the actualy need need for a d.n.a. narrative
to be established can only imply that:
the narrative per se is pointless...
  because why would there be an
imperative of both individualism and
collectivism: hush it dr. X i'm
trying to sort this one out...
                        there's a d.n.a. narrative?
i have to actually act upon a gene
without a gene acting upon me?
  and i need to give genetics the status
of history?
        sure, **** yeah: d'oh d'oh d'oh:
the nod before the yes and
no as question...
                   sign me up sg. ****-pants....
did i ever tell you that i wish
i joined an army and subsequently
wrote a ****** autobiography?
       i did neither except the last, quasi:
biography-momentum..
          i just can't see past
the ******, annoying, ****-worthy
staging of an "impetus" to live...
i can, at least, think about
   a categorical imperative...
  but leaving the open air on
   a categorical impetus so open, wild,
and anglican?! you have to be dull
as a buffalo to completely agree
with that is being said, even though:
university of life versus university
is true...
              don't bother with
a university... you'll only be taught
be people more interested
by their research than pedagogy:
let me spell it out
u n i v r e s i t y ≠ p e d a g o g y;
university is a bit like
a holocaust denial...
      i really hope it didn't happen,
because whatever happened
when i was there:
had only a matter of memory
to convince in being useful.
   i still can't buy into biology, of all
the science: reclaiming the status of
history...
       why the **** would i want
to buy into passing on my d.n.a.?!
   how about a thought,
akin to what Poland represents when
the black plague spread across Europe
with the metaphor of Islam at hand...
how about: *******?!