Belgian philosopher Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Philosophy of Law from the Sorbonne, released his first book in Brazil last year, through Armada publishing house. This is The Green Reich: From Global Warming to Green Tyranny. In its preface, written in 2019, it summarizes the purpose of the book, namely: to draw attention to the fact that environmentalism is as explicit in its genocidal intentions as Nazism and communism, so that no one will be able to claim surprise or ignorance after the catastrophe. He says: “When esteemed environmental thinkers demand the abolition of democracy and liberty ‘in the name of the climate’, when such thinkers honestly intend to demonstrate that the good of the Earth requires reducing population to one-tenth of its present volume when it takes shape , before our eyes, an ideology more radical in its homicidal intentions than any of its predecessors, it is there that we must once again take up the cry of ‘never again’ and understand that difficult times are, in fact, again before us .”
For over ten years, the philosopher has publicly criticized gender ideology, and in 2012 he published a book on the subject entitled La Loi du Genre, that is, The Law of Gender. His approach to these contemporary problems does not miss the legal form that such theories take.
I don’t know the reader, but I, for my part, am impressed by the uniformity of political concerns in the world. away. It should be normal for a gaucho to have difficulty understanding the politics of Acre, but the complaints of a Belgian in 2013 fit the reality of a Bahian woman in 2018. I see a European lecture by 2012 and think about the norms of my tropical
campus to combat the serious issue of ” violence against women” on site — and the campus is obviously not the place where husbands go to slap their wives.
In the American continent, our views are clouded by a culturalist anti-communism that is very performative and not programmatic. Do intellectuals in Europe have more information about what is happening? As will be seen later, yes and no: they have more bureaucratic texts to be analyzed (Godefridi already brought in 2019 a Dutch project to stop caring for the elderly), but there is also no there is a clear and consolidated explanation as to a possible primary driver of this situation.
Below is the small correspondence exchanged between Drieu Godefridi and the one who writes to you.
Question on gender
I don’t know how things are going in Western Europe, but here in Brazil there is considerable agitation against “gender ideology”. I said “gender theory” because that’s what philosophers themselves call their doctrine. When someone used the term “gender ideology”, it was indicative of adherence to a pop intellectual movement called olavism. (It is named after Olavo de Carvalho, a self-taught philosopher and very charismatic cultural critic who had a legion of fans, the olavetes.) It is possible to take a taxi in a big city and hear invectives against “gender ideology” and “Cultural Marxism”. These are terms imported from the USA via olavism. In fact, it bothered me that our discussion seemed overly mechanical on imports of US problems, whether left or right.
Well, I saw your presentation on the theory on Youtube, a video of 2013, and I got the impression that my life, here in Brazil, is decided by treaties signed by mysterious European bureaucrats. I had no idea of the existence of the Istanbul Convention of 1990. Could you explain to the Brazilian reader what the Istanbul convention is, and how is the relationship between such conventions and European democracies?
Answer on gender
In 1990, the Istanbul Convention gave legal force not only to gender ideology, but also to its most extreme version, straight out of authors like Judith Butler . Thus, article of the Convention demands the eradication (sic) of prejudices, customs, traditions and all practices founded on “a stereotyped role of women and men”. Eradication: the vocabulary is that of religious in the style of the Holy Inquisition and fanatics, unworthy of a contemporary legal text. “Eradicate” all reference, even merely linguistic, to the distinction between men and women? This, in all logical and semantic rigor, must lead to the eradication of the very concepts of man and woman. For distinction in words could not subsist if nothing else distinguishes them in reality. We are at the heart of the extremist and hateful ideology of gender.
It is necessary to carefully distinguish two levels: sex and gender. That gender is a social construction, no one denies. The cultural vision of women in Sparta, in ancient Rome or in Sweden in 2022 has only a few points in common. The same is true of the cultural role of women (and men) in contemporary Europe and Saudi Arabia. To claim that the categories of man and woman are integrally biological, therefore immutable, certainly makes no sense. Gender is cultural.
But there is sex. Sex is a properly biological reality. Biologically, man and woman are two radically different categories. From its complementary otherness, humanity is born and reborn every day. It is this biological otherness that gender ideology denies by maintaining that sex — sex, not just gender — is a purely cultural category, “entirely sedimented by language” (J. Butler).
In other words, women, as a distinct sexual category, do not exist. This denial of women is not a peripheral effect of genderism: it is its main objective. That the category of woman (and man) is also defined, and initially, by their sex, is what such extremists cannot tolerate, as they demand that we be men or women by mere decision of an intimate forum .
Genderism is a denial of the real, of biology as a science and of women as a distinct category. All this in the name of the fight “against violence committed against women” (sic) — the official title of the Istanbul Convention.
The Istanbul Convention was adopted by the Council of Europe , not by the European Union. It is only mandatory for the signatory countries of the Council of Europe, after it enters into force. You are certainly right: given Europe’s economic and symbolic weight, as well as its “legal” savoir-faire, it is evident that this text, though terribly badly -ajambrado, serves as a reference in several South American countries. Especially because countries like Argentina and Brazil maintain a kind of deference to Europe — for better or for worse.
The Istanbul Convention is a text unworthy of our civilization. . Brazil would have something to gain if it never took it into account to effectively fight against the very real violence committed against the innocent.
Questions about carbon credits
For two reasons, I do not believe that the distinction between sex and gender should be adopted. First, it is a futile distinction, for all things are liable to be interpreted differently by different cultures. There are religions that worship trees as gods, and yet we don’t have two words to differentiate the divine tree from the purely physical tree. If we did, it would be difficult to say that “the tree is a god for such a people”, because we need the objective word to say this. Second: this silly distinction is the invention of a progressive Mengele, John Money, the pseudoscientist who did a cruel experiment on the Reimer twins and published fraudulent findings.
The US right and Brazil is right to say that it is an ideology, not a theory. Money’s scientific theory turned out to be false and fraudulent. Then came Judith Butler and converted it into dogmatic ideology. Everything about gender ideology is too absurd, and it is even more absurd that the madness of a few imposes itself on the majority in democracies.
The problem of the Istanbul Convention, then, is is the problem with these eternal treaties of international law, signed by transitional authorities — draconian treaties that were not discussed by the people in the elections. As you said about environmentalism in the Green Reich, this ideology does not give a vote, so journalists and jurists are needed to legitimize and enforce it.
I think the best known draconian international treaty in Brazil is the Paris Agreement. The Goddess Science has been telling us for several years that the CO2 from the cow’s fart is going to kill everyone. There are people on the right who think that Brazil can make money from carbon credits. I believe that if they read your book, they would understand that the world of carbon credit is the world of poverty and economy. Can you explain your reasoning?
However, it is quite strange to ask the people to believe that there are evil elites who want to kill humanity. Go crazy. So, I ask: Why do these people of environmentalism, gender ideology and (it goes in the package) neo-racism have so much ability to impose themselves on democracies? Who are these people? Is it the same as for ESG, WEF?
Responses on carbon credits
1. Finding objective matches—such as the fact that most of these theories impose themselves on the international ladder—is one thing, and I do. Believing that “everything is connected” is an amalgamation thought – the worst of intellectual dishonesty according to Raymond Aron – and I absolutely refuse that facility of thought. Apart from the facts, there are no ghosts. Nassim Nicholas Taleb is very clear on these issues.
2. Taxing carbon is a tax, therefore a supplementary cost. In the short and medium term, this tax can only, by essence and definition, increase the cost of all things — so much so that the production of any good and the provision of any service imply the emission of CO2.