
> or baaaa-ing after Osama or baaaa-ing after Ford, Sony, and Coca-Cola.

It's usable for anybody you don't like. That is, YOU can use it all you
want, to describe ANYBODY. Somebody else might want to use it on you.
Two way sword, like most swords.

Back to document index

Original file name: Subgenese in 2nd Millenium - converted on Thursday, 20 December 2001, 03:27