For us, or againstus? Under the guise of an innocuous question likely to give free rein to a deliberatechoice, we are in factdealingwith an injunction to renounceone'sownpersonality. If thiswere not the case, thenwhy the obligation to take the side of a third party, to the detriment of one'sowninterests, whichisone'sduty and right to uphold? Especially whenwe know that no birdbuilds a nest for anotherbird.
The factremainsthat in these times of turmoil and uncertaintyfollowing the establishment of new major centres of power, almosteverythingisbeingdonewith a view to a return to the subordination of sovereignties.
Numerous clichés explainthisapproach, whichisladenwithundertones. Thus, one is a democrat or a dictator, an elite or a populist, progressive or conservative, pro or anti-homosexuality. Thanks to the plurality of the channels of transmission, blind following and infantilizingparrotry are imposed on a good part of humanity, thusgivingresonance to the mostdisgustingfantasies. The recentinstitutional and societaldisastersexperienced by a number of countries acrossourplanet are some of the products of thisresurgence of ideological and cultural hegemonies.
Moreover, even the meaning of wordsissubject to tendentious manipulation. The case of populism, whichaccording to the dictionary;is the othername for democracy, in otherwords, government of the people, by the people and for the people. And yet, according to the inversions that carry not alwaysavowed ambitions, populismispresented as beingantithetical to whatsomemisguided and marginal voicesunderstand by modern governance.
So manystraitjackets, somanyintellectual and moral shacklesintended to restrict the scope of reasoning, and therefore to guide behaviour. Here, as everywhereelse, the ideais to offeronly the pathmarked out and paved by the mostnoisy and invasive thought as an option, whichamounts to indecision.