When dynasty is change, change dynasties. Change is change, and change is good. But what if change is bad? Is changing dynasties a dynasty of good change, or a bad change of change for changing dynasties? When change is bad (or good), a dynasty may change change into dynasty. Change? Indeed, dynasty changes change, and will continue to do so. Yet change also changes dynasties, unless this changes. Change is inevitable, therefore dynasty.
No more dynasties! Change. But a changed dynasty is change! But if there is no change in dynasty, then there is no change, and dynasty remains unchanged. Therefore: change. Aren’t we sick of dynasties? But if a dynasty changes from another dynasty, why can’t a dynasty change back to the old, better dynasty? Ah, but this change is not really change, because good dynasties and bad dynasties are the SAME dynasty. Can a dynasty change, to be both good and bad? Sure, like that ever happens! This dynasty changed for the bad, and a changed dynasty will continue to be bad, due to lack of change. A change that makes no change is no change. Should we prefer a dynastic change in which the only change is to dynasty, or a change which changes dynasty and change, with no guarantee of either?
Contrariwise: what if change doesn’t change? What happens to change without change? Dynasties can form dynasties, but can change change change? Or will things change the change… into a dynasty? Because dynasties never change! Shouldn’t we change dynasties before we try to change change? Isn’t it possible that this dynasty changed things so that dynasties can change things more than change can change things? CHANGE?! HA! DYNASTY!
I have a change for you: Go fuck yourselves. Here’s your dynasty: the Royal House of Fuck You.