take one look, on the spare eye
of "nietzcshe's" the will to power,
you'll spot something unusual...

man's logic is linear,
woman's logic is circular,
a woman will cite you
a thousand emblems of truth
bound to a circle,
but a man will only cite a hundred
digits of truth bound to a metre,
there are hardly any negations
in woman's truth,
there are many negations
(kantian mirror, symbolic
of the zero symbol) i man's
utterance of truth...
at first glance one prickly thorn
stood out, the will to power's
author s elisabeth nietzsche, not
frederick... there's this lack of
linear authority, there's this
almost kantian in-itself enclosure,
while a man says: i'm only here
only once... a woman retorts (paradoxically):
there's plenty more these where it came from...
the most scandalous book ever written
that was ascribed to a ménage à trois thinker
was this diabolically babylonian mongrel
of nueva germania's failure...
which is why kant demanded the noumenon
to be of a given ***, a woman, he never married,
he lived to a clockwork precision,
he learned that the unfathomable
was the cyclic, and within this framework
he supposedly died an idiot fathoming
the linear ontology by disregarding the cyclic
ontology of women, with a humoristic
expression concerning the french revolution,
quote: *that's a revolution; so unbecoming
of a german, that it could almost pass-off as
english black humour.
a man competent with his linear activity
will only be deemed maddened when cursed
to a cycling exception of a certain inability
to pursue the linear ontology to the fullest release
of meaning, instead, the linear will prevail,
although like a trans-linear object stranded
chained to the clutch exerting force on an otherwise
speeding wheel, in revs, tattooing the cement
with rubber tattoo skids and heated convulsions,
nonetheless, leaving a mark, however
abrupt it might be, nonetheless linear.