by Sébastien Renault
The theatricality of the concept of "diversity" and its fetishized instrumentalization for hyper-capitalist ends, often unacknowledged yet obvious, are an integral part of this globalist conception of "progress" so characteristic of our belle époque. From queerism to adolescent non-conformity, politicized theatrical diversity has finally become militant corporatist wokism. The latter is now rampant throughout the Western world to the point of nausea and is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a means of universal commodification, merchandization and profit, firing on all cylinders of obscenity and human decay. The great contemporary fetishization of diversity, like those other idols of the moment - egalitarian "equity", exclusivist "inclusion" (through so-called "positive discrimination") and systemic change (the destruction of the pre-Wokist order) - is set against a backdrop of theatrical anti-fascism (incredibly, it still works). Its counter-existentialist but resolutely nominalist "philosophical" strategy is based, firstly, on the essentialization of the most superficial categories; then, secondly, on the implementation of plurivalent reasoning techniques by means of fluidized logical systems - applicable and bearing fruit in the field of artificial intelligence as well as in that, among other examples of logic, of deontic logic extended to the liberatory and justifying analysis of the allegedly "non-binary" diversity of genders.
The conceptual, linguistic and ideological programming of contemporary mental slaves is fundamentally based on the fetishization of shadows projected onto the walls of their systemic Cavern (by which we mean the prison of their emasculation, their neutralization, their covidization, and even their guilt-tripping for existing). It is in this fetishized shadow theater that the great prestidigitation of exalted "diversity" is fully illustrated, to the point of taking the place of the imperative criterion of the new politico-social virtue - which we find expressly at work through the fanatical celebration of homosexualist debauchery under the tautological banner of "love is love" and that of all the poly-gendered deviances that are today progressively providing the bed for the aims and ambitions of transhumanist hybridization. Readers may find it useful to keep a few elements of this programming in mind before turning their attention with us to the wokist fetishization of diversity gauged through the prism of various thought procedures - some of which, as we shall see, can be easily bypassed, adopted, adapted and diverted to the benefit of the unlimited pluralist idol.
As non-exhaustive markers of our cartography of this phenomenon of fetishized diversity, we report here on some of the main leitmotivs of its universalized repercussion through institutional (GAFAMI-que) wokism:
The phenomenon of fetishized diversity gives rise to a constant and particularly pathetic media-political staging of superficial representation and performative activism. People who claim to have such and such a particular identity are thus assigned such and such a role or social status, with no other objective than the preservation of appearances through virtuous reporting - that exhibitionism of simulated "good conscience", itself both fetishistic and censorious, which dominates the networks of obsessive appearances (Fakebook, Twitter, TikTok...).
It accentuates stereotypes and primary essentialism, pigeonholing individuals solely according to their skin color, sexual inclinations, or demographic/ethnic background.
It also manifests itself in the systematic control of "inclusive" language (a particular kind of novlangue), through which meticulous surveillance is carried out (on social networks, at school, at work, in families) to detect the presence and censor the use of terms or expressions likely to be considered "offensive" and/or "discriminatory".
The inordinate importance given to fetishized diversity gives rise to incessant social cleavages and other communitarian confrontations, inescapably fueled by the vitiated and vicious logic of reverse discrimination inherent in wokist rage.
By fetishizing diversity, wokism attacks the very root of the capacity for free determination, and consequently also of the very moral autonomy of individuals from identity groups, reducing them to the rank of vulgar, caricatured representatives of this or that totemic community.
By fetishizing unilateral anti-racism in the service of the illusion of victimization, contemporary moralism succeeds in imposing the counterweight of retroactive discrimination. In a short essay entitled Le métissage dans la pensée de María Zambrano, Maria Poumier, considering the rootedness of the Spanish metaphysician's thought, valiant and profound in its reprobation of the historicist slippage of modern thought, recapitulates exactly what's up with this fetish of power anti-racism: "Antiracism has become one of the articles of belief that can enable democracy to become totalitarianism, i.e. an intimately accepted tyranny, and a commonplace charged by despotism with distinguishing itself from "fascists", or "racists", the villains par excellence."
We will now examine and analyze some of the mechanisms by which the phenomenon of fetishized diversity operates to hijack the sound (rational and just) thinking we know today (with the results we know about in educational, political and philosophical terms); and observe that it relies in particular on the exploitation and a certain use of logic based on validation by constructivist construction.
In its most universal sense, and in line with a conception of reason as connatural to human nature, logical reasoning obeys a set of rules and criteria by which thought, based on a few premises, arrives at a given conclusion. From Aristotelian syllogistics to the various developments of contemporary mathematical logic, via the theories of suppositions and consequences inherited from the great medieval thinkers1formalized logic is first and foremost a science of the laws of true being and formal deduction: by postulating axioms and using rules of inference, it seeks to demonstrate, step by step, the validity of an argument.
Over and above the more technical questions of foundation (consistency and coherence), logical analysis will therefore tend to focus on the structure of arguments (their validity or invalidity), identifying and analyzing the various forms of reasoning in a discourse, such as deduction and induction. Deductive reasoning involves drawing conclusions that are necessarily true if they are based on the same premises; inductive reasoning, on the other hand, involves drawing conclusions that are probabilistically or plausibly true on the basis of models or observed data.
In short, since there's no question here of disserting on the history of logic, however fascinating it may be, this discipline is characterized above all by its systematic and rational approach to reasoning, based on principles of validity, coherence and convincing demonstration - verifiable by the application of rigorous inference procedures.
In the light of this brief summary, we can confidently postulate that logic itself, in its primary use as a science of the laws of true being, cannot, by definition, support or justify the promotion of ontological untruths. On the epistemological level, however, the logical-conceptual hijacking is such that the very notion of diversity is now becoming a pretext for assumed ontological falsification. Plastic exploration, as in rogue sexuality, becomes the untouchable excuse in the name of which anything goes. The problem of this "exploratory" conceptual infringement becomes even more explicit when individuals or militant identity groups intentionally reinvest the concept of diversity to legitimize assertions that contravene both the rules of logical thought and objective reality. The whole wokist delirium stems from this self-legitimizing matrix, which derogates from the criteria of right thinking and the ontological constraints of the real world. When the virtual becomes the law, logic itself is called upon to submit, as is the realm of primary data, whether physical and/or metaphysical.
The relativism connatural to ambient thinking, favored by Western elites and masses alike2a particularly effective facilitator of a fetishized collective conceptualization of "diversity". Relativism postulates that truth and knowledge are entirely subjective, because they are relative to individuals or cultures. According to the now practically dogmatized estimation of this fallacious postulate3all opinions are equally respectable, since they are all equally valid or true. In its quest for "inclusivity" devoid of discriminatory criteria, relativist tolerance nonetheless claims to prescribe the banishment of objective truth, as well as that of rational analysis capable of assisting the social preservation of the discrimination necessary to life, to the very exercise of thought, to that of intelligible discourse.
On the non-formalized cultural level, the concept of "awakening" of "wokist" obedience is assimilated to a heightened awareness of social issues and so-called "systemic" inequalities. A certain anti-Western hatred (in the anti-Christian sense of the term)4 in a variety of guises, confirms this perception of awakening, which some people like to wrap themselves in to give themselves an air of moral, historical and racial superiority (in the very name of this Wokist-style anti-racism). It is under this revisionist guise of moral superiority that a progressive reversal of logic is taking place today, firstly through slippage and conceptual exploration; then through the selective application, even underlying contempt, of logical reasoning in order to advance an ideological agenda that is particularly damaging to rational thought, and therefore to intellectual integrity and the search for truth.
Let's just give a few examples5 of the main mechanisms involved in this process of hijacking through conceptual elasticity and selectivity. Later on, we'll take a closer look at some of the more formalized features of logic hijacking, notably the overvaluation of plurivalence for extra-logical purposes.
Let's start by recalling that the "wokized" conceptual exploration at the service of progressive racialism is based on an entirely identity-driven epistemology, according to which knowledge and truth are themselves fundamentally subordinate to the lived experiences of individuals belonging to this or that minority. The mystification underpinning such a posture is akin to the informal argumentum ad populum sophism, a kind of self-legitimizing argument of authority in the context of "persecuted minorities". Its optics postulate group particularist solipsism as the ultimate epistemological and alethic criterion, decreeing in essence that traditional logical reasoning, rooted in the objectivity of data and subject to the universal rules of binary inference ("pro-patriarchal", "pro-white"), cannot grasp the meaning and scope that it alone is able to give to its reality and its experience of it.
On this basis, the architects and advocates of fetishized diversity, explorers of its conceptual malleability, then proceed to make sweeping generalizations on the assumption that all members of this or that identity group have the same characteristics. To generalize here is not only to oversimplify, in the interests of a false homogenization; it is above all to essentialize, with both linguistic and logical repercussions for discourse formation and for the performative and subliminal function of narrative.
The promotion of fetishized diversity also involves argumentum ad passiones, so as to sway opinions and arouse a collective feeling of "moral obligation", even if it were completely imaginary. It would therefore be "racist" (or "anti-Semitic", or "homophobic", or "eco-inconscious", or "pro-Putin"), under this popularized emotional "argument", not to feel such an obligation... The narrative persuasion factor, always highly effective, relies here on media catechization through emotional indoctrination, not on any well-founded logical reasoning.
As mentioned above, Wokist conceptual exploration, consubstantial with the fetishization of diversity, is synonymous with conceptual elasticity.6 The notion of elasticity implies the presence of a restoring force that dilation no longer implies, given that Wokist logic itself, against all logic worthy of the name, intends to harden beyond the influence of any form of restraint by the principles and beacons of perennial reason. This, in the first instance, involves the redefinition of key terms, such as "racism", "sexism", "homophobia", "oppression", etc., and a very pronounced ideological investment in them, so as to extend their field of application to as many individuals and situations as possible. In this way, it becomes easier to highlight a particular situation as evidence of "systemic injustice", even if the original definition of a key term does not apply.
Cognitive confirmation bias is another social psychology mechanism that plays a major role in promoting the spectacle of fetishized diversity. It occurs when such communitarian activists exploit and interpret information about a contentious situation (e.g., some race riot) in such a way as to confirm their pre-established beliefs. In the context of conceptual exploration of politically wokified diversity, individuals may select evidence or arguments that fit well with their worldview, while rejecting or ignoring sources and data that might contradict it. This is a very common mechanism of selective reasoning, which always leads to a far more distorted understanding of issues and problems that are actually far more complex than a biased, antagonistic vision would suggest.
The dual mechanism of groupthink and mimetic pressure exerted by a given dominant viewpoint within a given group also contributes to the simultaneous societal, political and media incubation of this fetishized diversity so intimately associated with the wokist victimism of tyrannical minorities. To the extent that we see it being exercised beyond the identity-based limits of its primary, intimate expression. This is the case, as can be seen from the effects of racialist and homosexualist bludgeoning (particularly in June, supposedly "Pride Month"), ideologies that go far beyond the limits of internal identity persuasion to imperious, condemnatory militancy against the slightest opposition. To justify their moral ascendancy complex over the old order in their own eyes and in the eyes of the majority (as dictated by the logic of a metaphysically vain progressivism), these protected propaganda enterprises need the counterpart of a ready-made scapegoat: the white, heterosexual, Christian male, always behind the wheel of an internal combustion engine producing "nasty" CO emissions2 ... No wonder groupthink and mimetic social pressure are so closely linked to mob violence.7. As for the mimetic desire induced by the same mechanisms, we can see it producing its slavish effects at the whim of the additional pressure exerted by the profusion of virtuous signs posted in the streets and on social networks. A phenomenon that is very much in evidence among white "progressives" eager to procure a good conscience at low cost (with the "blessings" and applause of the power media).
Finally, repressing dissident voices without taking the slightest trouble to establish a substantive dialogue worthy of the name (and respecting its basic rules) remains the preferred strategy deployed by the forces of political-media doctrinaire wokism, in order to perpetuate their conceptualizations and misleading narratives.
The modalities of n-valued logic are applied in a variety of fields: artificial intelligence, fuzzy systems, quantum information, decision trees, control and uncertainty management systems designed to maximize the prediction of the outcomes of particular decision-making operations. It's worth noting, incidentally, that decision-making power as such is never to be found in a generative algorithmic system. The genius and prerogative of decision-making, in the truest sense of the word, lie in the voluntary intelligence of man, not in some artificial "intelligence" whose powers, often fantasized by the uninitiated, are never of an active volitional nature. Logical "decision-making" is procedural. It does not, therefore, embody the freedom implicit in putting human intelligence into action.
The operations of n-valued logic (or, more precisely, of the various multivalued logics) differ from those of binary logic in several respects, starting with the representation of truth values as "sets of truth values" varying from three to an infinite number - rather than simply treating the logical relationship as a binary relation between sets. Beyond traditional connectors8which it assumes and extends to its own operations, multivalued logic introduces additional connectors, such as implication (→), equivalence (↔), aggregation of propositions and various modal operators, in order to represent and evaluate statements that are neither strictly true nor strictly false. The processing of such statements will also rely on the introduction of partial logics. As for the multivalued handling of contradictions, deriving for example from infractions of the disjunctive syllogism or reduction ad absurdum, it will rely on so-called "paracoherent" logic, a type of modified inference regime designed to handle contradictions without entailing computational capitulation. The application of paracoherence relies on the formal abolition of the explosion principle (according to which a contradiction implies anything, from the scholastic Latin ex falso quodlibet). In practice, it allows certain types of contradiction to coexist without trivializing, in the logical sense of the term, the reasoning underlying the operational functioning of high-speed information systems.
In multi-valued logic, the classic procedures of conjunction, disjunction and negation will involve the manipulation and combination of intermediate truth values. Procedures involving a certain re-translation of the most common operations. These include disjunction, which consists in combining two or n truth values to produce, for example, a probabilistic sum; and the introduction, among other operations, of proposition aggregation, which consists in combining several truth values into a single value, by means of aggregation functions such as the algebraic sum...
Here are some other common forms of operational n-value logic extension and their applications in various areas of computational complexity processing:
n-value logic gates: these extend the concept of traditional binary gates (and, or, not) to integrate and manage multiple truth values within a system still determined by the fundamental Boolean input/output distinction. The function of these gates is to manage information from n-valued inputs and produce similarly multi-valued outputs. They are particularly useful in electronic circuit design and in the computer architecture of digital systems.
Probabilistic logic: extends the logical field of classical predicate calculus by substituting probabilities for the truth tables of bivalent logic (true/false).9 to the truth tables of bivalent logic (true/false). It is widely applied in decision engineering, artificial intelligence, machine learning (still called statistical learning) and inferential statistical data analysis.10where stochastic informational uncertainty and probabilistic11 and probabilistic deductive reasoning play a major role. Probabilistic logic preserves and facilitates rigorous logical reasoning when this can only be based on incomplete or uncertain information.
Quantum logic: applied to quantum computing, where quantum bits (qubits) can represent more than two states simultaneously. The gates and operations of quantum logic are designed to manipulate these qubits, so that quantum algorithms and calculations are effectively executable.
Multivalued propositional calculus: this extends classical bivalent propositional logic to integrate and manage multiple truth values by means of a syntax and axiomatic semantics adjusted accordingly. It was first used in mathematical logic (whose formal ideal culminated in automated reasoning, according to the old finitist dream of David Hilbert at the very beginning of the 20th century), with the primary aim of extending the framework of strictly logical reasoning and the deductive properties12 of classical predicate calculus.
Fuzzy logic: this is the formal archetype of multivalued logic, allowing the variables of a given domain to possess n degrees of truth between 0 and 1 (thus building on the algebraic framework of Boolean propositional calculus, which itself arithmetized Aristotelian logic). The mathematical framework deployed in fuzzy logic thus enables us to divide (assign) the numerical data of a system into "fuzzy sets", with the corollary that the degree of membership of a given variable assuming a given degree of truth can lie anywhere within the limits of the interval [0, 1]. The degree of logical uncertainty relative to the membership of a value to one of these sets is therefore not separable from the truth value assigned to a given variable, which necessarily lies within this interval from 0 to 1. The tool of fuzzy logic thus illustrates in itself, in a formalized mode applicable to many fields, the relationship between thought and the ordered yet random configuration of information coextensive with the phenomenon of the world.
In the fields of microphysical engineering13 where uncertainty and imprecision are intrinsically present through the same constitutive interplay of a mixture of determinism and indeterminism, the use of thinking tools capable of formally dealing with variables with n multivalued properties - as is the case, in particular, with fuzzy logic - proves extremely advantageous: firstly in the epistemic interpretation of information derived from reality, then in its analysis (through mathematical simplification), and finally in its communication. In fact, the structuring of reality, in physics (as in metaphysics), goes beyond the bivalence of classical logic, without calling into question the latter's legitimate place in its own order (taken into account through extended logics).
2.1.2. Their non-formal applications to the extravagance of polygenrism
Gender confusion and everything to do with transsexuality can only really be imposed on society by the force of ideology, insane discourse and the banishment of reality itself. We're focusing on this issue to measure it against a few examples of extended logics, since gender non-conformity is the main phenomenon of supposed non-binary "fluidity" today, the one towards which it is no longer possible to openly disagree without risking avalanches of insults and censure from the thought police (which can go very far). Non-binary gendered totalitarianism cannot, in fact, impose itself through its coherence, its justice, its intrinsic logic, its moral beauty, whose antinomic attributes it embodies instead. As with anti-racism, what is most striking is the propensity of this ideology, in its very protest against the so-called "patriarchal" and supremacist paradigm of heteronormativity, to itself recycle the gendered stereotypes it claims to oppose. It all starts with a programmatic contradiction, so as to be able to justify, imaginatively, that we can censor reality if need be (claiming, for example, that the category "woman" is not biological); to silence logical authority and its persistent moral axiomatic background (the true which is not the false and vice versa); and finally to give reason to a world of politically correct chimeras.
As a form of totalitarianism, the lie of gender fluidity aims to bend opinion, or even destroy any opposition that is too stubborn. But the way this is done today is primarily by means of a false logic and the socio-cultural dissemination of language games characterized by cognitive and conceptual blurring. His first and double argument of authority postulates 1) the stereotypical nature of heteronormativity (culturally constructed, so all we need to do is deconstruct it culturally); and 2) that "wokized" (i.e., "awakened") minds are today's agents of change, as they courageously confront and disavow all stereotypes (except their own gendered stereotypes, more or less multiplied by numerous games of inversion of the original binary base). From there, it's on to the "fluidity" of the craziest thinking, based on nothing more than self-validation.
Placing the initially rhetorical grand project of polygenrism under the auspices of an erotically inspired relativism (from the Greek ερωτησις, "demand", erotic analysis designating that component of logic focused on the rules and form of interrogation), it's easy enough to detect the crudely concealed fallacies. The grand rhetorical project of polygenrism will ask, for example (the questions that follow are the questions we place in the mouths of social engineers and rhetoricians of trans-diversity): "How is gender diversity interpreted in different cultural contexts?". The underlying rhetorical reasoning emerges from a "proof" by immediate empirical observation of the existence of different cultures. The relationship to gender will vary, as the question suggests, from culture to culture... Ergo, cultural variance (ethnic, social, historical) attests to the constructivist primacy of gender, which cannot be confined to its binary biological restriction.
Still from the point of view of erotic analysis in the service of poly-gender relativism, the exploration of cause-and-effect relationships will always produce the "explanation" capable of satisfying the rhetorical question: "Which societal norms and structures contribute most to the restriction or promotion of gender diversity?". Or "What role does education play in promoting or inhibiting gender diversity?
Gender sociologists and political scientists will still speak of "apprehending the notorious importance of the scope" and "role" of gender diversity in contemporary society... Yet another way of distorting logic (through its non-formal and therefore non-rigorous applications) into a vulgar sophomoric means of answering well-targeted rhetorical questions: "What social and economic benefits does gender diversity bring to society as a whole?". Or: "How does gender diversity profoundly alter (by implication, for the better) the dynamics of professional relationships?". Or: "What are the challenges and obstacles to the full acceptance and realization of gender diversity in the 21st century? So many questions about 1) the perceived fruitful consequences of polygenrism; and 2) the direction of efforts to remedy anything that might overshadow the positivity of the message of trans-binary diversity...
Finally, the analysis and rhetorical promotion of polygenric extravagance implies an examination of potential solutions and strategies for its universalized implementation. Hence the following questions: "What policies and strategies are most likely to encourage and advance gender diversity within the various institutional, industrial, administrative, legal, associative, social and community sectors?". The same ideological thinking will also ask: "How can the education system and its various streams promote greater awareness of gender diversity?". And we could of course continue on this rhetorical terrain, illustrating our point...
2.1.3. Hijacking concepts and modal reasoning
Alethic logic deals with reasoning about the "modal" properties of logical statements: possibility, contingency, necessity. Canonical modal analysis introduces new operators to express "necessity" (□) and "possibility" (◊). They allow, respectively and inseparably, the logical transcription of the modalities according to which things are necessarily or possibly true or false. To say, for example, that a thing is necessarily true is to say that it is not possible for it not to be true. Or,
□x ≡ ¬◊¬x.
In the same way, to say that it is possible for something to be true is to say that it is not necessarily true that it is false:
◊x ≡ ¬□¬x.
So, optionally, you can choose to say exactly the same thing in two different modes, to indicate 1) that it's impossible for x to be true; or 2) that x (that same x) is necessarily false. In other words:
¬◊x ≡ □¬x.
The fundamental distinction in modal logic is between :
necessary truths: what must be true everywhere, necessarily, in every latitude of every conceivable world; and
contingent truths: what is true in the configuration of our world as it now exists, but may no longer be true, or may be true in a different way in other possible worlds.14.
More or less consciously applying modal-type reasoning to forge a discourse in tune with the nominalistic magic of the fetishized diversity of n genders given free rein in the transgender imaginary, wokist discourse often starts from sexual bivalence as a "contingent" characteristic of society (in supposed dependence on the "restrictive" and "transphobic" opinion of a certain culture, period and ruling caste particularly imbued with the legacy of biblical-Christian thought and its ecclesiastical development), so as to divorce it from the ontological meaning and weight that our very experience of its biological necessity irrevocably places on our binarized conception of our own sexual constitution. For it is indeed the designated target of the dysphoric mutilations taking place today under the guise of "affirmative care", "care" whose primary aim is to endorse the imaginary multiplicity of genders - thereby sacrificing truth and security (that of patients confirmed in their mutilatory aspirations) in favor of the promotion of a mental illness protected and encouraged in the West15the globalist matrix of moral decrepitude.
It is to break this alleged biological "straitjacket" modalized in terms of "necessity" that a detour of concepts and modal reasoning is implemented here, more tacitly than anything else, by the militants of gendered social construction (an existentialist posture, in that it intends to free itself from any essentialist postulate, from any definition synonymous with constraint, and therefore with necessity). Thus conceptually "disenchanted" and "dispensed" from biological determinism by the power of wokist discourse, a measure producing new, entirely existential contingent truths, the indeterminate diversity of gender is now a matter of cultural contingency. In the absence of any metaphysics, it is this which, by default, acts as the first and last reality of an ideological universe where only the modal monad of the "possible" contingency actualized, according to the laws of desire of unbridled subjectivity (driven by the need to satisfy the demands of its gratification erected as a "right") reigns.
The cosmopolitan objective of this rainbow vision of the world is to create a "more inclusive" and "more diverse" society, against a backdrop of conceptual confusion and novlanguage in praise of "social change". To achieve this, between "necessity" and "possibility", a detour of modal appearance gradually creeps in, to the benefit of cognitive biases and more or less implicit susurrations to the collective consciousness under the surreptitious influence of messages like: "It is necessarily true that gender diversity favors societal progress"; "it is probably necessary, to preserve the greater good of diversity, to put an end to sexual heteronormativity."
2.1.4. False rights: by way of deontic logic
Deontic logic usually operates within a framework of normative declarations: "such and such a condition should be fulfilled"; "x is permitted", and so on. In the cultural framework induced by our media-political Promethean nominalism in the service of the protection and promotion of trans-binary gender diversity, it is invoked and implemented with increasing flexibility and creativity to rationalize ethical principles, "rights" and "obligations" linked to "gender equality", as well as to their universal "inclusion", in line with the manifest will to define new normative dimensions of legitimized expectations, medical practices and societal policies regarding polygenrism.
By applying deontic reasoning to today's politically oversolicited issue of gender diversity, the ideologues of this programmatic confusion and the social engineers of culturalist law seek to expand the ethical dimensions, social norms and more universally moral reasoning that can best fit with policy, laws and practices of "inclusion" and "equality", so dear to the apostles of the multicolored Republic (whose Pavlovian accusations of "extreme right" against the slightest detractor nevertheless contradict the message and lessons of tolerance).
Let's take four areas of translation of major principles of application (and/or detour) of deontic logic to the benefit of the dogma of gender diversity, the Wokist recasting of cultural norms, and the emergence of new systemic prejudices based on a new form of "anti-fascist" moralizing legalism:
The domain of obligations: deontic logic lends itself to the identification of moral or social obligations that individuals or institutions would be bound to have towards the collective promotion and respect of virtually unlimited gender diversity... This can start, as we've been seeing for years now, with the imposition of a "universal" celebration of non-heteronormative sexual practices and the homosexualist cultural annexation of the month of June for this purpose (without the slightest respect, of course, for the real significance that the month of June holds for Catholics, who have dedicated it since the late 18th century to the Sacred Heart of Jesus16). We are still witnessing its implementation in the world of work, with the obligation incumbent on employers to provide "equal professional opportunities" and fair treatment to individuals of "all genders", not just men and women... Genristic dogmatism is particularly entrenched in the Western corporatist world. Today, it's sadly easy to be dismissed for "non-compliance" with this time-honored lie in government departments and across the corporate world.
The realm of permissions: to what extent are permissions granted or required when the question to be weighed concerns the diversity of genres and their public expressions? In the first instance, that of granted permissions, the measure is none other than the measure of public theater, as official as can be in the decadent West: that of the categorical affirmation of a fantasy, i.e., the bending of reality in the face of the imposture of an argumentum ad nauseam (the more it's repeated, the "truer" it is). Deontology here empowers individuals to "freely express" their gender identity with, against or beyond their original biological characterization. In the second stage, that of the required permissions, lobbies and matchmakers engage and enquire in the field of professional and administrative deontology, an instrument of progressive legal negotiation. They win their cases by gradually exerting pressure in the form of grievances. The derogations that promote inclusion and polygender diversity are the result. Western lobbying of African countries currently blocking LBGTQ-ist propaganda is in line with this strategic use of deontic logic in the service of poly-genrism, which is intrinsically militant.
The domain of prohibitions: deontic reasoning in favor of gender ideology is now de rigueur in schools, in the workplace, in the political sphere, everywhere in the West... As such, it is eminently exploitable for identifying actions, behaviors, orientations and measures (family, political, religious) that should be prohibited because of their "discriminatory" nature or their violation of "trans-binary human rights".
The field of conflicts: deontic logic acts here as a recapitulation of the previous three fields, and as a means of analyzing those conflicts of obligations, permissions or prohibitions that arise with the progressive imposition of gender trans-binarity. For example, a conflict may arise today between an individual's "right" to assert his or her gender identity (a minor child will be able to do so, against his or her own parents and their legal recourse to oppose it17) and a prohibition imposed by any cultural convention or religious tradition.
2.1.5. From intuitionist logic to ideological construction
Intuitionistic logic is a non-classical logic developed in the early 20th century. It postulates that truth is not binary, but can be envisaged as a wide range of colors comprising statements that are neither "completely true" nor "completely false"; but whose truthfulness can ultimately be demonstrated by construction - at the whim of some subjective foundation supplanting objective definition. Another way of putting it: intuitionistic logic,
p + ¬p ≠ 1.
Here we can highlight some of the main principles and rules of intuitionistic logic:
In intuitionistic logic, the negation of a proposition, ¬p, implies both a formal and semantic nuance implied by its "constructive" nature (in the technical sense given by mathematical philosophy to the notion of "constructivism", notably inspired by the work of Dutch mathematician E. J. Brouwer). With this nuance, ¬p is understood as the strong invalidation of p. Hence, to prove ¬p, it is necessary to provide a constructive refutation of p. This means providing a proof (a construction), or a counter-example, that p is false (¬p). In this particular context, the double negation, ¬¬p → p, does not apply. The principle of proving a proposition by showing that its negation necessarily leads to a contradiction is therefore invalid.
It follows that reductio ad absurdum will not always be admissible in intuitionistic logic. Intuitionistic logic therefore requires proof by construction of a proposition, rather than proof by contradiction.
In an intuitionistic framework of logical reasoning, the implication rule states that to prove an implication, p → q, we must assume p and then derive q. This rule, again, reflects the constructionist nature of intuitionistic logic. Its implication operation requires explicit construction. In other words, to prove p → q, we'll have to construct a proof of q by assuming a proof of p. In its formal demonstrability, however, intuitionistic implication ultimately remains similar to pre-intuitionistic implication. Indeed, the modus ponens principle - stipulating that if p → q and p are both demonstrable (in the sense of being formally provable), then so is q - applies similarly in intuitionistic logic.
By implication, precisely, the intuitionistic conjunction of propositions p and q, denoted p ∧ q, is true if and only if there are proofs of both p and q. To demonstrate p ∧ q, we must therefore produce, by construction, separate proofs of these two propositions.
Similarly, the intuitionistic disjunction of propositions p and q, denoted p ∨ q, is true if and only if there is a proof of either p or q. To demonstrate p ∨ q, we must therefore provide, by construction, a proof of either proposition.
It retains the universal quantifiers, ∀; and existential, ∃. Nevertheless, the rules of inference relating to quantification differ from those of classical logic due to the constructive nature of intuitionistic provability. Existential statements require construction or demonstration from an example (a specific object); whereas universal statements must provide a method or proof that applies to all cases. The former will therefore fall under the existential generalization rule, denoted ∃I, stipulating that if a proposition P is verified from a specific object φ, then the existential quantification ∃xP(x) is demonstrable. It is therefore necessary, to do so, 1) to prove the existence of φ; and 2) to provide a proof of P(φ). As for the latter, they will fall under the universal elimination rule, denoted ∀xP(x), stipulating that if a proposition P is verified of all objects x in a given domain, then for any specific object φ, P(φ) is de
This logic thus differs radically from both classical syllogistic logic and propositional symbolic logic in its characteristic double rejection of the limiting notion of definition and the law of the third-excluded (implied by the former). The epistemology it inspires and implements is more concerned with the process of knowing things than with their natures, and with the question of their correspondence to the intellect capable of abstracting their quiddities (which preside over the very notion of definition) - a correspondence that is moreover fundamental in that it founds the criterion of truth or non-truth by presupposing a certain adequacy of language and the world via thought.
In intuitionistic logic, a proposition is considered "true" only if it can be demonstrated, and "false" only if its negation can be proved. There is a third kind of possibility in which a statement is neither demonstrably true nor demonstrably false. Although perfectly applicable and useful in pure logic, mathematics and various fields of computer application, the application of intuitionistic logic to gendered fluidity falls into the most arbitrary onto-fluid constructivism imaginable, that of a post-factual sociology, in the name of the social affirmation of "the lived experience of non-binary people".
Without any real transposition, intuitionist logic thus provides, in spite of itself, the pretext for a shift from technical constructivism of purely logical meaning to societal constructivist primacy over the imposition of any reality, biological or otherwise: this, of course, is none other than the primacy of "fluidity" and "non-binary diversity" rooted in the self-definition of the lived and "felt" experiences of individuals - posited as de-essentialized existents, but whose group identity requires, by contrast, the arbitrary essentialization we mentioned at the start of this essay. Here, there are as many "truths" as there are individuals. Transidentity is built on this existentialist primacy; but the communitarian need leads to essentialization, arbitrary and superficial, albeit politically useful (to induce and facilitate generalized civil war, "the war of all against all").
When it comes to contemporary sexual wokism, trans-binary proselytizing is part and parcel of an accepted approach to transgressing universal anthropology and its fundamental laws, by embracing a fundamentally materialistic worldview. Matter is that which can take any form and assume any gender that the disessentialized Promethean individual wishes to assume in order to exist as he or she pleases, unconstrained by a racist, homophobic and transphobic reality.
Let's recall again that, from the point of view of logical constructivism, in the absence of so-called constructive proof, "truth" doesn't exist. Rather than considering the truth of a statement as something that is simply given, this particular form of thinking requires that the truth of a statement can be demonstrated by some form of constructive proof, or constructivist "proof". The application of certain notions improperly drawn from logical intuitionism, to serve as societal ideological constructivism under the aegis of the principle of destroying the complementarity of the sexes (presented as "gender diversity"), includes several lines of dubious argument and revealing elements of language inspired by this voluntarist relationship to truth:
Constructivist gender identity postulates the (subjective) experience of its "emergence" and "appropriation" (as if an individual's gender identity emerged from a process of both subjective and cultural construction, formation and appropriation). It is supposed to take into account the "fact" that individual experiences relating to the question of gender may not correspond to the traditional binary categories of man and woman (the underlying prejudice being that of the existential denaturation of anthropology). By allowing the propositions of gender theory to be indeterminate until constructed "proofs" are presented to an already subverted and formatted public consciousness, a form of rogue intuitionist reasoning (otherwise combined with a form of surreptitious modal reasoning) may, for example, hold it admissible that an individual's gender identity is not necessarily fixed; and that it may therefore "fluctuate" according to different spectral variants... Of course, the ontological premise of substitution here is none other than that of the disconnection of sexual identity from biological sex. We must first deny reality in order to rebuild it on the foundations of constructivist gender identity.
Here, we can bring in "intersectionality", which is supposed to take into account the complex interplay of various factors, including individuals' social, cultural and personal contexts. It is based on the premise that gender identity cannot be considered in isolation, but must be understood in conjunction with other identity-forming elements, such as race, ethnicity, class and sexuality... In this way, it aims to promote a "nuanced" understanding of gender diversity, and to highlight the influence of different factors on how individuals feel (the primary criterion here).
Validation by construction is widespread, although it has a very different meaning in intuitionistic logic than in gender ideology. According to intuitionist logic, as we pointed out earlier, something is held to be valid and true only if there is constructive proof. In the context of gender, this comes to mean that gender identities are validated and "confirmed" when they can be described and experienced by the individual. This corresponds exactly to the conception of gender as a fluid and diverse social production, where each individual would be the "constructivist proof" of his or her own gender identity.
The individualized truth is therefore the one that prevails in the world of gender fluidity. A line of reasoning akin to an operation of intuitionistic logic can be adopted, by improper transposition (if at least one respects the object and function of said logic), to assert that the gender identity declared by any person is "true" (and cannot not be), because it has been constructively proven by means of that same person's lived experience and gendered self-identification.
Similarly, the existence of gender diversity is said to be "proven" by the presence of individuals who identify with a variety of different gender identities. This is the so-called "empirical proof" of the diversity constituted by individual identities. So, potentially, there are as many genders as there are individual identities - rather as there are as many Protestant denominations as there are preachers and interpretations of their truncated bible...
By implication of what we've just emphasized in the previous paragraph, if gender is something that individuals construct for themselves; and if there are as many potential constructions as there are individuals; it follows that gender is not a discrete datum (a characteristic that would presuppose and therefore impose an external limit, notably binary on the biological level), but rather a construction This notion of artificial "continuity" is intended to argue that certain "proofs" require a continuous process. And that the resulting notion of gender makes it appear as a fluid, evolving construction, rather than a static, unchanging factual datum.
How can we hope to escape the vengeful, violent return, first and foremost of the natural order, when, out of inordinate pride (the expression of delirious arrogance), we seek to overturn nature? The intellectual and moral toxicity characteristic of this post-natural nominalism in the colors of militant wokism is still only allowed in the name of a logic with a lying name, intrinsically rogue and a source of violence in many forms.
The more we try to shape nature to our own liking - in line with our societal desiderata, wokened to the core - the more we lose touch with its equilibrium and its meta-natural (truly supernatural) source. Having sown such hubris and confusion, we inevitably reap the deleterious fruit in the form of a dreadful lack of discernment (we've never been so duped or so stupid as in this age of climateist, covidist, anti-racist and Russophobic google-ism) ; a symptomatic blindness to the consequences of our technologies (pharmaceutical, energetic, digital, transhumanist); and a debilitating violence that begins its sordid work in mente hominis nominalisticus, to the point of engendering a totally distorted and inverted vision of reality subjected to total liberal logic. Reversal and submission together define the programmatic Satanism of our spiritually eschatological civilizational turning point.
This is the source of the actually counter-logical, existentialist (in the nominalistic sense of the term) profile of the "de-civilizational" violence at work today on both the epistemic and cognitive levels. But our reflections on the "diversity" of political-pathetic theater in terms of logics also suggest that this violence necessarily comes to externalize itself, passing from biased cognition through denatured language to forcible action.
In her essay on María Zambrano's work and roots, cited above, Maria Poumier refers to the role of "Stoicism, which builds ethics on physis and not on the claims of logos".18. A pertinent observation, if ever there was one. For it is the primacy of physis that protects thought from its unhealthy pretensions to disconnect itself from reality and lose itself, through self-referential intoxication, in the wokist illusions of its own logos.
Let's return to the latest riotous outbursts that took place for several days in a row across France. It's certainly appropriate to castigate the anti-police stupidity and victim racialism so machiavelliously exploited by those fetid elites at the head of our poor country - denatured into a "start-up nation" by Macron and his band of fine flowers of the depraved Republic. But no less than to cast a clear and unapologetic anathema on these hell-makers who have such an affinity with the demons who inspire them (and are now passing the buck to a youth that the school of national cretinization is now purposely depriving of an education still worthy of bearing its name). As for the teenage thugs and arsonists, they threw themselves into the looting like a dog, after regular neglect and mistreatment, is conditioned to attack ferociously, by instinct of defense. A return to reality, then, in response, among other reasons, to the Euro-Atlanticist program for the proletarianization of peoples, which we continue to be enjoined to carry out under the lying pretext (as its promoters well know) of "saving the planet from global warming", a faribole worthy of all human sacrifices...
Leaving aside the damage - not in order to minimize it, but to try to think things through - we have witnessed an insurrection against the obligation to become rags, a condition that our ruined and ruinous "democracies" want to impose on all contemporary youth, through consumption as a compulsory drug, through cretinizing culture and infantilizing, homosexual and transsexual advertising ad nauseam ; and by all that unbearable intellectual tyranny which vampirizes the souls of its victims, in the name of a captious, Maastrichtian, Covidian, Ukrainian, etc. "vivre ensemble" (living together). (the "vivre ensemble" of the hideous "pensée unique" of modern "democracies").
If it were possible to stand up loud and clear against this systemic demolition of souls, without justifying or facilitating the devastation we've just witnessed, or unjustly making the police the target of every savage hatred, then we'd be justified in openly encouraging the springs of a new "Chouannerie" - informational, spiritual, instructional, French in its own right and without concession, but no less "creolized" (against the false fetishized "diversity" of the ugly contemporary racialist theater, a tool of calculated discord in the hands of the demonic spawn in power).
source : Entre la Plume et l'Enclume