i'm waking up in the west,
grandpa was a communist party member,
he even did jury service at the time
in court...
               i'm sitting here and thinking
about this video:
      what a ****-bending mind game...
it's the classic scenario of subject-object
dichotomy... there's nothing dualistic about
it, and there isn't anything involving
monism to it... i know: the titan nouns
in terms of usage (i just call them shortcuts...
but what i'm saying is that i'm grooving
to marvin gaye's hq version of i heard it
through the grapevine... like **** i did...
i had ***** clarity poured into me)
                 the point being, listening to this
lauren southern video gave me
constipation: yes, on an objective tier of
concerns...
       how can you expect to state an objective
opinion when the society you live in
stresses subjective, individualistic concerns
to be stressed prior? that's the argument
that goes along the lines: we're all going to be
born to fulfill the role of rock stars...
    i don't get it... nor do i understand that
subjectivity is suddenly such a taboo...
it's these academic puritans who shun subjectivity...
so what's objectivity? stating the facts,
coincidental of: i groove in my chair and imagine
the devil's ***** moving in and out my ***
to translate as his tongue in my mouth...
or that other joke...
   ****! you gotta groove to marvin...
                which is why it's so weird to find
subjectivity to be a taboo...
            and that "objectivity" is, indeed, stating
the rules of remembering, that you have to remember
certain priors, like a buddha or a jesus...
          why is subjectivity such a taboo?
                you have hindu halo hovering over you
to prescribe you reincarnation as the stalling of
rational movement?
             yet from what this lauren southern video
explained, the universities are truly
bewildering people, notably in the humanities' departments...
     yet to what level can
                      the "problematic" congregation
   of the subject-object matter as to be theoretically
complex, rather than simply actually,
  to get something contrary to the ontology of a natural
chiral dynamic?
             they're not superimposable... they never were!
so you want the subject-object... o.k. o.k. object-subject
(alphabet and ******* of counting up to one-hundred):
so you want to create what?
         in the frame of mind of keeping western stresses
for the individuation process?
              the process of individuation is paramount
in the western society... and then it drops to almost nothing,
with whimsical concerns for a community...
     so... huh?
        object-subject = subject-subject + object-object;
well yeah, we talk about monday through to friday
and if we're working in a factory, via monday through
to friday we packaged about 2000 ready meals
for fast lives and lazy lives...
         but to make subjectivity such a taboo as it stands?
i already said **** sapiens is about as dead
as the neanderthals...      **** schizoi?
yeah, he's around... subject-object differentiation...
the mind-body duality... and how the two hyphen complexes
    end up as                            x.
crossbred cross-breed... arnold vs. stephen, etc.