441. The power of the great (XIV)
If the left and right represent the masculine and feminine principles, then perhaps they could contend between each other in a parliament? Would that be a Yin-Yang dynamic, the left standing for fairness and the right standing for justice? Not really. The public sphere is the masculine domain, especially statecraft; ultimately, the state exists to wage war—to protect the tribe—and this is a male concern. The very word “strategy” comes from the ancient Greek for “general”, to be a strategic thinker is to be a man.
The feminine principle, by contrast, remains in the home: it is in the home that people are roughly equal and fairness reigns. Even the most distinguished man—say a prince who visits a council flat—enters, unless he is a tyrant, an equal relation with a man in his own home; he must obey the man when he suggests where it would be best to sit—and when we enter homes as guests we usually remove our shoes, we make ourselves vulnerable and become more equal with each other.
If anything like communism truly exists then it exists within the family home, i.e. between people who have the closest genetic and blood relation—occasionally, we decide to “be kind” to people and extend the same fairness and equality that exists within our own family to them; hence “kindness” is etymologically related to “kin”—if I am kind to you it is because I have voluntarily chosen to treat you “like family”, and this is exactly what the few close friendships people have amount to. Those people who introduce coupons and schedules to manage the washing up or the hoovering are confused about the work and the home realm; they treat the home like the workplace, and so destroy its coziness, its egalitarian nature, and its warmth.
While a man should always have final say in his home, since he generated it after all, he delegates its practical management to his wife; she is his steward, and so has wide remit to deal with issues that men are basically not interested in—furnishings, cookery, childcare, and social arrangements. I once knew a girl who was fascinated by a BBQ she tended; and this is because the household goddess is Hestia, she lives, with the other gods, above the fireplace—yet the fireplace is hers in particular. A woman loves to “keep the home fires burning”—although she rarely starts the fire, a masculine job before he leaves for work for the day.
The left says: “The personal is political.” This means that the private and public realms should be collapsed: household communism must be brought to the public realm, and the masculine state—which should face outwards, towards our opponents—must meddle with Hestia’s realm through social workers and compulsory school. Feminine domesticity and familial communism have no place in the public realm, in the political realm; the country is not a home where anybody who turns up—whether they remove their shoes or not—can be treated as kin; and we cannot make sure everyone has an equal slice from the cake after dinner, not without stealing another man’s cake. Similarly, households that are run like the public realm—through state schools and social workers—are brutal and impersonal, effectively the state makes war on its citizens in their own homes.
The feminine principle has its place: the home, the only place where you may have something roughly like communism—although this is ultimately underwritten by the father’s rulership, and his genetic interest in his children. To share power with the feminine principle is disordered; its maternal concern has no place in the public realm—it can only be expressed publicly through privately run charities administered by feminine men, the priests. Yin and Yang have their different roles and must contend; men must become manly and contend with feminine women—in politics, the realms interrelate and interpenetrate through the royal family, a private family with a public role.