The destruction of democracies by ideologism

The fragmented war

Cliché: Democratic regimes reduce the risk of war and tyrannies amplify it. Let’s correct: Between these regimes, the level of war is shifted. It would be absurd to claim that democracies are peaceful societies. On the contrary, conflicts roam freely there, much more freely than in any other regime, without being resolved. Freedom of speech is not everything. Women at war with men, LGBT against straight, modest against wealthy, vegetarians against carnivores, etc, etc… Modern democracy is a litany of conflicts that are never really resolved. Attempts at conciliation reveal new virulent wokisms rather than a strengthened collective. The fledgling democratic regime, barely a century old, already seems destined to disintegrate like sand. Only the already shaky structure of its institutions prevented it from complete collapse. Destiny approached by American democracy. Will democratic tribes succeed in uniting against centralized tyranny? I’m not sure.

Metastatic ideologism

The democratic regime does not solve the problems raised by ideologism. Ideologism is a manipulation of idealism that wants to pass off ideals as natural, universal. While their fundamental character is only teleological. Ideals are our way of seeing the world, the model of our desires placed on it. Natural is something else. The natural is the ontological growth of the world, something very difficult to grasp because its observation is already an interpretation by a priori concepts. Identifying naturalness is done in modesty rather than peremptory affirmations.

Ideologism clogs democracy. Take its founding ideal: the equality of citizens. Ontologically wrong. People are obviously of different constitutions . Equality is a collectivist rule, not a universal principle. As a rule it has different depths of application. For example, you may prefer to save the life of one person who is dear to you at the expense of several others who are unknown; while democratically all these lives have the same importance; The rule says that you should save as much as possible. Ideologism in this case is called utilitarianism. It claims that the rule is universal and that you are reprehensible if you save the loved one rather than the several strangers. Abandon your partner or your child, urge us ideologism…

Does biological sex exist?

The second value manipulated is gender equality. Sex is one of the drivers of our ontological differences. It clearly contributes to our individual differences. But there are relatively few natural criteria universal enough to classify individuals into two categories, male and female. Certainly the morphotype differs. But beyond genital anatomy, discrepancies are less easy to group. Some women are more muscular and aggressive than most men. Some fathers are more concerned about their offspring than most mothers. Etc, etc.

This observation is used by some authors to say that there is no biological sex. This is entirely false. Genetic sex really influences multiple aspects of our physical and mental development. If no aspect taken in isolation shows a clear separation between male and female, it is not the same when they are taken all together. Testosterone levels are correlated with several aspects of personality. Testosterone itself is correlated with sex. We thus have a chain of frank correlations between biological sex and personality. This is not a direct causality between the two! Ideologism plays on this ambiguity when, in some gender studies, the absence of causality is transformed into the absence of difference.

The correlations are so obvious that we use them daily without difficulty, without any training as a biologist or sociologist 😉 Males and females are identified instantly, even at the greatest distance. When they get closer and open their mouths, their speech broadens our range of criteria. Our ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ spheres are more interpenetrating. Some males show feminine tendencies and vice versa. The laziest minds show signs of irritation. Their world is becoming too complicated. But the worst is the ideologue. She would like us to act as if differences did not exist, citizens naturally equal, women and men cleared of any influence of their genes.

Irreducible double look

Let us not confuse ontology with teleology, two opposite directions of the double look¹Conjunction of the upward look (what constitutes) and the downward look (what is constituted). Our ideals, which are teleological rules, are not universal. They are therefore open to criticism and often rightly criticized. The rule of equality of citizens has replaced the right of birth: excellent! The rule of social equality of the sexes has replaced male domination: perfect! But these rules are not universal in ontological matters, cannot erase the obvious divergences in ontological direction. One look seeks to suffocate the other. In doing so, it becomes as blind as the previous detestable rule.

Ideologism when it comes to sex is called radical feminism. It wants to abolish any constitutive difference between the sexes and thus anchor its egalitarian discourse in nature. If nature does not make a difference, society should not make a difference either. It becomes possible to claim for the cohort of women half of the positions of responsibility, half of the salaries, half of the educational tasks. It doesn’t matter what the individual abilities are. No need to demonstrate your talents. Just say “I am a woman”, so a candidate equivalent to any man. And if there is a surplus of men already in place, I must be preferred, as a woman, to balance the cohorts.

A self-gravediggering feminism

Radical feminism, as an ideologism, does considerable harm to feminism as a social rule. However, this rule is still struggling to impose itself. It does not already deserve such obstacles. It is easy for men to point out the aberrations of feminine ideologism to ignore the morally acceptable rule. How can this moralization be put back in motion?

The integration of feminism, as well as new genders, is a similar problem to immigration. When it is progressive, people do not feel threatened in their identity, become accustomed, become aware of their fundamental similarities, and the next generation lives perfectly merged with the newcomers. Whereas if the invasion of genres is aggressive, spectacular, mendacious, it becomes an ostracism in reverse. The conflict is no longer a driving force but a blocker. The dispute turns into trench warfare.

Ideologism creates reverse ostracisms

Today there is undoubtedly a homosexual ostracism towards the hetero, a feminist ostracism towards men. The worst thing about these sterile wokisms is that the invasion targets the offspring, our last refuge for identity. The fragility of contemporary couples means that the bond with children is our last hope for sustainability. It is really the hearts of a large majority of citizens who are being torpedoed. What are the ardent defenders of the alternative genre at an early age? Abusers in fact. Because these adults claim free will acquired in the cradle, should fathers and mothers let them establish influence over their children while withdrawing theirs? This is the drift of ideologism today.

Ignorance of what the ideal really is. Some still imagine that it exists independently, isolated in a platonic world. A solipsistic world in fact. Personal paradise. Nothing universal. Such an ideal will never set foot physically in this world. That is not its role. Its role is to help design new models of reality, to serve as an attractor for a more harmonious functioning. Which can never become the ideal. Because the ideal repels as well as it attracts. The most radical idealists have always crippled their minds to achieve purity. It is inhumane. It takes us away from the world. The ideal is a black hole. Too close, impossible to escape.

The ideologue believes she is liberated. But in fact she lost the freedom to go back. To simply evolve.

*