If liberalism signifies the availability for everyone to realise their tastes, even they are the tastes in fashion, “feminism” removes the phallic instrument and environmentalism encourages this cutting in the name of a supposedly universal well-being. It says: if you want to live, renounce this instrument which is also that of death, opt for detumescence (it says: decrease, it is even more explicit).
“Feminism” and environmentalism are correct. The phallic option — which our culture has made its reference point since Rome, which theology took up by it eternalising it through a symbolic castration — perpetuates the rivalry between generations, sexes, social classes, et cetera, and makes out of an individual or collective race for the appropriation of this instrument — fictitious moreover, in other words the result of a fiction — the aim of existence.
I recall the difficulty of our own group of passing from the study of the four ringed Borromean knot to the Borromean knot of three rings, in other words of evoking the possibility for each one to realise his fantasm without him being a criminal.
Nonetheless, the drawback of “feminism” and environmentalism is obviously that of an imposition of a real that is cleaned out of sex — to the benefit of love, of women by women in one case, and of trees by all in the other), and to the benefit of the maintenance of organisms that are reduced to needs, yum yum, with a topping of love for those intellectually inclined.
A resurgence of maternal wisdom from which the child, in order to verticalise himself, has often had difficulty freeing himself.
P.S. I put feminism in inverted commas as the project is not that of fulfilment in a couple, but rather that of the realisation of a whole supposed to be as homogeneous as that of men, whilst we know that it is fundamentally heterogeneous even if it is tempted by homogeneity.
Traduction faite par Michael Plastow