I'm currently watching The Rebirth, the season 4 Transformers episodes on YouTube; in having done so, I was just now inspired by Scattershot to think about this question, about if citation language (aka capitalist branding type language) and its lack of being able to be a production power for a socialist sci-fi world is an important hindrance for that said sci-fi world of socialist values.
In Transformers (2007), Megan Fox's Banes is a continual symbol of condescension logic to Sam Witwicky, because of her facial glamour. Is it possible, that the cosmos or that just reality invented the good vs evil conceit of Autobots vs Decepticons (of the specific context that the Transformers good vs evil conceit was a representation of manual labour's cynical relationship to the environment of utility use) for human thinkers to use as a left-wing reaction to facial glamour's condemnation of egalitarianism practice?
Gardening, pop culture and the national government; are the three identical meanings of quantity cynicism by the cosmos?
Reality factually consists of eating food, i.e. life eating life. With this in mind, it is pertinent to ask what the afterlife consists of. Can it consist of the life forms who were eaten by other life forms?
Assuming the affirmative, with respect to the query of whether or not this matters, i.e. the life eating life aspect, is humanity's salvation as being part of the chain of dominos of eaters not being safe in the afterlife from the eaten capitalism's key weapon against the possibility that socialism is evil all along?
The thesis, is if Belle's animated Disney tale from 1991 is in fact an intellectual stupidity of using aristocratic canvases to support spiritual enlightenment. When Belle goes through her town, at the opening - and this aspect is devoid of the dynamic of her singing about provincial life being mundane - the essential meta theme (meta here denotes the possession by the universal shared consciousness of the cosmos) is that Belle's disposition is not in fact a spiritual alignment.
But what is the index here, for this presupposition? The general arc of the film, is the encounter with aristocracy as a means to spiritual enlightenment. The castle itself, as a means to enlightenment.
Is this a folly disposition? Can the macro context of the product account for the argument's science? When making that remark, about macro context, the idea is that somehow the film's general DNA is in cahoots with the argument's science; namely, this would ostensibly be an idiosyncrasy perhaps because of the meta idea that aristocracy is in cahoots with spirituality.
The singing by O'Hara is special, and it's perfectly possible that this aspect is the exclusive mechanism for the film's spiritual ideas. Devoid of this tenet, i.e. the O'Hara factor, is the product bankrupt because of its aspiration ideology that aristocracy is the mechanism for spiritual and not magic ideas?
A wonderful life lesson output by Gervais. The life lesson's actual identity within the whole machine of the output is the wonder itself. Mortality. Consumption. Daytime and nighttime. These are the life lessons of the show.
Daytime itself is the actual wonder of the show, of the context that it's a wonder of being a life lesson application. Same goes for nighttime, and for mortality and the consumer society.
I have an interesting theory, I'd like to share. It's that Cathy Ames from the novel East of Eden (not the film adaptation, but just the original 1952 novel) is the inspiration for Sharon Stone's vixen Catherine Tramell.
What are your thoughts on this? Is it a feasible theory?
The hair colour. The murder of the parents. The eyes description. The theme of wealth being prominent in both fictions, even though Cathy Ames to my knowledge (as a progressing reader of East of Eden, being on chapter 9) isn't bequeathed with wealth.
Is it possible?
Love Island. The Only Way Is Essex. Geordie Shore. The Real Housewives series of America. Etc etc... Is it possible, that the facial glamour tribalism represented by these programs is evolution's logical conclusion, and moreover, that if general publics weren't to use their president and prime minister systems, their capitalist economies and their representative democracies, that this sort of facial glamour Only Way is Essex tribalism would manifest as an invasive and militarist dominance across all of Earth, threatening all standard and normal looking people?
Love Island. The Only Way Is Essex. Geordie Shore. The Real Housewives series of America. Etc etc... Is it possible, that the facial glamour tribalism represented by these programs is evolution's logical conclusion, and moreover, that if general publics weren't to use their president and prime minister systems, their capitalist economies and their representative democracies, that this sort of facial glamour Only Way is Essex tribalism would manifest as an invasive and militarist dominance across all of Earth, threatening all standard and normal looking people?
I have a gut instinct, that Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford's TFA version of Han Solo are a shared meaning of confronting an identical evil. Namely, that TFA and Kiss the Girls the film are both users of the same syndrome of hiding in plain sight from evil. Or, more specifically, that there is a metaphorical ticking time bomb on the Han Solo and Alex Cross characters, but only of the context related to non-movie importance. Is this true?
Is it true, that the theme of waiting to be confronted by evil via non-eligibility (Han Solo and Alex Cross both being non-eligible) is in fact a universe system of ideas about evil's identity and how it is meant to be ended?
I have a gut instinct, that Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford's TFA version of Han Solo are a shared meaning of confronting an identical evil. Namely, that TFA and Kiss the Girls the film are both users of the same syndrome of hiding in plain sight from evil. Or, more specifically, that there is a metaphorical ticking time bomb on the Han Solo and Alex Cross characters, but only of the context related to non-movie importance. Is this true?
Is it true, that the theme of waiting to be confronted by evil via non-eligibility (Han Solo and Alex Cross both being non-eligible) is in fact a universe system of ideas about evil's identity and how it is meant to be ended?
She Had A Face, Like Kelly Brook
By Thomas Heath
First, the problem’s solution.
Be warned. It is a very dangerous, very infinite treachery, type of solution.
The solution, aforementioned, the solution spoken of and of pertinence, is the 2022-2023 Ukraine-Russia war (and, more specifically, of course, the liberal identity entities of that war’s actual, very actual attacks, tactics, campaign movements, i.e. military campaign movements and explosions).
She, from the left-wing transcendence nation-state (not the transcended left-wing nation-state, as that fails to portray the absolutism of territory of the actual nation-state), meets with the old fairy tale crooked man.
She, and the old crooked man – they meet at a mansion, outside the left-wing transcendence nation-state, she the nation-state’s left-wing leader.
She, this nation-state’s left-wing leader, and who has a face, like the British model Kelly Brook; she’s done her normal. For the meeting, at the mansion, of the old crooked man, treated like any other political meeting conducted by the female left-wing leader, the woman leader has deemed to wear a very, very sharp red business suit, as well as a militarist tanned body.
She wears her left-wing politics very proud.
The cigar.
The cigar lighter.
The cigar tray.
The aristocracy gun.
The bra and panties.
The LT nation-state’s economy, its business life, its family suburbia life, its infrastructure technology life, its jobs and careers life, its political life. It had all been completed, all been finished, by the Kelly Brook woman leader – and yet, that same woman leader would observe like a psychopath, holding the cigar.
The LT nation-state’s economy, its homework life, its news media/news network life, its sports life. It had all been completed, all been finished, by the Kelly Brook woman leader – and yet, that same woman leader would observe like a psychopath, wearing the bra and panties.
He (the old fairy tale crooked man) had done it. He had gotten her, to enjoy the bra, and the panties, and the cigar, and the gun, and the cigar lighter.
He had gotten her to play, with the said items.
He had gotten her to play, and thus, he had gotten her to fuck up the metaphor of the LT nation-state.
Bra and panties. They are the meaning, of left-wing transcendence.
In the 1970s, on planet Earth, the hippie movement and culture, against the Vietnam war wasn’t left-wing transcendence (news media had been unscientific).
The science, of reality: a glamorous woman, plays with the gun, with the cigar lighter, with the cigar and with the bra and panties, so that she can be downloaded – so that her actions can be downloaded – into the minds of the populace.
Except, the LT nation-state hadn’t been founded on this principle. And, moreover, the Kelly Brook woman leader of the LT nation-state had never been “subject” to this style of truth.
Now, she had.
Psychotically, enthusiastically, with great enjoyment, the Kelly Brook look-a-like had used the aristocracy gun; she had taken off her red business suit, and worn the bra and panties; she had laid down, next to the mansion swimming pool outdoors, and held the lit cigar.
The way to help this woman? The way to free her from the psychosis of the cigar, of the mansion, of the bra and panties, and of the gun?
Tell the public, who she had been a delegate for and a governor of, that she was able to project left-wing politics onto manual labour so that manual labour's symmetry nature and routine was safe.
It wasn't via the Ukraine-Russia war, or via Rebecca De Mornay and Don Johnson's sexual legal business partnership that the solution existed; it was through public acknowledgement of this science and manual labour intelligence.
The famous dichotomy is Schumacher's Batman to Nolan's Batman. The politics of the Batman myths ostensibly belongs to the latter iteration, although I would contend that the Schumacher Batman is the intellectual disguise of politics for the sake of purporting a smarter politics than Nolan's (the obvious conservatism, if not saved by its postureism ideology).
Batwoman. Nightwing. These elemental figures of the mythos destroy the politics; they save the mythos from itself, in a way. I enjoy the family mythos, because despite the gimmicks of the Rogue Gallery (an ideology of argument for non-politics suspended by the anarchy/anarcho-communism details of the Joker and Harley Quinn's deconstructive sociology commentaries) it is a system that conveys the ability of the mythos to represent freedom from politics.
How does one access the non-politics of Batman? If Barbara Gordon and Dick Grayson are idealisms, how can they sustained as idealisms in the face of Nolanesque traits and tenets? It's ironic, and it's a maybe testament to Batman's vast canvas of ideas that Snyder's Batman isn't perhaps a shared ideology of Batman to Nolan.
Have you ever been saved by Alicia Silverstone, in the moments when she discovers the Batcave in 1997 Batman & Robin?
I am deeply schizophrenic, however, I am deeply self-aware of my mind's nature. I believe that the mind and brain can possess optic powers that rival the majesty of the cosmos itself. Have you ever had schizophrenia to the extent that you feel forced to acknowledge this type of rivalry idea?