AZ lingers on self and his own mythic obsessions, tries to step out of his self obsessive cage and have at dos pook
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNQSOa0Qs40
workwithmike.biz
clowncash.com ---probably not linked up anymore.
I just opened this video back up here in april 2016 to illustrate the general sales model to an out-dated MLM system.
I think it's still funny as clown shit, but that's just me.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JbS0gNzKio
Paul rubin is pee wee. I didn't even name my wiener after Pee wee.
No patreon link yet.
Art, My pig head, Olivia Newton John Travolta
Mumble
-
19:00 - 22:00 minutes I'm drumming
36:00 I do a freaky dance
44:00 about the one guy mentioning that he was bi-sexual , that he should have said. then "suck my dick".
46:00 about Darth (not vader)
54:00 my rant ends
56:00 emK interaction
- 59:00 don't leave a brother hanging
then a video critique and listen
.
1:21:45 "I'm back to monologue" song
on the fly- imprompt tu , ad hoc inserted song
.126
.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5cbszDGcg
This video deals more with the inversion of the state after it is collapsed, and the subsequent loss of the ghostly invariable which plays a role in the separation of the syntactic rigors of logic into the play of reason.
Inversion of the syntax [X=X] - [X=x] describes so much while it's inversion =] x [= holds no rule from which a variable mistake could be made.
Subject X is then balanced beyond reason to identify with a non-rational politic. The retention of rational organization above a supposedly free people namely 'DROs' (Disagreement Resolution Organizations) would contract carte blanche the root of the word 'freedom' away.
The very distinction between object & subject of object, would be transformed to subject & topic of subject.
I have to apologize: The very act of making a 3d palimpsest argument fails to securely take the viewer 'rationally' to any necessary nor definite conclusion. The video is to suggest (that without some retention of the state) that equality would shift from a 'sign to signified' to an: invariant sign pointing to (m)any equal signifieds. This is to say that the signifier would not denote but would simply note. And would inversely loose it's affixment (ifier) and be a vacuous scratch
My only hope is that the spirit of the video is followed into it's obscure limits.
LASTLY: In no way am I suggesting that XX by virtue of genital structure are subject to XY. But that following gender identification rules, such as this one, allows us to examine the history of such subjectation.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKHiWOgabUk