The Stygian Wholesto

What did he say? He wants us to brush it off as slippage? Of logical reasons for Richards’ speech acts, they are ambiguous and controversial in terms of how we should receive them. But, there is an ample amount of reason in terms of post logocentrisms rising from social identification in zones of explicit anguish stemming from viewpoints indigenous of hidden world transcripts. As the architect of the Stygian Wholesto, I feel these transcripts of the social discourse of racism should be reflected upon in order to construe the realities of formalism, and the communal realities of resisting the pioneering of polemical vernaculars and economic subtexts. Richards’ backlash to his audience can be read as an attempt at the depersonalization of eugenics in some illogical show stopping production. Furthermore, Richards, a social comic of privileged name only affords himself a marginal certitude by denying the impact of his language amplified by his speech acts; for there is no clear ontological reason for his intention of repelling an illusory assault, and the grave assumptions of his audience. When Richards’ violently swings with “nigger,” his iconic disposition instantly collapses under the weight of an obvious pre-conceived tendency for tropological modes of a prefigurative cultural nature. In other words, Richards’ is quite modern by his non-cryptic methods--impossibly a symptom of slippage--and also permits an interrupted another regardless of satirical, radical, or dominant attempts. So what are we left with? Who will Richards’ be in a cauterized, culturalized mode of popular historicity? My answer is that he is probably no more than another false-generative comical influence of outrageous transactive shaping reflective of his cultural idolatries of racial inclusive messages…no more than the real Kramer, really.