she springs to her feet and listens. One hand up in the air, thinking. Then both hands up. She shakes her head. She takes a gliding step, dragging one foot. Then again. Again. She takes on some extra energy and runs a little bit. Then stops. She thinks a little bit. Whileawayan celebratory dancing is not like Eastern dancing with its motions in toward the body, its cushions of warm air exhaled by the dancer, its decorations by contradictory angles (leg up, knee down, foot up; one arm up-bent, the other arm down-bet). Nor is it at all like the yearning-for-flight of Western ballet, limbs shooting out in heaven-aspiring curves, the torso a mathematical point. If Indian dancing says I Am, if ballet says I Wish, what does the dance of Whileaway say?
It says I Guess. (The intellectuality of this impossible business!)

[77] The patronymic has irrecoverably divested all the women who fall under it of any recourse to an ethno-geographical identity; only the twin powers of father and husband suppress the nomadism of the anonimous female fluxes that patriarchy oppressively manipulates, violates, and psychiatrizes. By aloowing women some access to wealth and social prestige the liberalization of patriarchy has sought to defuse the explosive force of this anonymity, just as capital has tended to reduce the voluptuous excess of exogamic conjugation to the stability of nationality segmented trading circuits. The increasingly incestual character of economic order – reaching its zenith in racist xenophobia – is easily masked as a series of ‘feminist’ reforms of patriarchy; as a de-commodification of woman, a diminution of the obliterating effects of the patronymic, and a return to the mother. This is the sentimental ‘feminism’ that Nietzsche despised, and [78] whose petit-bourgeois nationalist implications he clearly saw. (…) The woman of the earth are segmented only by their fathers and husbands. Their praxial fusion is indistinguishable from the struggle against the micropowers that suppress them most immediately. That is why the proto-fascism of nationality laws and immigration controls tend to have a sexist character as well as a racist one. It is because women are the historical realization of the potentially euphoric synthetic or communicative function which patriarchy both exploits and inhibts that they are invested with a revolutionary destiny, and it is only through their struggle that politics will be able to escape from all fatherlands.

[79] If feminist struggles have been constantly deprioritized in theory and practice it is surely because of their idealistc recoil from the currency of violence, which is to say, from the only definitive ‘matter’ of politics. The state apparatus of an advanced industrial society can certainly not be defeated without a willingness to escalate the cycle of violence without limit. It is a terrible fact that atrocity is not the perversion, but the very motor of such struggles: the language of inexorable political will. A revolutionary war against a modern metropolitan state can only be fought in hell. It is a harsh truth that has deflected Western politics into an increasingly servile reformism, whilst transforming nationalist struggles into the sole arena of vigorous contention against particular configurations of capital. But, as I hope I have demonstrated, such nationalist struggles are relevant only to the geographical modulation of capital, and not to the radical [80] jeopardizing of neo-colonialism (inhibited synthesis) as such. (…) With the abolition of the inhibition of synthesis – of Kantian thought – a sordid cowardice will be washed away, anda cowardice is the enfine of greed. But the only conceivable end of Kantianism is the end of modernity, and to reach this we must foster new Amazons in our midst.