even wording an intellectual debate
focusing on the word: warrior,
is, to me, something of a ****-in-your-underwear
and then swing it around like a missile
and hope that the other monkey is dead...

what do i find in terms of persistent Darwinism?
media akin to Groundhog day replication,
a distrust of media and politics
doesn't go anywhere akin to El Dorado,
it goes to areas of grey and thistles, and weeds,
and trying to defend a political system
that monopolises on the media? e.g. Iraq.

what's the modern trait of the **** sapiens?
he's not intimidated by the advertisement
industry to spend, he saves his buck...
modern **** sapiens feels no regret at not
having the chance to procreate with neanderthal
women who shout rather than moan,
modern **** sapiens isn't wooed by the ooh's and
the ah's of a modern public audience,
modern **** sapiens man isn't ready to turn
women into butchers in Afghanistan,
or what Sappho called: butch, butch, butchy, butch-butch,
      target practice for the *****:
   now your chance to shoot a machinegun.

the **** sapiens doesn't get the Coliseum,
in whatever shape or form as the modern solution
to what would otherwise be: watching paint dry,
    there's no football Sunday over brunch to
holler and cheer and get things done.

the **** sapiens man will not mate with a neanderthal
woman of these times... he has no need to lose
his integrity to mate with these over-sexualised creatures...
modern **** sapiens lives in a time when
science has lost its mojo,
and became arrogant like a chef cooking up
Sicilian pasta in Chuckle Street...
   modern **** sapiens man does not grace procreating
with the mannequins of neanderthal women...
oversexualised and almost Somali in caricature,
which is hardly 5 brats running around for the stately
                 feeding...

modern **** sapiens isn't interested in how offensive you
sound, or how uninteresting you actually are,
the 26 digits on your tongue will never quill a
woodpecker readied for carpentry...
you have physicists for that and that ancient gauge
of sclera iris and pupil: which kinda looks
like clouds, green, brown, blue, grey,
              pupil and to whatever necessary telescope
for the constellations / twinkle in the eye...

     the modern **** sapiens doesn't want to procreate
with modern neanderthal women because
he thinks his feces will smell of mustard...
          he's ashamed about the way sport has
replaced national identity,
              and that watching ***** do the exodus from
a ******* and assimilate into a genesis of an ****
has become magnified into 22 wankers kicking
a ball between two fishnet stocking pair of legs...
              neanderthal women get it,
**** sapiens man doesn't... he's wondering why
there haven't been many drunk intellectuals...
                to state this case.

**** sapiens man is wondering why this isn't even
an insult... by a version of a continuum
best addressed when worded, rather than
    chess-chanced on a board of fixations and
cheap-labour and psychiatrically guised excuses
that are in concerto: lethargy etiam propus.

   **** sapiens is wondering why history froze,
and this be the new ice age...
and why only one day gets a mention,
he's wondering why there's no media sabbath...
         i.e.: when no news happens.

**** sapiens is bewildered by this fresh zeitgeist
of having a need to speak...
  **** sapiens is wondering: why Ned the Destroyer?
**** sapiens is asking: what about the think?
       **** sapiens says of neanderthals:
i guess they really need to talk
because they cannot accept the monotheistic concept
of thought, and stress the democratic: blah blah brechen
to protest, stitch placards and walk a lot and do
cathedral bells a justice of repeating chants: kneel
to pray! tramps aren't trump! etc.

**** sapiens says: they once imagined telepathic
with telekinetic and then they said no to Marxism...
now there don't seem to be that many individuals around
apart from those in suicidal succor.

all in all, **** sapiens simply says:
i will not fornicate with these neanderthal women!
i don't care what my genetic prenup would look like,
    it might look ugly, it might look pretty...
            if we're going down this route...
there's me: exit,
                and then these women:
            lamenting what queen Sheeba said to
king Solomon:
                          the copper skinned will rule the world.

well, here's me and my automated reliance on
extinction...
                           i'm taking a bow...
i'm bowing out...
                                i find only one sensual solace in
this world...
                    music...
                           ­         i'm bowing out of the rest
that comes like a Mongolian revival of a horde...
          and even if there was a love for a woman worth
defending... i already declassified it as
neanderthal... so much for Darwinism when uncoupled
from theology and coupled to history;
evidently my mind is a bit blank when i try to go beyond
the written records... nice gallery by the way...
sure, the shrunken coccyx gave it away...
and i wish i was... doing acrobatics on trees, still;

**** sapiens said of neanderthals:
if only you had an immune system built to
                                        not succumb to advertisement!

but **** sapiens man said: poach the ivory,
but the elephant will play you a trumpet underwater,
      and you'll ask: why?
              because if the elephant farted you'd
get a methane jacuzzi, and not a quasi-jazz concert...
that wasn't even meant to be funny.

well, it's still better than what populists ascribed to with omni-; which basically led two major "monotheisms" (Christianity and Islam) into pantheism: e.g. - touch a rock, mm, that's god... touch a banana, mm, that's god; stick a thumb up your ***, mm... now that's truly god.

what i was aiming to suggest was the concept
of *deo sapiens,
as an antidote to the overrated **** sapiens
categorisation, which can hardly be the limit
of our collective definition of man set apart
from nature, given his persistent submission
to the four elements of nature, which limit
man's assurance as above helpless animals he
decided to pet or industrialise in farming -
and apart from the elements the existence of
parasites and diseases (negations of ease) -
i only wanted to introduce the concept deo sapiens
to say F U to the Greek demoralising theological
poets, and enjoin the whole concept with
what was already inscribed prior: made in his image,
although image doesn't really go beyond
the demigod Narcissus in what's to be understood:
perhaps we are of the same mould in
the shallow realm of equal representation,
repraesentatio expilo (representative plagiarism),
but with the overruling body of nuance
hanging over us like a sack of **** or the sword
of Damocles, we can hardly continue as these unshaken
prefects of the firm categorisation of **** sapiens,
which is still rather an infant of conceptualisation,
we have no claim to **** sapiens, i cannot think
why man claimed such a firm atheistic belief with
his continual irrationality, perhaps certain discoveries
in science allowed him crossing the Nile of ideas,
thus in the same way as i disregard the categorisation
of **** sapiens i invite the concept of deo sapiens,
a rational god: it's just a massive grave and subsequent
plagiarism with pyramid schemes of dupes!
that thing ain't gonna fly! away from greek poets who
purposively created immoral gods to satiate their
human fancy: indeed an unfair world, but a world
where man can fully express his freedom, and what
freedom he chooses according to his will...
only a deo sapiens would allow such freedoms
(with that one ****** exception that's worth a thousand
stigmas in the shadow of the crux that gave us
so much narcissistic culture via iconography and dyslexia);
or in other words, yes, indeed only a **** insapiens
would dare craft the idea of a deo sapiens
(although in act of good faith / doubt), rather than
a **** sapiens crafting the idea of deo insapiens
(although in act of bad faith / denial) -
and yes, the paradoxical twins, who are actually
Siamese... it's now up to your choice of painting with
will what freedom you wish to see revealed on
the canvas... don't mind me, my hands are in the air,
i surrender... i'm not about to imitate an Islamic prayer
format of kneeling and mumbling something under
my breath five times a day; i'll do it in one smooth
guillotine stroke: hands in the air.

becoming bored of the: what came first, the chicken or the egg? i had to ask a similar question: what came first, the letter δ, or the digit 6?

the only reason why philosophy books
take so much time to read,
is because,
of all literary traditions,
               philosophy books extoll
a need to allow re-reading,
  and no, not a re-reading of the omni-
reading: the sigma / the entire
work -
              but passages of a work -
philosophy books take such a long time
to read, because one is forced to
reread certain passages several times,
if not the nadir-minimum of at least
twice....

notably? perhaps one of many examples
(and i was serious that
heidegger's being & time
  and kant's critique of pure reason
are, reasonably, worth 2 years of your
life to read through, and several
other non-philosophical books
in between...
      yes, poetry is a grand aid when
reading philosophy -
   notably due to his "agoraphilia",
and its love for sparing the eyes
from straining themselves in
the fudge of tight-knit paragraphs):
that said: the elders should read
either newspapers or poetry,
while the young, with their hawk-eyes
the deluge of claustrophilic
sentencing...
          funny... we hear more of phobias
than of philias...
    last time i checked, our society
entombed only one philia,
among many phobias...
        you know the philia, it begins with
the letter p-;
           odd, isn't it?
                         to fathom a rainbow range
of possible phobias,
     and disrespect a possiblity for
what's devolved in etymological terms
    from greek, i.e.?
  how philias are understood in english:
quirks... eccentricities.
england and its people is a nation
of eccentricities, any russian can tell you
that... you don't even have to cite
     the neo-tsar of the current year;
a less pleasant ascriptive-noun /
       denoting? a, bunch of ******* weirdos!
(yes, the comma implies a quick cascade
of utterance - like ******* a
                            shoelace of spaghetti).
the example though,
   rereading aphorism no. 93 (ponderings V) -
what does reconstitute man
     as *animal rationale rather than
firmly establishing him as **** sapiens?
well... for a **** sapiens
there must be a deus insapiens -
                   for a wise man, a mad god;
but beyond the notion of god...
would it not be easier, as aphorism 93
suggests invoke a trinity of concepts?
  no "wise" man discredits god,
  whether in idea, or whether in existence,
or when in idea in non-existence -
    because isn't that what atheists provoke?
namely that god "is": in idea in non-existence,
existence per se, cannot be an idea,
since in invokes the 5 senses
      rather than the 1 non-sense (thought),
simply, i can't grasp existence as an idea,
but i can grasp the existence of x
as an idea, since the mechanics of "an" idea
is to treat it as non-existent, and therefore
requiring me to think about it:
and since nature doesn't allow vacuums -
what could possibly fill the nature of
man, if not the ontological construct of
the existing-"non"-existent god?
    what? some hot chocolate and a cookie jar?!
that's beside the point...
     reducing man from the status
of **** sapiens into a state of
     animal rationale opens our demand
for the original status "quo",
that man work from the foundation of
qua categorised animal rationale
and moving to the status of **** sapiens,
which, by so doing, avoids
the burden of presupposing oneself
as **** sapiens, and "re-inventing"
the wheel, and crafting the posit for
                                        a deus insapiens.
the aphorism does suggest that we
are breeding an animal,
                      an animal of genes,
              rather than a human of memes,
for "man" to attain the status
   of **** sapiens from the origin
of animal rationale - is to also claim that
the current claim of "man" as
     **** sapiens reduces a "god" to
be categorised as deus insapiens
  (as stressed by the emotionally infantile
pressure: ******* built a pyramids!
   oh... so looking at a mountain from
a distance wasn't good enough?) -
but categorising "man" as striving for
the status of **** sapiens from the origins
of the already well versed
                    atheistic demand
  for the animal in man, rather than
the man in the animal...
             who could not be persuaded
to allow the striving of a "god"
              from the confines
  of animal rationale ut deus insapiens
into the existential-"zoo"
            of **** sapiens ut
                                         deus sapiens?
can that question even range into
  asking whether **** est deus
ut deus est man - and that this whole existence
has an omni-spaien dimension
  with a ?, given that the big bang was
not ? remark, but an ! -
    a question is hushed
into philosophy (murmur), while awe
and fancy and daring shouts! explodes!