is your argument for what seperates mere 'ideology' from a 'set of values' this:
Any ideology that commits this novel 'endless loop' fallacy that you talk about is not a set of values?
I've never heard this before, and anyway, even if it is true I don't see how Traditionalism is much different without engaging in semantic games. Can't traditionalism be framed in terms of your 'endless loop' fallacy: endless insistance on the same (hierarchy) against something undesired (equality)?
Or is it that if an ideology does not have "an evolutionary goal", it is not a set of values. If so, when in hell did this become the criterion of what constitutes 'values'?
I don't think presenting liberal post-modernity as though it is 'valueless' has any intellectual credibility (i'm opon to enlightenment though). I suspect it is merely an appeal to the conservative temperament, for talk of 'valuelessness' is emotionally loaded for conservatives. If it is this then it is a stupid appeal, because it ignores the difference between not holding any values at all, and merely holding different values. Simple as that.
There are plenty of people working in society for 'values' (or something 'intagible', or 'higher' than mere consumption of goods and services, which i think is a better criterion than an 'enless loop' criterion or 'evolutionary' criterion). i.e. Anti-discrimination, ending racism, gender equality, rights for asylum seekers, a 'fairer' distribution of resources, the list goes on.
It's better to identify the problem cleary ('wrong values') rather than engage in sophistry to give one's position more emotional appeal ('no values').