why are poets the first to shy away from politics - when they intended to speak first and foremost? what a fascinating paradox, to be eager to speak first, but last when engaging in politics; hence the attack by philosophy, now that's duly understood, i.e. why philosophy attacked poetry, reason being that poetry attacked politics - it actually sabotaged thinking, by recording unsaid things.

i always get bored of women who don't
have a stomach for the macabre humour,
the sentiments of pre-feminism
and all round banter of not having
a father pick her wedding spaghetti tango
partner... you know, that ***-luck
daddy-day-care gimmick of Freud
concerning the shame males are fed
about *******, and women are fed
the line: take out the guillotine and give
us all alpha male's **** as ******! it might not
fit in our purring mouths...
but nonetheless keep them "wise"
with the crucifix x, y, z - well the z is the
history hiding in shadow behind the x & y
of the crucifix... *oh mary, mary,
(teenage christ), mary, to be so young is
oh so scary...
yeah honey, mary hears you, along with
all the barbecued heretics... she hears you all right...
and the slime of smiles of ogle ogres of feminism...
the televised procession at easter
ensured the chicken & egg debate levied
the restoration of libraries...
indeed once the reformation against the
Vatican... but these days it's about the Restoration
with the Vatican rather than against it!
we write history when we're involved
into whatever delusional account be readied
as worthy and explanatory;
but nonetheless a footprint, a history -
because you wouldn't call the cave markings
of parietal art in france or spain as a sign of
delusion... ******* leftists, Stalinists...
KEEPERS OF THE VOCABULARY!
at least the far right would have offered me euthanasia;
and guess what... i'd nod a yes rather than wave a no.