i'll tell  you when communism actually works...
   communism can never
be an instigator of some internal problem,
that'll never work,
   however much *** you smoke, however
many dreadlock girls you send to a protest...
   the perfect example for the effectiveness
of communism?
                     ok, ok... socialism, whatever...
why did sweden receive marshall plan funding,
when it was neutral throughout the second
world war?
                 communism will only rebuild
syria...
                   it's the economic policy
    for a post-war period... it dissolves naturally
once a competitive plataeu is achieved...
prior to that plataeu being achieved?
               you need ant-like-collectivisation...
communism is not a failed system,
  it's the only system in post-war scenarios...
how can you capitalise in a war-torn country?
the capitalisation already happened,
prior to a war, with arms deals...
                   you can't just shove communism
under the carpet...
         communism, it would seem,
  is not in competition with capitalism,
in that scenario, it is a failure...
               but how can capitalism rebuild
a country like syria?
               when a brother distrusted a brother,
a neighbour a neighbour,
   a butcher a carpenter...
                     communism is not aligned
to capitalism per se for sake of competition,
                 there are ulterior needs for its existence,
the new enemy of capitalism is
          the marshall plan model of:
  who deserves... and who doesn't;
   for ****'s sake... at least the poles were doubly
taught integrity to fend for themselves,
rather than being pumped with free dosh...
     so why did a neutral country, such as sweden
receive marshall plan dosh (money)?
     with our bare hands, we rebuilt
the warsaw starówka (old town)...
               and yes, the misery had to be equally
shared... but most people outside my age
bracket remember it fondly, obviously except
the years being placed under martial law,
             suspecting a second russian invasion...
communism is a transitory economic model,
it times of absolute crisis,
          such as the war in syria...
               capitalism can't rebuild syria...
which doesn't mean that syria will not return
to a capitalistic model, it just means that
    only a transient communist model may allow
syria to allow to a capitalistic model,
  if that's what's to be desired,
          if capitalism were to resurrect syria,
you'd get competitive arms dealers necessitating
the prolonging of the civil war:
to boot... there are no capitalists in syria at
the moment...
                          they're all foreign...
                         seriously, wake the **** up!
stop fearing communism in a boxing match with
capitalism, that's a trap...
               it's an economic policy in post-war...
                obviously it outlives its welcome when
enough people have finally reached
                 the chance to compete in a "friendly" /
olympic manner...
                        but communism has a place...
and its place is in such instances...
                      it is to rebuild war-torn nations,
and it is, but a momentary solution that even
    if communism were a person, it would understand.
             it was never an inherent evil
   that needed to bring down nations,
      it was intended to lift them, from the ashes
       of war, and give such ashen nations:
                              one brick, two brick, four.
the west is always talking to itself,
   in a cushioned room, donning a strait-jacket...
what now? trans? trans?! transgender is the problem?
looks like we'll need a lot of butter and coconut milk
to oil of the west's throat, so they can keep on talking
  absolute crap.

hypochondira and hyperactivity,
misguiding nouns.
                vinum bonum et suave,
bonis binum, pravis prave,
ave mundana laetitia!
          łyski - whiskey -
  łysy... itching to slap a skinhead...
so the question:
  what are the ad hoc parameters of
cogito ergo sum?
           i so wish to be given an
ad hoc clarity for certain maxims...
   in most instances they're bibles,
obscurity riddles them a hymnal status,
and that said: holy.
                i wan't to be given the ad hoc
instruction manual for certain
   eurekas...
               i'm told that the already stated
prefigures subjectivity...
            and that the subconscious
isn't merely a bystanders' experience of
puppetteering...
   insinuation sphere...
            just like i might add third party
inquisitors demanding of me that:
every dream has a hidden meaning behind it.
       so many have died trying to
create the uncoscious contraceptive...
this mental *******...
  this exploitative subconscious insinuation
puppet motivation...
                  the subconscious only exists
to create the other's drone capitalisation
   of fragility...
   the synonym of the subconscious
   within groundwork of making choices,
acknowledging ethic, is insinuation,
  spies and the alphabetical fixation on
  subversion, and all other subs- congregate.
           and it really does sound like nonsense
once the enemy's tongue is waggling...
                      some even called it the
omnivore safehaven...
   when in fact so much was prioritised
for dietary requirements...
                               that became bouldered
anorexic grey-areas;
    synchronised skeleton army
         tugging the chimeras of crimea,
shortened to the word: Krym.
knowing this tongue, i should be apt at
      forging any and all ethnic linkage with it
being expressed: i should be gagging
for a forthnight spent in las vegas!
                   but there's me, dreaming of a tartar steak.

natural selection is the easy explanation -
of course the additions worth
exceptions that one blind man would
call an elephant, for each man and his
assets - or those missing -
but with natural selection the antagonist
ontology - begging the question
about what every philosopher does,
extracting from ditto (or the passing
down of units of meaning, i.e. words)
his own lessened bewilderment:
"natural" and "selection" - as in the case
of the memory recount: there's nothing to
be imagined, but upon recounted distorted,
idly surrealistic in the least -
if there is natural selection worth a house
a wife a pair of kids on the personal level
there's this unconscious rather than a natural
selection, which delves with mingling
memory with imagination - one might suggest
a polar opposite, we don't choose what we
remember, it's also automated, but more personalised
than what natural selection breeds based
on looks and aesthetics in general -
so much i wish to have remembered that wasn't
rubric based wasn't the quote
akin to that Jesus sniff about the corner brick
being rejected - religiously fundamental even
with or without scientific allegiance or sooth-said
alliance - thus still the continuum of ? -
and the sometimes secure ! extraction worthy
of a Newton - but when it comes to memory
i find no natural selection, unless like every philosopher
i like boxes and boxing things into the unanswered
categorisation of kept contentment as fuelling
contained capitalisation of the chance omitted second guess -
i can't equate myself toward a continuum of only two facts
by the Cartesian standard - one fact precipitating into
another - since from i think i spawn more than just
the fact precipitated into i am - of course i am on
the table of autopsy is disseminated toward the historian
and elsewhere - but before i think can precipitate
via therefore into concrete it has to identify the other
mental faculties, two major: i imagine (Disney)
and i remember - that variant of imagination wholly personal -
for memory is imagination wholly engrossed with
a nullified projection of originality - alt. aimed at
the architecture of self-worth. this is my bewilderment -
given natural selection understood quiet well
with so many rejections - why is memory not deemed
naturally selective? but rather unnaturally selective?
i guess the ~arithmetic of ontology per se can give us
clues why one is natural, and the other unnatural,
one one leaves us with a perfectly functioning example
of continuance and a loss of self-preservation,
while the other, due to its purpose of contentment with
as many questions as there are cares for packaging -
leaves us with the pinnacle solipsistic;
hence with natural selection due to aesthetics -
hence with "unnatural" selection due to psychology -
never was the inverse-anatomic putting-together
of man as necessary as these days -
hence unravelling the ditto, also ambiguity, also
instigator to mime / copy, also to originate from,
also a raw slab of marble to perfect into statue,
also a passed on no longer passable entourage of
citation, also a cut-off point needing revision -
and after all we were taught with Pythagoras in tow -
it seems a natural way to memorise life away
from the schooling - as naturally dis-inhibited
we became "naturally" inhibited in what life
constituted when memorised - for the lack of imaginative
escapes - the dark tunnel and the light at the end -
the Molotov horror with near-death experiences.

im so tired of reading bad poetry worn out cliches with rhymes that doesnt remotely match meters that just drop off out of nowhere leaving you wondering why it was written at all the me me me i i i you dont understand what ive been through as if Your the only one who has had trauma themes that do Not make A lick of sense whatsoever or the ones where how many times can you say the same **** thing over and over and over again its just too long then there's the hole misspelling of words where the Writer is either to frikken lazy to proof read or just trying to be and and i use this word loosely creative poor grammar with no punctuation or capitalisation leaving you out to figure what the hell is actually meant and let us not forget the egregious use of big words discombobulating the reader in an inefficacious attempt to impress and by the way shakespeare is dead so the thee thus thou shant be missed there are a few presumed outcomes of you reading this either a comment below detailing your egotistical outrage of what has been written with what i am sure is to be a riveting display of your distain with private conversations with others on the pompous *** who wrote it and how you gave him a piece of your mind and in what manner you told him or a passive aggressive poem written in a not so discreet manner in which you will feel better about yourself but all the while thinking you should have said more then there is the ones that in their im not like that attitude will refrain from any discussion on the matter so as to prove a point as what has been said will stick in their craw for quite some time for those who have continued reading i would like to thank you for your time and let it be known that this piece has been penned deliberately so as the aforementioned statements concerning poetry are actually in fact observations of my own written works as many of you know as writers we are our own worse critics and with that being said if a poem is to incite emotions then i do believe it has done just that