My brain is so idiotic, it thinks it can exist without the mind

This establishment has received both praise and complaint in equal measure. Such is expected when publishing such bold and controversial ideas. The most surprising of the praise though, was a compliment regarding the highly factual and uncanny social relevance of my intelligence. For matters of respect, and reservation of privacy, it would be irresponsible to name the person that gifted me with this praise, but I think we should all raise our glasses and congratulate this person on their transcendence to the state of having a highly attuned sense of what my writing (in essence) IS.

We think that in using a word like IS or AS or even KNOW we must attribute it to something, an idea or one of the four tools of the English language. But it is my theory, that in doing that, we are succumbing to the very limitations and restrictions that are keeping us from achieving our potential. Not our human potential, but the potential of potentiality itself. When we connect the recognition to an article we are inadvertently cutting off any themes of universality. Why ask the question IS, connecting it to an article, when we can just a simply ask the infinite question by leaving the question before any article attachment? By simply asking IS, we're asking the question of that article, and every other article.

Due to my incredible sense of forethought, and my profound understanding of human behavior, it suddenly occurred to me upon completion of the prior paragraph that I may be criticized for word repetition. This is not due to a case of having a bad vocabulary (Abulia. Talismanic. Hahnium. See, I know heaps of big words) but a case of necessity. In order to announce the importance of themes in literature you can either isolate the words through unique format, or create repeated instances of ideas. Since I am a hugely opposed to changing the format of text inside the body of text, I find myself having to commit to the latter.

Now that I have convinced you that I am indeed a master of language (and a keen novelist, but I will leave that for another rambling) then you will believe me when I tell you to take off your shoes. I know what you are thinking, and I know, I get it. But what does that have to do with anything? It happened 3 years ago, they found the culprit, he is doing 8 years and I was cleared of all charges, and old woman Roberta got her hip replacement in the end. It is hard, but we do need to put this issue of passive government control aside for a minute, and concentrate on the shoes. When we think about why we need shoes, the answer is obvious, as we have been conditioned to accept existence parameters as requirements.

We need shoes so our feet do not get damaged in our day-to-day foot travel. Though, we also know what would happen if shoes were inexistent. Yes. Calluses. We can turn our feet into calluses. In doing that, we would not need shoes, as the thing to protect our feet would be the feet themselves because they would not need protecting from zee Germans. The shoe companies designed something to protect the very thing that is being compromised for the sake of financial gain and foot-related economic monopoly. It is when we remove the shoes (and the socks, the sock industry is an offshoot of the shoe industry) that we can laugh boldly in the face of those dirty rotten evil Krauts.