I am not a feminist.

I am not a feminist. In fact, most ideology I take unkindly towards. Ideology only impresses me routinely as a power structure. Born of that primitive urge. It is no wonder that Gilles Deleuze hated social justice movements. Their rhetoric is oppressive. Every word and every phrase find its dignity in a specific context. Yet they are keen to stab at rhetoric that opposes them like Fascists, having devised a system by which to set apart every infraction as a symptom.

Their aims are unattainable. As my friend Julian said of C.S. Lewis: He creates problems out of nowhere, unnecessarily, and then solves them and claims that the solution “proves” some thing. Their claims justify the very violence that they use, cyclically, to defend those claims, which left alone, without moral prejudice , projection, or a naiive absence of skepticism, would be without meaning to the genuinely innocent mind. They echo the prejudices of a patriarchal society that condemned the innocence of Nature, and therefore Human Nature, to the fallen realm, and that taught one to cherish hatred and suppression of this innocence rather than love and expression. They might as well be suspected of having invented the patriarchy in order that they may govern over it. The claims are that they brought it to attention. Have these progressives that both follow and lead this movement forgotten what their godfather Foucault said: That all knowledge requires Power, and that all power presupposes knowledge? Or was it: All knowledge PRESUPPOSES power, and all power requires knowledge?

Rilke said that the hardest thing is for two human beings to love one another. Campbell said that most people dwell on the third chakra of the Kundalini and rarely rise to the Heart, the Seat of the Divine Love, that segregates them from animals. Jung points out that where the Will to Power is strongest there Love is lacking and that where Love is the Will to Power wanes. Kohlberg points out that most people analogously remain upon the third level of moral development, the first stage of conventional reasoning, throughout their lives. A few rise to the latter stage of conventional reasoning, that of authority and faith in social structures (as opposed to social roles* as per the third stage), and even fewer therefore attain post-conventional moral reasoning, such as Individual Relativism and Universal Thinking. And then some drift in a kind of naiive skepticism from system to system, mocking one set of findings by juxtaposition with another, but rarely committing to one faithfully, as is the case in Love, or seeking to reconcile the opposing theses or to respect Individual Solitude and Sovereignty of opinion. In stead they wage war by force and moral violence, violating every glade and nook of innocence by claiming the aim of Disillusion and “the brutal Truth” as their justification. Before these same dominators referred to it as Manifest Destiny. Regard the Native American. HIS Nature too was misunderstood, his past romanticized as violent by those hoping to appear sentimental whilst actually asserting a political agenda. Was he violent prior to colonization? Or was his being driven out violent? Was he driven towards violence? Who struck first? Was any one justified in striking back? The calmness with which a mind can regard these musings is evidence of the amount of peace to which that mind has attained. The anger with which one is enflamed in retaliation and indignation at Reason is evidence of the degree towards which violence has taken root in the soul from too much exposure. Of course to describe violence one must be involved in it then. To gaze into the Void is to allow it to gaze into one’s self. Is it not possible therefore that Innocence, in both its meanings, both that of ignorance of the “Truth” and that of guiltlessness, is indivisible, and that these two definitions of it are inseparable?

Dm.A.A.

*Of course, it is understandable therefore that feminists should be so fixated upon the prevalence of “gender roles”. The “social role”, a phenomenon of the mind that took me personally a great deal of strain, emotionally, to fathom and intellectually to conceptualise, is nothing more than a projection based on personal conditionings and vague words that could easily pass for Universal to a feeble mind. Yet a conventional person will all ways feel insecure about what role he or she is projecting upon society and therefore she will do her damnedest to change those roles, having reified them upon the “out there” and forgotten to take stock of them “in here”. This is what Jung calls Participation Mystique.