Hillary La Loca For President
I think because male labor is generally considered the more expensive and technical and that it has been easier to demonstrate the cooking talents of a male, thus that made it easier for males to colonize the upper echelons of the food industry. This is because male talent is demonstrative, remember that males externalize, for men make a big deal out of anything that they do and know, when a woman does a good teriyaki, though there might not be such thing as far as I am concerned, she doesn’t brag about it, and more she doesn’t cook by metrics she cooks largely by intuition, as I do too, and so the technique of male gets processed more in the context of intellect and system, and that is why not only are male chefs more defined in the context of the task but so are male waiters. Which is why expensive restaurants will not have women as wait staff, sooner they will have them washing dishes.
I still don’t like her but Maureen Dowd that asked why it was that when a man cooked everyone had to pay attention as if he were accomplishing some great feat and yet everyone ignores it when its a woman doing cooking.
The key factor here is that male elements gather there strength from social and system recognition, that is why titles are so important to males, males need careers and education and actions to define them because they feed and feed the external; women however have an internal guidance system and since they are the progenitors of society haven’t the need or want to belong to the system as a way to personify their character. Again here the critical part is that women is inward looking she knows herself and is aware of her inner desires and generally will intuitively be aware of what she wants and this does not require external approbation, a woman is fundamentally satisfied with her self, a man is fundamentally unaware of anything that he is, and generally he cannot support more than one view of himself as this is very energy intensive because he doesn’t intuit himself, that is he has to make himself into someone of relevance.
Camille Paglia, one of those philosophers that I do not like because she is too much like a man, but then philosophy is wholly masculine as it is descriptive, to the point that you could positively say that philosophy is the superbowl of intellect, anyways Camille, she is still a woman if by name only, wrote a wonderful and mentally stimulating book title Sexual Personae, I couldn’t stop laughing the whole reading, and in a couple of chapters she completely neuters males and naturally empowers women, and it would be very difficult to disagree with much of what she says.
It basically boils down to the fact that male is the artifice of life and female is what is natural or endemic to nature, she ties this in many ways, explaining such things as the beauty of the male penis as it searches to penetrate which is an outward looking function and how too vagina, which she considers an ugly monstrosity, is this thing sitting there waiting to be penetrated and equally she notes that the vagina engulfs.
Again she did a hilarious job though I don’t think much of Paglia should be taken seriously as she has become masculine and thus has dismembered her intuition.
The problem with the feminist view of the world, as I see it, is that the feminist think that men are powerful creatures and that their power leads them to dominance and that dominance is good and so good that it has undermined women and their potential contribution in the context of systems and society.
After making such glorified assumption, and it does require a certain degree of analytic suspension, they then go on to prescribe that females adopt male characteristics in order to take back the world that was stolen from under their skirts. Ha!
What I find fantastic about this is that it makes the assumption that nature was from the get go against women, that is it gave males the upper hand by making them stronger in a cavemen’s world, that is to say that species can play favoritism within the context of its endemic gender biology.
The assumption further assumes that only contributions that are observable count in the context of systems and societies. This even as we already know that 90% of the Universe is not observable, but of course feminists are just male minds within female bodies and so they are looking for evidence of woman’s historical actions in the observable economic and systemic aspect of civilization; this is perhaps the wrong place to look.
I have always said and it think you have heard me say it, that a bullfight represents the perfect critical review of male and female interaction in the process of civilization and so I will use such accordingly, though it is not limited to that, you can see it in less aesthetic formats such as American Football, and the Executives Office where a greater bull than the CEO there isn’t.
First I don’t think that women are weak, I think that they are stronger than us males, second I don’t think that they have been shorted by history, and third I think that they do indeed control the world as indeed they must as it is in their interest that there be a civilization; and Paglia doesn’t make any mistakes here, she correctly notes that it was in woman’s interest to civilize man because in civilized society there are less rapes, in fact according to Paglia and myself, we both agree wholeheartedly here, it is woman that tempers men thorugh a civilizing process! Paglia correctly assumes that women will suffer greater the less civilized the society. And while I think that the culling of male aggression through civilizing education does have its side effects, perversion being one of them, there is still a far greater accomplishment to the benefit of female, and that is that it makes society feminine in gender.
This is a very subtle reality but as I watch my male cats fight each other to secure a territory and to show that they are stronger and mightier than the other macho and I watch the females rush to watch the fight between Loki and Pacho, I know precisely where the motivation is for the fight, it is the feminine that demands an aggressive male, and those males are doing what has been pre approved as the proper way to win a female and win reproduction rights. It will not hurt us any to further note here that African tribal women refuse to have sex with the men that don’t bring meat home.
Further we cannot, even in our wildest dreams, ignore the fact that 90 percent of all species reproduce without males within their lot. Nature as a whole only produces males where the environment and conditions are so extenuating that they need someone who has been short-circuited of feelings to come and react in such environment.
However the paramount contribution of the feminine are in fact greater than that of any male or group of males, the problem is that they are not observable because it is subconscious in its representation; men perform at the conscious level, and probably don’t have much subconscious to speak of, they may indeed live and operate only in surfaces, but women operate at great subconscious levels, and males that are properly married acquire their civil guidance as it radiates from wife or mate, if either of those representations are missing then the male will default to mother and if mother is not present male will default to sister for guidance.
It has been said a thousand times, man alone is destructive and out of control, man with wife is prone to discipline, to adopt social norms, to go to church and to perform better at his job, and this has all been documented in study after study, and finally something I don’t have to make up. Ha!
The problem is that the feminists cannot see but the overt and thus they have become envious of men, and funny enough this doesn’t work against males, instead it favors them and thus feminism does it’s worse harm to women, and more detrimental to us all it does a greater harm to society because it breaks the natural equilibrium between males and females, and their dominance over society because when you have masculinated females you have lost a portion of that critical balance that nature has deigned and reigned throughout countries, with a remarkable precision of 51% females 49% males. Even nature knows enough to give the majority of the vote to the women. Further the greater the number of women cannot be overlooked from another perspective, male aggression cannot be diffused by fewer females, it can only thus increase, the fewer feminine traits in a given society the more externally and internationally aggressive and destructive that society will become, and as that society becomes more aggressive it will further masculinate its women too so that they too cannot feel the pain, for an ability to tolerate pain is a unique male ability and that becomes a terror; as your women become tough too and thus desensitized.
The society suffers as a result, think what it means that in China and in India mothers prefer to have little boys so they condone the killing of baby girls, think what it means that in Latin America parents wish their first born to be a boy, and in America think what it means that the seductive woman has been turned into an open minded coffin of ideas. Where there is no sacredness in her body, no hidden treasures, where her intense mystery has been nullified through the categorical knowledge that she can now brag of possessing.
What is a burka? A burka is a way to curve female power, man is made shameful when he spots his weakness against female might, man is always in the position of being rejected, while woman is always in the position of accepting, the pretty women watching the bullfighter are impressed by him and he will have his pick of them when he puts down the bull; his red cape is however a dress for teasing the bull, and our bullfighter is really representative of the female with his fancy jeweled golden suit, delicately tailored so that one would think he was going to an evening dance instead of a bullfight, he is not dressed for the violence of this occasion, and in a sense he is saying to the bull I am going to show you that refinement and aesthetics win over raw brute force. The bull of course doesn’t see the bullfighter as a formidable opponent, he looks smaller, weaker, dainty and he doesn’t have horns, and so that only gives the bull greater confidence to keep on ramming into that dancing red dress; till unfortunately behind the teasing dress a sword discovers bull’s mid center shoulder blades and tears at his insides, thus from his own barbarous recoiling movement the bull’s death is made.
The matador represents psychological power, the bull represents the power of action, action will always be at a disadvantage to psychological might because it is largely invisible, hidden behind an aura of beauty and tenderness and apparent harmlessness. The dance between the bull and the matador makes society and civil society at that. The Burka like the chastity belt give men a false sense of control over the feminine might, however man must live according to her bible and its righteous commands, which though written by men are against male attributes and have nothing of his interest in mind but rather to curve his brute force and use it for social purposes instead. The problem is that when males are made to wear burkas it is not obvious, today’s greater feeling sensitive male is a bull with a burka.
The process by which this comes about emasculates males because the feminine is dominant in any realm she enters and the emasculated males become this docile little creatures that don’t even know themselves as part of the curriculum mandates that they hate what its male in order to make contact with the liberated feminine; now they have to be sensitive and caring and nurses and loving and tender, and that is not technically male and so they are lost, lost from their personality, but unlike women these males don’t have the inner resource of character to manage their situation thus they have to depend on the self-help society, they will go out there and reconstruct themselves, they will make themselves sensitive, they will somehow make themselves right, and why not, surely they can, they come from a male history of can do, and so they will fix themselves, and in the end they will look like those women that make themselves ever prettier in their heads with just one more facelift!
Today women can be president I suppose we can thank the feminist movement for that, and so in 2008 Hillary Clinton will be president, ask me however if I needed that and I will tell you never! Because that first female American president is now a man! Because she could calmly stand by her man when she should have given him hell for being a lying cheat womanizer, but Hillary didn’t care about her personal life, she didn’t care about the little world, the bricks didn’t matter, she was now living in big social ideas and handling large systemic issues, ephemeral things that matter no doubt but the little thing, keeping her house in order didn’t matter, and when we care more about the ephemeral ideas the neighborhood collapses which is why subconsciously we love the Midwest because it keeps giving the national heart localize certainty. What happen was that Hillary didn’t go ballistic because she cared about her profession, she was no longer working for self and edifying self, she is edifying a system and honoring it by being respectful to it, she wasn’t going to make a mess in the Whitehouse, she wasn’t going to indignantly turn the Whitehouse into an insane asylum, Hillary la loca! La loca walking her spirit though the Lincoln bedroom eternally counting all the trespasses, La Loca Hillary wrenching her suffering on the Whitehouse lawn, La Loca destroying her family because of the derailed character of her man!
That day I would have preferred to have the country singer that stood by her man but would surely chop off his gonads if he cheated on her. I wanted to see passion, instead in Hillary I saw a bureaucrat and a bureaucrats wife all in one; Clinton himself, the little boy that is in fact not capable of loving a woman because he is a sensitive little boy, could not have felt better, he got away even as caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and it was in fact the system than reproved him, it, the god damned system reproach went berserk on him, costing millions of passionate and zealous investigation dollars, and the system did in fact impeached him! And for what? Well it had to be for cheating on his wife. Thus Hillary is vindicated in the context of system, the system protected her by acting irate on her behalf, by going berserk on her behalf, by showing feelings and illogic and passion!
And it cannot escape one how her impressive self control locks her down, it cannot escape us how we will know that as our future first lady president she will keep a level and cool head under the most difficult of situations, we can thus trust her because she is not going to be Hillary la loca!
ricardo (c)
