A reading of this essay is available as a bonus episode of Start The World.
Introduction:
Last year, I started promoting a slogan that seems to be catching on, and in response to a lot of questions about what it means to “stay solar,” I’ve decided to sketch out what I mean by it. I presented some of this material in a speech titled “Manly Idealism,” given at the 21 Convention in October 2019, and I expect that speech to be available online in a few months, first through 21 University, and then “free to the world.”
Throughout human history, and certainly in Indo-European cultures, men have revered some force in the sky, associated with day and the light. The sky fathers and all-fathers reigned from above, and men looked upward to these primal patriarchs for guidance on how to live more righteously — how to take the higher path. As it is explained in Plato’s Republic, this highest force and greatest good isn’t quite the sun, but the sun is perhaps the best way to understand it — the sun is “the child of the good.”
“Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowing to the knower is what I would have you term the idea of good, and this you will deem to be the cause of science, and of truth in so far as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge; beautiful too, as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming this other nature as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previous instance, light and sight may be truly said to be like the sun, and yet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truth may be deemed to be like the good, but not the good; the good has a place of honor yet higher.”
— Plato. The Republic
In true, complete darkness, there is no truth or beauty whatsoever. True darkness is the void, and all things — all forms — are unintelligible. As Socrates makes clear, unlike the other sense organs, the eye requires light to see anything at all.
My formulation of what it means to stay or to be solar is a synthesis of mythic and scientific understandings of the sun and the nature of the cosmos. To our ancient ancestors, the sun made its way across the sky and disappeared at night, giving a sense to some that it was forced to “endure” the darkness and the night, only to emerge triumphant each morning. Today we know that the earth actually revolves around the sun, though the sun has its own very long orbit around the galaxy. Science tells us more than the ancients knew about gravity and space and the fiery nature of the sun, but to my mind, this information only enhances and adds depth to the analogies and metaphors about the sun and its influence over us.
While the solar mindset is present and even articulated in many religions, I don’t believe it favors any particular one or conflicts with most of them. In fact, while the specific doctrines and elements of many religions may contain anti-solar elements that are servile and submissive or based in the dark jealousy of ressentiment, I believe that the qualities I am associating with the sun and solarity are consistent with the way most men envision a benevolent god or sovereign.
“…the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion…”
— Thomas Carlyle. On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History.
Many have asked me if “Stay Solar” is some kind of Stoic mantra.
What “staying solar” has in common with Stoicism is emotional control, and as “life is conflict,” maintaining emotional control is a challenge that ends only after death.
A lot of men talk about Stoicism without having read the Stoics. In the popular mind, Stoicism sometimes appears to mean “THIS IS SPARTA!!” or “suck it up” or “can’t hurt me” and lends itself to a lot of tryhard tough-guy posturing. This would probably confuse a sensitive, thoughtful fellow like Marcus Aurelius, who, as far as I can gather, was not very much like Leonidas at all.
My beef with Stoicism is that it seems a bit too focused on acceptance, a bit too detached from outcomes…a bit too, “this is fine…”
The sun is hot and violent, made of fire and storm — but it retains its shape, its path, its gravity and the system of order that spins around it.
Gravity
Know your purpose. Stay centered and on task. Aim, whenever possible, to be an unmoved mover — to be a cause rather than an effect or the affected. Do not allow yourself to be pulled into petty disputes or frivolous pursuits. Remember who you are and what you are doing, and what your responsibilities are — and for all of it, why. Know your reasons and motivations — cultivate self-awareness.
One could call this “discipline,” but something about the word discipline sounds like a cracking whip to my ear — though it comes from the same root as “disciple” and implies the acceptance of teaching or an external order.
Perhaps it is more productive and life-affirming to think about maintaining a clarity of identity and purpose, and evaluating patterns of thought and action in terms of whether or not they facilitate or contribute to that purpose.
The sun is massive, stays on its own course and has a gravity of its own. The root of the word gravity means “weight” or “heavy.” The Romans considered gravitas a virtue, particularly in leaders. Speaking with gravity means conveying that weight by showing that you take yourself seriously, and that you are firm and will be “difficult to move” if you believe that your cause is righteous.
This does not mean that you will never compromise or change your mind over time— that would be foolish and unwise — but it does convey a certain integrity and trustworthiness. People who change their beliefs depending on who they are talking to eventually reveal themselves to be untrustworthy, because their marks eventually compare notes.
Order
As things shoot and move and float around them, objects with mass and weight and gravity are creators of orders and systems. Each sun is a creator of cosmos, of order, in the midst of the greatest chaos, the expansive disorienting void of outer space.
Man seeks order and in the absence of order, creates his own provisional order. He does this with his environment, with the people around him, and his own psyche. Consciousness itself is cosmo-generative.
The creation of order is the primary characteristic of solarity.
Do not confuse defiant creation with defiance for the sake of defiance. Defiant creation defies disorder to create order or rejects stagnant orthodoxy to improve an existing order. Defiance for its own sake merely perpetuates chaos.
Illumination
Be a calm source of illumination that reveals truth, whether it is ugly or beautiful. Seek out the truth of things and share it with those who are interested or ready to hear it — but don’t become another street corner prophet shouting at strangers.
Solarity is a paternal concept, so telling people the truth doesn’t always mean telling people what they want to hear. Sometimes it means telling them an uncomfortable truth that they need to hear — without malice or anger.
Do not confuse the revelation of truth with petty, trashy and malicious gossip. The prevailing Zeitgeist is salacious and gossip-driven. Anyone can be embarrassed and stripped of dignity. Few would want to be photographed on the toilet, though nothing is inherently wrong or shameful about going to the bathroom. What is the cumulative, overall truth of a person? What have they accomplished? How have they helped and inspired others? How do they treat the people around them?
Reveal the simple truth, like the sun at noon.
Human life is more beautiful and interesting with an interplay of light and shadow, and there is value in mystery, but do not rely on shadow to obscure and deceive. Beware of people who romanticize the dark and want to remain in the shadows. What truth are they hiding?
Be the light, and let the shadow reveal its absence.
Warmth
Without the sun, the Earth would be a frozen rock shooting through space.
Take a moment to think about how life-giving that makes the sun. Every forest and field and jungle and blade of grass on Earth reaches toward it and depends on it. No animals, much less men, would be able to survive on earth without it.
The sun can be blinding, and you can die from overexposure to its light. It is not benign, but it is for the most part benevolent — if we anthropomorphize a bit.
Are you a source of life-giving warmth in the lives of the people around you, or a collapsed sun— a black hole that draws them in and crushes them. Do the people in your orbit and the people you come in contact with every day feel improved by your presence? Do you make the people around you better or worse?
People love to complain, but it doesn’t help them. Be a source of inspiration, not commiseration.
The sun has warmth and energy to spare. What it gives doesn’t deplete it in any meaningful way.
Don’t operate in a “zero-sum” frame. Most of us are mobile, and we aren’t fighting over some closed, tiny market of friends, potential partners, or potential clients. Adopting an abundance mentality makes you appear more confident and less desperate — and ideally you will also become more confident and less desperate.
Let the low-energy vermin fight over every scrap in the alley, and turn your mind to greater concerns.
Conclusion
Any one of the virtues I’ve described above has been exalted by any number of religions, philosophies and motivational books. None of them are new. Each can be expanded upon and developed substantially.
Men have idealized and modeled themselves after sky fathers and solar entities for thousands of years. The sun is a powerful symbol — in fact I can’t think of a symbol more figuratively or physically powerful. The sun is unifying and universal. We can all look upward to see and contemplate the same sun. We can look inward and cultivate our own solarity. There’s nothing arcane about the sun and nothing could be less “occult” — less hidden or secret.
The slogan “stay solar” seems to have resonated with a lot of men, even men who years ago would have considered themselves drawn to darker or more oppositional ideologies. I believe that’s because it’s the right message, and it is the message men need right now. We live in an age of unhinged hysteria, where people feel compelled to react to or comment on a relentless barrage of trending outrages and curated “news” about strangers. All the old rules are in flux and no one seems to know what the new rules are yet.
So, when you are surrounded by all of this confusion and anger, be like the sun. Remember who you are and who you want to be. You’re the man, so be the man. Be the order. Be the light. In the midst of chaos and darkness, stay solar.
It’s a little like that line from Kipling’s “If.”
“If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing theirs and blaming it on you…”
Cultivating solarity is a response to darkness and confusion and anger and anxiety. It is a response to cynical nihilism, but it requires no retreat into childish naiveté or delusion. It’s optimistic, but not foolish. It’s a positive response to negativity. And it’s a personal response, because it starts with you.
I do not claim to be the perfect embodiment of any of the virtues or ideas I have espoused above. I’m going to put the best of myself forward, but I believe that the world loves nothing more than to see the inevitable deflation of men who puff out their chests too far, claiming to be something that they are not. The gods have always punished hubris, and I value humility in myself and the men whom I admire. As I have written in the past, “this is for me, too.” Writers who connect with men authentically write the things they themselves want to read or need to hear. These are virtues I’m working on myself, not just preaching to others.
Men can all do better, and we can all try a little harder to be and to stay solar.
The “Solar Vision” Symbol
You’ll find this symbol on my work and throughout this web site. It represents my own synthesis of the overseeing eye and a sun wheel.
This particular design is modeled after a Bronze Age sun wheel pendant originally found in Zürich, dated to the 2nd Millennium B.C. It was probably a Celtic symbol, as the Celts moved though the area around that time, so it likely would have been associated with the Celtic god Taranis, who was a god of thunder and lightning, not unlike Zeus or warrior gods like Thor or Indra. Lightning is often seen as a solar weapon, or as demonstrating the power of the god who rules the sky. Taranis was also depicted holding a wheel. The sun wheel, sun cross, or Sonnenkreuz symbolizes not only the sun, but motion and momentum, turning and action — referencing the spoked wheel and the terrible glory of the battle chariot. The sun itself is often represented by another deity, sometimes male (Helios), sometimes female (Sól/Sunna). However, the primary patriarch is sometimes believed to be “the eye in the sky.”
I created this hybrid symbol for my book, A More Complete Beast, to represent the concept of “solar vision,” which has evolved in my mind to represent and include the concepts discussed above.
The solar father as creative visionary who orders the world…
Usage and attribution
I created this exact symbol, as far as I am aware, though there are certainly many other eyes in wheels and suns and similar symbols.
My ideas are meant to be spread, so if you want to get this tattooed on your body or use it in a piece of your own artwork, I encourage this and grant my permission.
If you post it online, please include a link to this page or my site or one of my social media accounts, along with a note of attribution.
Please do not reproduce this symbol on merchandise to be sold for profit (or “non-profit”) without written permission from me, personally.
This 2016 essay has become a reader favorite, so I am republishing it on the new site today.
Don’t kill your ego. Sacrifice Yourself To Yourself.
Bruce Lee wrote that: “Punches and kicks are tools to kill the ego.”
It sounds like mountaintop mysticism, like some far-out, far-eastern form of overdubbed, white-bearded enigmatic enlightenment.
It’s become a training cliche. Whether you are training with weapons or weights, someone will eventually tell you that your ego is your enemy.
The problem with that is, your ego is also — you.
People tell you to kill your ego because they want you to get out of your own way. They want you to stop acting like you already know everything, because by seeking out training, you’ve already acknowledged on some level that you don’t know everything.They want you to leave your status or perceived status in the world behind, so that you can submit to the learning process as a student — with no chip on your shoulder and nothing to prove.
They want you to train with humility and avoid hubris — an ancient Greek concept describing a man who overestimates his own power or status and brings himself into conflict with natural law, which is, from a mythopoetic perspective, the will of the gods. His hubris eventually leads to his downfall. In the case of training, a man’s hubris makes it more difficult for him to learn and grow as a practitioner — his hubris becomes the cause of his stasis.
Conceit, hubris, arrogance…this kind of ego-tism is only one negative connotation of the word ego, which also describes a much broader concept of self.
“Ego” is actually a Latin word for “I,” sometimes translated as “I, myself.”
The Twentieth Century use of “ego” in English to mean “self” stems from the psychoanalytic work of Sigmund Freud, who used the simple word “Ich,” also “I,” in German. This seems less editorial and more in keeping with the Latin “I, myself.”
In the Freudian model, the super-ego, or Über-Ich is the ego above and beyond the self. It’s the part of the conscious and unconscious self that absorbs and processes collective identity as well as the demands and the norms of the group, culture, society — tribe.
If you train on purpose — if you train because you want to train — your training is driven by the ego.
Voluntary training is endured in the service of the ego, with the ultimate purpose of validating the ego, increasing self worth and improving social status. You train because you believe that you are good enough to be better, and worth improving. Or perhaps you see yourself training for the sake of others, for the group, to protect them or fulfill a role you believe you are good enough and able to fulfill. If you train for honor — to be worthy of your peers, your ancestors, your gods — you train because you believe yourself to be capable of honoring them. (1) This too, is a product of your ego.
The ego, in both the broadest and the psychoanalytic sense, describes your conscious mind. It makes up the bulk of your “I” or “Ich.” Your ego is what separates you from dust in the wind. It’s the part of your mind that is awake, sentient, self-aware. To whatever extent you are the master of your own fate and the captain of your soul, the “you” is your ego. It is your ego — inseparable from any knowable version of “you” — that perceives and processes information about the world around you, evaluates that information, and selects a direction or course of action. It is the ego that manifests will.
Men train in the service of a higher version of the self, imagined and willed into existence by the ego. Training is self-creation — becoming — not self-destruction.
The aspects of the ego which must be destroyed or contained in training are self-imposed scripts and limitations and habits which may impede the progress of your self-development.This is a pruning of the ego — a sacrifice of old growth to stimulate new growth.
This pruning may be painful as you clip away or brush aside cherished ideas about the talents or even perceived limitations that you believe make you special.
People seem to take almost as much pride in the untested reasons and rationalizations they’ve dreamed up for why they can’t learn in a certain way or do a certain thing as they do in untested delusions of grandeur — especially in this slave age that prefers victims to victors. Often, their perceived limitations are like those of a boy who believes he can’t swim or doesn’t like swimming because he fell in a pool once and didn’t know what to do.
The world is also full of men who want to tell you how much they used to lift or how fast they used to run, before they got “old” or suffered some injury that elite athletes work through all the time. “Limitless potential” is a fantasy, but most people set their own limits long before they come anywhere close to the top end of their potential.
While some believe they can’t when they can, many others believe they could when they probably couldn’t. Millions of doughboys overestimate their ability to fight because they won an altercation in high school once — or worse, because they’ve watched a lot of videos of fights and think they “have a pretty good idea of what they’d do.” You can find them second-guessing professional fighters and quarterbacks in bars and in front of television sets all around the world.
To truly become the kind of men who know they have the ability and the conditioning to do what these men merely believe they can do, these couch captains would have to abandon their self-authored fictions about themselves. They would have to go through a process of failing and looking stupid before they even started to look like they knew what they were doing — much less became truly capable of performing as they’ve imagined.
To train successfully, you must be willing to sacrifice portions of your present self-concept to a future, higher version of the self created by your ego. It is your ego, god-like, that is initiating and driving the process of self-transformation and becoming. This process requires you to exchange something you have for something you want. Nothing worth anything is truly free, and everything worth having requires some kind of sacrifice.
Instead of “killing your ego” — instead of fighting yourself — approach training as a sacrifice of a part of yourself to a higher self.
This is the way of Odin.
Odin is usually depicted with a missing eye, because he sacrificed one of his own eyes to the giant Mimir in order to drink from his well of wisdom. He sacrificed a portion of his superficial sight for a deeper, higher way of “seeing.” .
In another tale, Odin disguised himself as a farmhand and labored through a growing season, doing the work of nine men to gain access to Óðrœrir, the mead of poetry and inspiration. To get the mead, the hooded wanderer eventually had to seduce the giantess Gunnlod, whose name translates roughly to “invitation to battle,” and slam her out for three nights in a row. (It must have been a rough three nights.)
Odin is perhaps best known for his self-directed ordeal hanging from the world-tree Yggdrasil, wounded by what was (presumably) his own spear. After hanging without food or drink for nine nights, the runes reveal themselves to him, and from them he gains magic and a greater understanding of the universe.
While this scene is superficially Christ-like, and it makes sense to wonder how much Christian imagery and intent colored any of the surviving stories of pre-Christian European pagans, the stark difference here is in Odin’s motivation.
The spirit of Odin’s ego-driven self-sacrifice is captured in the following lines from the Hávamál:
og gefinn Óðni
sjálfur sjálfum mér
a sacrifice to Odin
myself to myself
The Hávamál is known as “the sayings of the high one” — sayings attributed to Odin himself. The majority of the first 138 verses pass down practical advice for living, as if from a grandfather or a wise old king. These lines about the sacrifice of self to self are found in a distinctive portion of the text that reads as if the speaker has slipped into a trance. In this dream state, the high one recalls his initiation into the mysteries of the runes, through starved meditation, while hanging from the world tree (2):
Veit ég að ég hékk vindga meiði á nætur allar níu geiri undaður og gefinn Óðni sjálfur sjálfum mér á þeim meiði er manngi veit hvers hann af rótum rennur*
Við hleifi mig seldu né við hornigi nýsti ég niður nam ég upp rúnir æpandi nam féll ég aftur þaðan
I know that I hung on a windy tree for nine full nights wounded with a spear a sacrifice to Odin myself to myself on that tree which no man knows from what root it runs*
None made me happy with loaf Or with horn I looked down below I took up the runes Screaming I took them And then fell down from there
Odin’s martyrdom is a self-martyrdom, done in the service of no one but himself, for reasons of his own. He sacrifices himself to reach a new level of understanding, and through that understanding becomes a higher version of himself.
Odin acknowledges that he doesn’t know everything, and instead of sitting on his throne sipping mead and marveling at his own creation, he pushes himself out of his own comfort zone and forces himself to do what he believes to be necessary to know more and become better. The Allfather could easily compare himself to other gods and humans and all of the lesser creatures, and be satisfied. But Odin doesn’t measure himself against others, he measures himself against himself.
The opposite of Odin wouldn’t be a giant or a dwarf or a man — or even the wolf who swallows him and ends his life. Odin’s opposite would be the person who tells you to “just be yourself” or to “be happy just the way you are.”
The story of Odin is a challenge and a reminder that no matter who you are or what you’ve achieved, you can do more, learn more — you can make yourself better in some way.
The practice of Odinism requires no worship of Odin with kneeling prayers.
One who practices Odinism acknowledges the worthiness — the original meaning of the Old English word, “weorðscipe” — of the Odinic ideal by embodying Odin. A man becomes Odin by acknowledging the worth of the way of one who is always seeking, always improving, always willing to sacrifice a piece of himself to become more, to become better, to do more.
All training requires some kind of sacrifice of self to self. Of something you have for something you want. Of something you want to do now for someone you want to be later. It may even be a part of you that you cling to, some idea about yourself that you’ll have to give up temporarily or permanently, because it is preventing you from becoming who your ego believes you can become.
When you’ve decided what you want to learn or what you want to do or how you want to transform yourself — work to remove the internal obstacles that are preventing you from achieving mastery or realizing that goal.
Be the loosener your own fetters.
Determine what you have that you need to give up — time, money, work, habit, comfort — and sacrifice it on the bloody altar of that vision.
When you are tempted to feel burdened or victimized by the hunger of your vision for sacrifice, remember that you are the visionary — the father of it all.
You are the god, the priest, the slaughter and the harvest.
(1) For more on training for honor, read my essay, “Train for Honor” in the collection A Sky Without Eagles.(2014)
I’ve done my best to mimic the reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation in the recorded version on that page, albeit with my own quirks and dramatic inflections.
I don’t write about politics much these days. I don’t believe anything anyone says.
Politicians are playing a game with each other, and everything they say or do is a chess move. If a politician told me that the sky was blue, I’d wonder why he wanted me to believe the sky was blue, or which politician he was trying to get to disagree with him so that he could try to make them look like an idiot.
For a few decades, reporters were classical “liberals” — the kind of people who cared about truth, freedom of information, and the free exchange of ideas. The kind of people who opposed book burning and knew the history of the First Amendment. At least, it seemed that way. Maybe more people just bought into their industry self-talk.
Today’s “news entertainers” are the used car salesmen of truth. They act like your friends and sell you whatever “truth” profits them most. I stopped watching and reading and writing about “the news” years ago, because I got tired of helping them talk up their lemons.
Most state institutions and publicly-traded corporations are run by mobile careerists without much skin in the game. They think and act in the short-term — for the quick bonus, raise, or resume bullet point. Whatever programs or innovations they promise will be left to languish as soon as they receive credit for them and turn their attention elsewhere. Everything is a hustle for rootless Nietzschean “Last Men” navigating morally with no true North — no “thou shalts” — only an ever-changing landscape of trending moral buzzers in a great game of Operation.
Nevertheless, I’m skeptical of the view that we’re living in some kind of “end time” or cyclical inversion of all righteous values. People have always carried signs saying “the end is near.” Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. Our golden perception of the past is colored by its most successful myth-makers.
I’ve heard that my secret “master plan” is Evolian but the truth is that I’m tired of hearing about the Kali Yugafrom fans of that time-traveling love child of Jordan Peterson and Dr. Strange. Maybe it’s the end of some grand historic cycle. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it gets better. Maybe it gets much, much worse.
Practically speaking, this is a narrative choice…a question of frame. Is the narrative serving you, or are you serving the narrative?
Maybe we’re all just guys, living in time, and things were never that great for most people. Maybe it’s not so melodramatic, and we’re not that special. Maybe we’re not tiger cowboys giddy-upping though a dark age of desolation.
Let’s concentrate on the present reality – because it is all we truly know.
I see some of the same problems and dangers, right now, in this time, that you see. And I share many of the same concerns.
I often find myself in conversations with thumotic men who are looking for a cause. They want to be sent “to the front.” But the conflicts that concern them have no front. Protest marches are for the most part performance art for college girls and memelords and 20th Century political LARPers.
America is dying on the inside. Its external enemies are comparably inconsequential. The next “wall” or middle eastern adventure won’t stop the whimpering death of freedom or the progressive emasculation of men.
There is no political “cause” to join that has any legitimate potential — just a handful of doomed demagogues and hopeful trust fund tyrants frantically scrambling to scribble their names into the history books.
I respect Donald Trump as a man, and I’ll admit that I’d rather have him as captain on this sinking ship than any of the other options I’ve seen presented. However, in accordance with my 2016 prophecy, it’s become increasingly obvious that he can’t “save” America and he’s not going to “make it great again” in the way that many men wanted him to. He’s not riding a dinosaur and he’s not going to break the wheel.
Vituð ér enn – eða hvat?
I don’t want to see good men — men who have promising futures and who could still raise good kids — throw their futures and their Y chromosomes away on lost causes.
If you make war with the whole world, the whole world will make war with you. And in that scenario, frankly, I don’t like your chances. Sure, doomed causes are romantic and Germanic, but hold your horses and reign in your Todestriebe, Captain Save-a-Civilization. Odin also said that, “No good can come of a corpse.” (Hávamál 70-71)
There have always been aspiring maestros waiting in the wings, hoping to conduct the bass drums of your anger to drive the fury of their own symphonies. Take care, fellas. Make sure it’s a piece worth playing.
If you’re honest with yourself, the future of Western Civilization is probably way above your pay grade.
The best thing you can do for yourself and for the world right now is to take control of the things close to you, within your own perimeter and direct sphere of influence.
You have the power to set boundaries and set an example and control the culture within that sphere. That’s your fire to tend. Stop worrying about all of the flickering myriad fires yonder and concentrate on your own.
I’m friends with a lot of men who genuinely believe in what America represents to them. They often say, “I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but I’d fight for your right to say it.”
That demonstrates strength of character. However, it can also be a weakness. Especially when the people in question are advocating against freedom of speech.
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
– Karl Popper
If freedom means to you, as it does to me, “live and let live, but stay the fuck off my lawn” — then you can’t in good conscience advocate the suppression of anyone’s speech.
What you can do is draw a hard line socially, in your own life, with people who do advocate censorship of opinions they don’t like.
I believe that people should be able to say, write and believe whatever they want. And I should be free to entertain their viewpoints or ignore them completely.
If you can’t be ok with that — if you’re such a bitchy, passive-aggressive little tyrant that you can’t sleep unless you can use someone else’s power to control what other people say, write and think — then we have a problem.
If you think censorship is cool, then fuck you.
People can say and believe whatever they want, and I have no choice but to tolerate them in the world or this country — I wouldn’t want it any other way — but I don’t have to tolerate them in my life.
I don’t want to control you, but if you want to control me, then fuck you.
I can’t control what publicly traded corporations do. Many of them (like Gillette, for instance) may be quietly acknowledging behind the scenes that trusting the marketing advice of people in the urban left affirmation bubble isn’t as profitable as they thought it would be.
But if you’re an independent contractor or small business, and you’re advertising that you want the government (or corporations) to censor ideas or ban firearms, then I’m not going to hire you for freelance work. I’m not going to patronize your business if I have another viable option.
I don’t want anything to do with people who want to target other groups of people. I’d rather be “pro” something than “anti” anything.
And if you’re pro-freedom, let us all know, because I’d rather support you. I’m just one guy with a small business and a modest income — but there are a lot more men like me than the media wants you to believe. They’re just not standing in the street screaming.
In a neutral, public space that I can’t control, I’m never going to be rude or obnoxious, because that’s not how I was raised or who I am. But in my personal life, I’m done pretending to be friends with people who think it’s their job to mommy adults. I’m not going to show up at your event and smile and nod. I won’t break bread with you. The things you want are non-negotiable.
I’m done being nice to people who want to control me. It’s about time these people started feeling the cold shoulder and exclusion that they threaten everyone else with. It’s time that they felt some real pushback.
These are the kind of steps you can take to control your social environment — your own world. To tend your own fire and expand your personal influence.
A few months ago, someone pointed me to an issue of Foreign Affairs titled, “The New Nationalism.” Various authors weighed on on the good and evil and, often, the inevitability of some kind ofnationalism. If you have a nation at all, it has to have some kind of identity and purpose. A nation needs a story.
In the past, nations formed or invented a common history, usually based on shared culture and ancestry. America never really had that. Germany has a distinct culture, language and heritage with ancient roots. So does France and Sweden and Italy.
People traveled to America from all over Europe, and eventually the world, seeking freedom and opportunity. America is a frontier nation that became Empire, but what Americans share is the story of America’s founding, its guarantee of freedom and its spirit of innovation and adventure. American culture has long been meritocratic and animated by a rugged individualism — a break from the old world culture of nobility and entitlement.
A contemporary American Nationalism can’t be about race or entitlement.
But it can and should be about freedom and individual sovereignty.
America’s founders created the Bill of Rights, because they understood the danger of unchecked state power. The lived in a world where people competing religious groups spent generations murdering and trying to control each other. Actual witchhunts are part of early American history. The founders lived in a world were political imprisonment and execution was a real threat.
If you think a 21st Century state with access to drones and facial recognition technology doesn’t need to be checked and will by some miracle behave more benevolently than all of the human governments that have ever existed, you’re dangerously foolish.
The original Bill of Rights is the only thing preventing a completely Orwellian police state.
If you think you know anything about what goes on in Europe, you’re wrong, because they don’t have the same protected freedoms. Their “news” is already state-sanitized propaganda.
If you want to live in a country where people are arrested or disarmed at gunpoint for expressing an unpopular or unsanctioned viewpoint, under the auspices of “public safety” — then fuck you.
The Bill of Rights is what matters now. It’s the only thing standing between us and a corporate police state. It’s the only thing standing between the government monitoring you and controlling what you can and can’t say. Without the original Bill of Rights, America stops being free. It might as well be China.
I don’t care where you stand on most issues – you benefit from the ability to be able to express your opinions and spread information that may not be mainstream. And that only works if you’re willing to protect the speech of people who disagree with you. If you think that you’ll be able to influence a state with unchecked power, or that you’ll always be on the right side of their sanctioned “truth,” then you’re wrong.
America is a messy, diverse, divided nation. We can agree to disagree on a lot of things. The only political cause I really care about now is The Bill of Rights. I think it’s something a legitimate majority can get behind. A cause that should matter to all races and religions. As long as the integrity of the Bill of Rights remains, everything else is still up for debate.
If you’re looking for a cause or a “front” to go to, I believe that this is the front of our time. This is not a war to be fought with guns — in fact, please fucking do not. (Like most gun owners, I’d love to be in a locked room with one of these sad boy shooters.)
Start with your world. Take a stand in your own home, with the people you know. And put your money where your mouth is.
If you’re going to draw a hard line in your own life, draw it here.
THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
AMENDMENT VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
AMENDMENT VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The primary role of Thor is the primary, evolutionary role of all men — to protect the perimeter inhabited by his people and to do battle with chaotic forces that threaten its order, prosperity and continuity.
It is only when that zone of security has been established and maintained that any of the civilized joys of life can develop and be experienced in their fullness. Without security, there is no art, no love, no higher learning — only anxiety and the struggle to survive.
Thor is a guardian — protector of Asgard, of sailing ships, of crops and the common folk. In Dumézil’s tripartite ordering of Indo-European societies, he is a manifestation of the warrior archetype. He is the hammer of the gods and the people — the juggernaut of the Kshatriya — a crushing force set loose on malevolent jötnar and all encroaching forces of chaos and disorder.
In the words of Longfellow, his “eyes are lightning” and his name means “thunder,” with an origin reaching through the Proto-Germanic “Þunraz” all the way to the
Proto-Indo-European tongue of the steppe.
To fight and protect — this is the role of Thor. He is a warrior. That is his job and his duty.
But what does it feel like — to experience being thunder? What does it feel like to be a terrible rumble in the sky that seems to shake the very earth?
It sounds like it feels pretty good. It sounds like it feels like power and winning.
Nietzsche wrote that, “…a living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength…”
This is the joy of Thor, of being Thor, of being the personification of thunder itself. To have strength and exert it — to use it. To bring the BOOM.
This isn’t Thor’s duty or his higher purpose, it is simply what he is and what he does. In the stories about Thor, he is always revving his engines, looking for a reason to do what he really wants to do and to be what he really is. He’s chomping at the bit, waiting for an opportunity to become Þunraz. And when the god of thunder becomes thunder, I imagine the corner of his grimace turns upward just a bit.
Because it feels good to exert strength. Because it feels good to BE thunder.
One might call the gods projections, or mysteries, or eternal truths. In some sense, they represent aspects of ourselves. They are pieces of human nature.
Strength is one of the defining characteristics of Thor, and it is also one of the defining characteristics of men. Greater average strength is one of the qualities that distinguishes men from women. All men are not stronger than all women, but most men are stronger than most women. Strength differentiates men, and greater strength helped us to perform our differentiated role and responsibility throughout the majority of our evolutionary history. Men needed to be stronger to protect their territories and the more vulnerable members of their tribes and families.
But this strength, this virile potentiality, is also part of what we are. Having and using this greater strength is a joy in the way expressing any of one’s talents can bring great satisfaction. In the way that an artist fulfills his potential in painting the best painting he is able to paint, or a mother is fulfilled when she puts everything she has into raising and nurturing a child to the best of her ability, a man fulfills an aspect of his potential when he discharges his strength. He becomes more of what he is, and there is a magnificent joy in that becoming.
Several years ago, I wrote that I “train for honor.”
I was looking for a higher reason — beyond mere narcissism or physical maintenance — some greater purpose for training. It has always been the job of men to be strong and to demonstrate that strength, and in an age where weakness is encouraged and even celebrated, I considered strength training of any kind to be a revolt against the modern world. I wrote that I trained to be worthy enough to carry water for my barbarian fathers — for men who lived harder lives in a harder world. That I trained to avoid being a living, breathing embarrassment to their memory. I wrote that training for honor meant training to earn the respect and admiration of my spiritual peers and the men who I myself admired as exemplars of masculinity and the tactical virtues.
It is important — even defiant in this rootless age — to express this kind of commitment to the memory of your ancestors. In this emasculated era where even the word “honor” — when employed solemnly and seriously in its traditional patriarchal sense — has become socially taboo, to show a commitment to earning and maintaining your reputation within an exclusive group of men is absolutely radical. Today, I do train to be an example to men in my circle, to earn and reaffirm their respect and esteem, and at the very least, to avoid embarrassing them or making them look weak by association. Training to honor your peers and to honor the memory of your stronger forebears are both high, purposeful and significant motivations for any kind of self-improvement. And, if you recognize yourself to be in your own honest and self-aware estimation that “Exhibit A” of modern male weakness and dissolution, these are probably the best reasons to begin training, and begin training hard. If you have been training for a long time and you are thinking about stopping your training to rest on your laurels and regale eye-rolling youths with stories of how strong you used to be — about how much you benched in 2003 — these are probably the best reasons to keep training. Until you fucking die.
But the truth for me today is that I like training. In fact, I love training. It’s actually my favorite thing to do and the hours I spend in the gym are usually the best and happiest hours of my day. I don’t have to force myself to train. I have to force myself to do things that make me money so that I can keep training.
The possibility of shame and dishonor is a powerful motivator. The possibility of disappointing men who I respect and men who respect me and men who look up to me in some way is a powerful motivator. And yes, the disgraceful prospect of being the withering, ignoble end of a line of stronger and harder men should get your ass into the gym.
Shame and dishonor are negative motivators. And they work. But they are tolerances. Baselines. Your back against a wall covered in spikes.
The attainment of honor is a positive motivator. Self-improvement, self-creation, self-revelation and becoming the best version of myself that I can be at any given time — those are positive motivators.
At this point in my life, I want positive motivators.
I want to do things because I am passionate about them, because I love doing them, because they give me a sense of fulfillment. I train because I love being strong. I love feeling strong. I train because I want to be mighty and beautiful and because I believe that it is good and RIGHT to be mighty and beautiful. I train because — like every righteous living beast — I want to discharge my strength as hard as I can for as long as I can.
When I walk into a gym I want to train for no one else and compared to no one else.
I want to train because I’m alive and I want to feel alive.
Because I’m a man and it feels good to be a man.
Because I’m strong and it feels good to be strong.
Because I want that one moment every day when I am fucking THUNDER.
Because I want to know and feel the JOY OF THOR.
!:ÞUNRAZ:!
THE CHALLENGE OF THOR
by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
I am the God Thor, I am the War God, I am the Thunderer! Here in my Northland, My fastness and fortress, Reign I forever! Here amid icebergs Rule I the nations; This is my hammer, Miölner the mighty; Giants and sorcerers Cannot withstand it!
These are the gauntlets Wherewith I wield it, And hurl it afar off; This is my girdle; Whenever I brace it, Strength is redoubled!
The light thou beholdest Stream through the heavens, In flashes of crimson, Is but my red beard Blown by the night-wind, Affrighting the nations! Jove is my brother; Mine eyes are the lightning; The wheels of my chariot Roll in the thunder, The blows of my hammer Ring in the earthquake!
Force rules the world still, Has ruled it, shall rule it; Meekness is weakness, Strength is triumphant, Over the whole earth Still is it Thor’s Day!
Thou art a God too, O Galilean! And thus singled-handed Unto the combat, Gauntlet or Gospel, Here I defy thee!
Several readers have asked about the meaning of the Conflict Bindrune that appears on the back cover of Becoming a Barbarian.
In the opening chapter of Becoming a Barbarian, I made the point (as I have in several other essays and speeches) that masculinity is action-oriented. Masculinity reaches its most perfect form in life-or-death conflict — in a battle between the individual man and the natural world, which includes other men. This does not mean that there are no other aspects of masculinity, or that masculinity is absent in the absence of conflict. It simply means that if you conceptually map out the differences between male and female humans at their extreme opposite points, the perfect feminine nurtures life and the perfect masculine fights.
It is tempting to say that the perfect masculine fights for human life or to defend human life. That argument could be framed in evolutionary and biological terms, but this seems unnecessary. Adding that hint of heroic narrative to something so primal seems bound to touch off a pointless circle-jerk about how noble and valorous men are for doing what they want to do anyway. Men often fight for the sake of fighting, or for personal gain, and in some sense this is genetic competition that supports life. But it is more truthful to say that masculinity in its most perfect form is about fighting, and leave it at that.
It could also be argued more broadly that living itself is a form of conflict. As I wrote in Becoming a Barbarian:
“All of our life stories are a collection of highs and lows, of victories and defeats, of struggles and overcoming. Without conflict, no life story is worth telling. Without conflict and struggle, the answer to the question ‘What happened?’ is: ‘Nothing.’
Like Odin and Thor, we know we will die, but unless we fight, we are already as good as dead.
Better to live vigorously, better to fight, than to simply wait for the end…in peace.”
The conflict bindrune is essentially an inverted peace sign, used to illustrate this point. It is a synthesis of contemporary and ancient symbols that results in a new symbol that captures a basic human truth about men and life that is too easily forgotten in this age of safety and comfort facilitated by wealth and technology.
The conflict bindrune was designed to visually convey this truth:
“Life is Conflict. Peace is Death.”
For a more thorough rationale, let’s examine the components of the symbol and their history.
The Peace Sign
The peace sign is a powerful contemporary symbol — one of the most easily recognized and well-known symbols in the world. Almost everyone knows that it means, “peace.”
A friend recently reminded me that peace could technically mean anything from armistice to genocide. This is accurate, and good for a chuckle. Peace could mean the total annihilation of your enemy. That would, after all, resolve a conflict. Permanently.
But to most, the peace sign and the word “peace” are anti-violent. They represent a commitment to apparently non-violent resolutions, and a rejection of the human truth that, “Violence is Golden,” although in practice peace-oriented measures like gun control always require the threat of violent enforcement.
The contemporary peace sign has always been associated with disarmament. It was originally designed in Britain in 1958 using the semaphore signals for “N” and “D,” to stand for Nuclear Disarmament, to be used in a campaign for same. It was conceived as a symbol of despair, and was theoretically inspired by a mis-remembering of a Goya painting depicting the execution of a peasant. (The peasant’s hands actually point upwards in the original painting.)
The original designer eventually realized and regretted that he had based the symbol for peace on a symbol for death and despair, surrounded by the empty circle of the unborn child.
(I’d argue that the circle isn’t empty, because there is actually something in it.)
More on peace symbols here, and here is a 1971 Eugene, Oregon newspaper clipping in which a woman identifies the peace sign as a runic symbol for “the death of man.”
Algiz
The runic symbol that the woman was referring to was the Elder Futhark rune named Algiz or Elhaz, which comes from a Germanic word for Elk — possibly originating from belief in a elk god. As with all runes, evidence is spotty and mysterious, and anyone who speaks of absolute meanings can only do so subjectively, for themselves. The usage and interpretation of the runes changed over time and from place to place and tribe to tribe.
It is only, to my knowledge, during World War II that the inverted Algiz rune was used widely as a death rune or Todesrune. This usage was adapted from Austrian occultist and Wotanist Guido Von List. In The Secret of the Runes, as translated by Stephen E. Flowers, the upturned Algiz is referred to as the “man” or full moon rune.
“The fifteenth rune encompasses both the exoteric and esoteric concept of the high mystery of humanity and reaches its zenith in the warning: ‘Be a man!’”
Conversely, Von List refers to the downturned Algiz (the shape used in the peace sign) as “yr” rune, sixteenth in the series. Von List associated each of the runes with the passages about runes in the Hávamál. In the Hávamál, the passage about the sixteenth has to do with changing the mind of a maiden. List links this to the fickle and changeable nature of women, as well as the mutability of the moon. He wrote:
“The yr- or error-rune [Irr-rune], which causes confusion, whether through the excitement of the passions in love, in play, in drink (intoxication), or through pretextes of speech (sophistry) or by whatever other means, will perhaps conquer resistance through confusion. But the success of a victory gained by such means is just as illusory as the victory itself — for it brings anger, wild rage, and ultimately madness. The “yr-” or “error-rune” therefore also contrasts with the “os-rune,” since it tries to force the quest of an opponent with mere pretext instead of with real reasons. Therefore, it teaches: “Think about the end.”
I transcribed List’s entire rationale here because it was especially relevant. The downturned Algiz/Yr rune symbolizes foolish error. It is also presented as anti-male and fundamentally feminine. It symbolizes the tendency of people to get carried away with foolish, flimsy ideas that, though they seem good at the time, will ultimately lead to their doom.
This does suit the “peace” movement.
Moving away from Von List, the Anglo-Saxon rune poem associates the rune with Elk:.
The Elk-sedge usually lives in the fen,
growing in the water. It wounds severely,
staining with blood any man
who makes a grab at it.
There seems to be some academic controversy regarding the association of the rune with Elk. However, the theme of danger is a continuity.
In Runelore, the widely-read Edred Thorsson associates the elk horn or sedge with the sword, and links it to the god Freyr, which brings together themes of violence and fertility, creation and destruction. Thorsson also links the rune to the divine self:
“…the splayed hand ( = protection, humanity), the horns of the solar hart lifted to the heavens in pride and potency, the swan in flight (a reference to the valkyrja), and the Germanic arm posture for prayer and invocation.”
The Old Norwegian Rune Poem associates the Algiz rune with both man and the claw of the hawk.
Man is an augmentation of the dust;
great is the claw of the hawk.
The Old Icelandic Rune Poem presents man as “the delight of man, an accumulation of dust, and the adorner of ships.”
In Summoning the Gods, Collin Cleary identifies Elhaz or Algiz as the “striving of the lower toward the higher” and the “Will To Actualization.” Expanding on Thorsson’s lead, Cleary reads Elhaz/Algiz as, “signifying the relation of the individual to the ideal.”
“A wolf does not have to be persuaded to be the best wolf it can be. It will strive to be so, and will succeed to some degree or other, contingent upon its natural endowments. Humans find their perfection in a relationship to the divine, but this relationship can be avoided, cancelled, or perverted.”
The shape of the rune itself supports this interpretation. Algiz exalts, like a man with arms directed upward to praise or acknowledge something higher.
Many people also seem to associate Algiz with protection. Structurally, it’s a strong rune, evoking posts with knee braces in timber framed buildings. It “holds the roof up.” Looping back to men, it is the role of men to protect the perimeter and those inside it. Algiz could be seen as a sentry — a symbol of that protective role.
While the history of symbols is useful, the runes are best understood as mysteries. Their meaning deepens with contemplation, in part because there is the mind game of making twenty-four or so symbols mean everything.
The peace sign is a modern symbol that means one thing to billions of people. So, in terms of direct communication, an inverted peace sign should clearly and immediately communicate the opposite of that thing to billions of people. There is power in that scale of recognition. This reality need not eliminate more esoteric understandings of the symbol, it merely adds another layer.
As a symbol of conflict, the Algiz rune signifies the nature and fate of man. Man reaches for his highest potential in conflict, becoming what he is. He fights because it is his nature, like rutting elk fighting struggling for dominance in the spring. He also fights to protect the perimeter, a sentry among sentries who defines the outer boundary and keeps the roof from caving in on everyone inside. He fights, but few men are remembered for fighting, and all men, even gods, must die and return to dust.
Tiwaz
In designing the Conflict Bindrune, I realized that as an inverted peace sign, it could simply be mistaken for a peace sign which was accidentally upturned. I wanted to make the meaning clear, so there could be no mistake, and indicate the proper orientation of the symbol. The best way to mark a direction is with an arrow, and an upward arrow is also the rune Tiwaz. By extending and crossing the arms or “knee braces” of Algiz, they form a natural arrow.
Tiwaz is directly associated with the god Týr. This only solidifies the intended meaning of the rune, as Týr is essentially a warrior god. Týr is best known for courageously sacrificing his own hand to the wolf Fenris so that the Aesir could convince the wolf to be bound. Binding the wolf protected the gods and the world, for a time, from its wild and powerful wrath. Týr volunteers to do what must be done, and make the necessary sacrifice.
So Tiwaz, in the context of the Conflict Bindrune, not only points out the proper orientation of the symbol, but also adds elements of courage, duty, and frith. Further, in the Sigrdrífumál, a valkyrie tells Sigurd that Tiwaz is a victory rune, and encourages him to carve the symbol into his sword.
A Symbol of Revolt
Timeless symbols are powerful, but new symbols are necessary. Religion and philosophy and storytelling must address the challenges and realities of every man-age. Today we live in an age where the peace sign is prominent, where boys are taught that violence is always wrong, and males are often portrayed as flawed and delinquent females. We live in an age of fear, where men not only hide behind the law, but are required by modern totalitarian surveillance states to do so, under threat of both financial ruin and violent state incarceration.
Masculinity requires danger and conflict, and it is through conflict that men become — to borrow Cleary’s words — “the best wolves they can be.” Acknowledging this natural truth in an age where the very ideas of masculinity and human nature are despised and punished is an act of spiritual revolt.
The Empire teaches that conflict is wrong. Those who adopt this symbol disagree.
They know that the peace sign is a death rune.
They understand that:
“Life is Conflict. Peace is Death.”
Note: As of this writing, two men have already had this rune tattooed on their bodies. It is taking on a life of its own. I encourage this, and there is no need to ask for my permission. I would however, appreciate credit for developing the symbol in the forms of links, citations and hashtags. I would also love to see photos of the tattoos.
Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honor are the four “tactical virtues” that I used to define primal masculinity in The Way of Men. In a band-level society or “gang,” these are the virtues that men would look for and value in other men, because men who are strong, courageous, competent and loyal make better cooperative hunters, fighters and protectors. I talk more about defining masculinity in this video, but for an in-depth explanation of my “gang” theory of masculinity and the tactical virtues, read The Way of Men.
Like many of my readers, I’m drawn to Germanic Paganism and Runes. It occurred to me that each of the tactical virtues could probably be assigned a corresponding rune.
For those who aren’t familiar, the runes come from a series of alphabets that were scratched into rocks, wood and metals by various Germanic peoples. But each rune is also associated with an abstract concept or “mystery” and also sometimes a natural form — like ice, hail or a yew tree. As such, they become a simple shorthand for a bigger, more complex idea.
This was my first formulation:
Strength – ᚢ (uruz)
Courage – ᛏ (tiwaz or Týr)
Mastery – ᚱ (raido)
Honor–ᛟ (othala)
Uruz is associated with aurochs, the now-extinct ancestor of modern domestic cattle. According to the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem,
“The aurochs is proud and has great horns;
it is a very savage beast and fights with its horns;
a great ranger of the moors, it is a creature of mettle.”
Aurochs were very large, with bulls reaching a shoulder height of almost 6 feet, and weighing almost a ton. Uruz works as a symbol of raw strength. I like it for any kind of strongman or powerlifting or other “beast of burden” training, and I have it scratched into my lifting belt. “Strong like bull.”
Raido means “ride” or “journey” and it is associated with becoming and, according to Edred Thorsson’s Runelore, “rightly ordered action.” In Collin Cleary’s essay, “Philosophical Notes on the Runes” in Summoning The Gods, he identifies Uruz as the “Will to Form” and links it directly with Raido, “Dynamic Order.” I’ve been personally associating Raido with technical ability and the ability to apply concepts in motion for a while.
This arrangement makes sense, but it occurred to me that the tactical virtues align perfectly to the gods themselves. The gods can be seen as aspects not only of elemental man and nature, but also as aspects of manliness as an idea.
Strength–Thor ᚦ
Courage–Tyr ᛏ
Mastery–Odin ᚨ
Honor is Othalaᛟ — not a god, but a runic concept that in this application encloses and represents the sum of the others.
The Mannaz rune symbolizes man, so, in a formula:
Man, or (Mannaz) ᛗ = ᚦ + ᛏ + ᚨ + ᛟ
There is also an optional addition to the concepts that describe masculinity which corresponds directly to the qualities of the god Freyr.
Below are my brief rationales for linking the virtues to gods and runes. As we really don’t know exactly how our ancestors might have used the runes or conceptualized them — and even then, which ancestors? in what place? in what period? — I can only speculate and make my own associations based on what information is available. The purpose here is to take something old and breathe new life into it, and make it useful to men who are alive today.
Thor – Strength
Thor, god of thunder and lighting, is known for his strength and muscularity. He wields a heavy hammer, Mjölnir, and when he wears his belt, megingjörð, his already great strength is doubled.
In Gylfaginning, Thor is said to be, “the strongest of all gods and men.” When tricked by illusion into thinking he was fighting a sleeping giant, he split valleys into mountains with his hammer, and through further deception was tricked into drinking so much of the sea that it ebbed, and lifting part of the serpent that circles the world into the sky.
The rune ᚦ is called Thurs or Thurisaz. ᚦurs means “giant” in Old Norse, and it is the work of Thor to use his strength to battle giants and split their skulls.
It’s often occurred to me that “might” could be a better word than “strength” for the tactical virtue, because it seems to covers a wider range of physical capability and power — though the words are often used interchangeably. Might includes speed, athleticism and dexterity — all aspects of strength.
Týr – Courage
Týr is best known for the courageous sacrifice of his hand to the wolf Fenrir, the monstrous offspring of Loki and a giantess. To trick the wolf into allowing itself to be bound, Týr agreed to place his hand in the wolf’s mouth as a guarantee of good faith from the gods. When Fenrir could not break free and realized he had been tricked, the wolf bit off Týr’s hand. He is often referred to as the “one-handed” god, as in the Icelandic Rune Poem.
“Tyr is a one-handed god,
and leavings of the wolf
and prince of temples.”
The Romans identified the Germanic worship of Týr with their own worship of Mars, the Roman god of war. Týr has long been associated with courage, martial valor, victory and doing what must be done to maintain a right order of things.
A man who will take no risks or make no sacrifices for the group when risks are necessary can’t be counted on, and his aversion to risk could actually make the group more vulnerable as a whole. He won’t hunt the aurochs or fight the enemy.
Odin – Mastery
Odin hung himself for nine days and nights, until the forms of the runes revealed themselves to him. He ripped out his own eye for the opportunity to drink from Mímir’s well and gain knowledge of the past, present and future. Odin has many names and aspects, but in his essay, “What is Odinism?,” in TYR: Myth, Culture, Tradition.Volume 4, Collin Cleary argues that “Odin’s key feature is his ceaseless quest for knowledge.”
“Closely connected with this is his striving for power. But these are so tightly linked that they are almost corollaries of each other. Greater knowledge — increased insight into the nature of the universe and its secrets — brings with it an increase in the ability to manipulate and to control all manner of things. So that, as the saying goes, knowledge is power.”
Odin wants to know, understand and master the world. Mastery is the tactical virtue that critics of the tactical virtues always seem to skip over.
Engineers and programmers and researchers and philosophers always seem to want masculinity to be about being an engineer or a programmer or a researcher or a philosopher. If they don’t see themselves as being strong or courageous, they tend to discount the importance of those virtues and re-stack the deck so that their own virtues are the most important ones.
Understanding, judgement, wisdom, knowledge and technical proficiency are essential virtues in any survival group — because otherwise you have a bunch of strong, clumsy guys who don’t know anything taking risks for the sake of taking risks. Mastery is technology, and technology is a kind of magic to those who don’t understand it. Martial arts require mastery. Tool and weapon making and operation require mastery. Strategy and tactics require mastery.
Knowledge is power, but without the courage or the ability to use that power — apply it — knowledge is just information. Knowledge is only useful when it is used, though having no immediate use for knowledge does not make that knowledge useless.
Mastery alone can’t define masculinity, and while Odin is the Allfather, he’s not the only god, because human life is also a physical endeavor. We are our bodies, and our bodies must survive to make the seeking of knowledge possible. To think otherwise is a conceit of the spoiled. Violence is Golden, and that conceit depends on the outsourcing of strength and courage and the protection of the perimeter to “someone else.”
Othala – Honor
Honor, as I defined it in The Way of Men, is about loyalty to a group. You behave a certain way, make sacrifices and do things you wouldn’t normally do because you care what the other men in your group think of you. If you act like you don’t care what anyone thinks of you, you are more attached to a group than part of it. You’re a wild card. Your honor is your reputation among your peers and your commitment to them. Honor is about the “us” — those who are “within the perimeter.”
In Runelore, Edred Thorsson refers to Othala as “the sacred enclosure” and writes that, “in it is embodied the central concept of Midhgardhr and of the whole idea of ‘in-sidedness’ and ‘out-sidedness’ so prominent in Germanic (and Indo-European) thought.”
Because masculinity is both a physical reality and a way of being, a man who does not care about masculinity or being regarded as masculine cannot be masculine. Now, many men will bluster and tell you they don’t care what anyone thinks of them, but they will draw lines in the sand quickly if you start asking them to dress or behave like women in public. They still chafe at being called weak or cowardly. They still care about being seen as masculine by others, but in many cases those “others” may be absent or abstract. Men who barely have any friends at all still care about “others” seeing them emasculated.
In a globalized world with billions of humans, choosing who you are loyal to and which men you agree to be judged by is especially important, because you can’t please everyone. There are feminist men who have inverted masculine virtues to the extent that if you show that you value strength, courage, mastery and honor, they will (hypocritically) call you a coward for clinging to “old ideas” about masculinity.
Your honor is your reputation as a man among men, but because there are so many men with so many ideas about masculinity, to stay sane you have to decide which group or kind of men. Define your boundaries and close the circle, or leave yourself open to judgment by a thousand codes and billions of eyes.
The sowilo or sig rune ϟ has also been associated with honor and victory, as well as the sun. Depending on how the rune is formed, two facing sig runes can be joined to create an othala rune.
Freyr (Ingwaz)
It is likely that the majority of the warriors who fought and died in wars probably did not have children. A lot of them probably died virgins. Many young men have joined dangerous expeditions, war bands, pirate ships, armies and so forth with the hope of one day being able to afford a wife or children or even a regular whore. A man can demonstrate all of the tactical virtues and be regarded as an exceptional man among men, but remain a bachelor or without children. Two Odin-like adventurers, soldiers, researchers and writers — Lawrence of Arabia and Richard Francis Burton — both died without children, and they would be regarded as having been good at being men by almost anyone. I’m sure you’ve encountered fathers who appear to be extremely weak, passive, cowardly or effeminate. Masculinity can exist without fatherhood, and frequently does, and extremely effeminate men can become fathers, so fatherhood cannot define the phenomenon of masculinity as a way of being.
Still, fatherhood follows naturally from manhood, and without children, no band, gang or tribe can survive more than a generation unless it continually recruits from outside. Most men who survived long enough eventually fathered children by a wife, mistress, slave or concubine. Fatherhood is an aspect of masculinity and a role that most men eventually take on in some form. It’s not essential to masculinity, but it’s still important and relevant.
The god Freyr is associated with fertility, the harvest, wealth, peace and prosperity. And just as fatherhood is separate from but linked to masculinity, Freyr is separate from but linked to the other gods, who are known as the Aesir. Freyr is one of the Vanir, a distinct tribe of gods who fought with the Aesir until a truce was called and Freyr, his sister Freya, and their father Njörðr – a god of seafaring and wealth – went to live with the Aesir. Odin is, of course, “The Allfather,” and could be associated with fatherhood as well, but Odin as a concept is more concerned with big ideas than with home life and the everyday reality of fatherhood.
This essay was originally published online in 2014, but it is no longer available. A reader recently requested a link, and I thought I’d re-share it. If you like this essay, I developed this theme in my book Becoming a Barbarian, which I personally believe is best in audiobook form.
(I’m not sure exactly what the Shoshana bit is all about. If I remember correctly, it was about some feminist walking around New York City complaining that men thought she was attractive, and said so. I used to comment on things like that. Now I try not to pay attention to the “hot topic” of the week. Because I really don’t care.)
I. Don’t. Care.
These three magic words could end so many arguments.
Most appeals in the name of social justice rely on an underlying assumption of universal altruism. They assume that you care if something bad happens to anyone, anywhere, and advise you to take some sort of action to ease or prevent their suffering.
People react by questioning whether or not that stranger, somewhere, is really suffering, or if they are suffering any more than anyone else. They examine the circumstances of the alleged suffering and the motives of the people bringing the alleged suffering to light.
They argue about the details and the proportion of the suffering and point out their own allegedly comparable suffering or the suffering of some person or people who are allegedly suffering more.
Once you’re arguing, they’ve already got you.
Once you’re arguing, you’ve agreed that you could care, or would care — that you should theoretically care — given satisfactory evidence and argumentation.
But what would they say if you stopped pretending to care at all?
There would be no point in arguing about the details.
Of course, as normal humans, we can always imagine ourselves in another humans position. We can empathize with others — that’s what makes movies and novels work. But we can’t really care about the suffering of every single man and woman on the planet. The idea that we should is insane and inhuman. So much of what people say they care about is just emotional pornography that can springboard them into an acrobatic display of moral and political posturing.
I see all of this propaganda online telling me what is NOT OK, and how I am supposed to feel about strangers and other groups of people. If they get me to agree that I care about these strangers and their unhappiness, Im supposed to accept responsibility for that unhappiness and do whatever I can to alleviate it.
This is all manipulation — a political plucking of one bit of human suffering out of an unimaginable expanse of human suffering, all to serve this agenda or that one.
Some kid in Africa probably got his head sawed off with a butter knife while some chick named Shoshana experienced the nightmare of catcalling in New York City. No one cared, because they werent told to care. Given their perceivable social class and sex, the guys who were expressing their admiration for Shoshana have probably experienced far more brutality than being propositioned for sex. And no one cared when it happened. Shoshana is just the squeaky wheel who wants to be lubricated with your tears.
If we really cared about everyone, we would never even register feelings or microaggressions or First World problems because our brains would be blown out from watching Third World ultraviolence. We’d be watching and liking and sharing nonstop videos of prison rapes and basement executions and reading stories about sex slavery and child prostitution. We’d be OUTRAGED at the injustice of it all, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Those things are happening right now and they have more or less been happening at varying levels for all of human history.
(If violence is actually decreasing worldwide, as Steven Pinker suggests, then it is probably in part because due to high incarceration rates and widespread fear of sanctioned violence threatened by increasingly omnipotent surveillance and police states in the First World. And omnipotent surveillance states are NOT OK.)
The reason that people care about the same thing at the same time — whatever todays outrage or viral video is — is that we have all have to pick and choose. We decide, if not consciously then by our choices, that one persons suffering is more important than another. Who we — or maybe you, because I’m not talking about me here — decide to care about is almost completely arbitrary. Whatever human tragedy passes our eyes or ears.
I don’t care what happens to everyone, everywhere.
I don’t care what happens to strangers.
It’s an admission that sounds barbaric and unspeakably taboo.
It’s taboo because people have been conned into believing that they are supposed to do something they can NEVER do — care equally about everyone, all around the world.
I care about what happens to my friends and my family and my tribe. I care, and even at this point I am using care very loosely, about the kind of people I generally like, respect or support. People who are like me, or who are like the people I like.
When someone registers an opinion or tells me I am supposed to care about something, if I am even thinking about caring, I look them up. I ask myself if I would be interested in what this person had to say if they were sitting in the same room with me.
Sometimes, I would. Usually, I would not. I probably wouldn’t even have a drink with them, or give them a single moment of my time.
If they’re telling me that something bad happened to them, I have to admit that in most cases I probably don’t care. Why should I care about the suffering of this stranger instead of that one?
If they’re telling me that I should change, I ask, “why?,” and if the only answer is to theoretically prevent the alleged and future suffering of some other group of people I dont know or care about…then…my answer is: “why bother?”
I’ll change to some extent to gain honor in the eyes of men I respect, personally or in the abstract, but why would I change to prevent the unhappiness of some stranger?
This idea that we are all each other’s shepherds, that we are all responsible for the happiness of all humankind, is paralyzing nonsense. At best, it keeps men busy arguing about things over which they have almost no control. At worst it makes men vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation by people who have already decided that they are disposable rubes — like naive retirees giving away their savings to charity grifters or high-living evangelists. Men end up giving away everything worth having to people who are ideologically incapable of even acknowledging their sacrifice.
I’m not encouraging people to stop caring about anyone, I’m encouraging them to stop trying to care about everyone. If you say you love everyone, you don’t really love anyone. Love is a choice, a discriminatory act.
If you don’t pick your team — if you aren’t willing to draw a line between who you care about and who you don’t, between “us” and “them” — then you’ll be like all of these other suckers who care about whoever and whatever they click on every morning.
Care passionately, but discriminately.
And if you don’t really care, then say it.
“I don’t care.”
It’s simple, but powerful.
It’s liberating, but also dangerous and heretical.
The idea that we are all in this together and are working in good faith to solve the world’s problems is an illusion that traps us in a crisscrossed, impenetrable web of synthetic yarn. If you pull that fuzzy pink string — that completely unwarranted assumption of universal good will — civil society collapses into a Hobbesian war of all against all where no one trusts anyone.
When, free from our attachments to everyone, everywhere, we find ourselves adrift in a staggering, confused mass of drooling and covetous humanity, we can make sense of it all and find our bearings only when we form discriminatory alliances and new tribes built on trust, common interests and mutual admiration — instead of being bound by the great lie of love for all neighbors.
A lot of people like to think they are “non-violent.” Generally, people claim to “abhor” the use of violence, and violence is viewed negatively by most folks. Many fail to differentiate between just and unjust violence. Some especially vain, self-righteous types like to think they have risen above the nasty, violent cultures of their ancestors. They say that “violence isn’t the answer.” They say that “violence doesn’t solve anything.”
They’re wrong. Every one of them relies on violence, every single day.
On election day, people from all walks of life line up to cast their ballots, and by doing so, they hope to influence who gets to wield the axe of authority. Those who want to end violence — as if that were possible or even desirable — often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss.
All governments — left, right or other — are by their very nature coercive. They have to be.
Order demands violence.
A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.
When an environmentalist demands that we “save the whales,” he or she is in effect making the argument that saving the whales is so important that it is worth doing harm to humans who harm whales. The peaceful environmentalist is petitioning the leviathan to authorize the use of violence in the interest of protecting leviathans. If state leaders were to agree and express that it was, indeed, important to “save the whales,” but then decline to penalize those who bring harm to whales, or decline to enforce those penalties under threat of violent police or military action, the expressed sentiment would be a meaningless gesture. Those who wanted to bring harm to whales would feel free to do so, as it is said, with impunity — without punishment.
Without action, words are just words. Without violence, laws are just words.
Violence isn’t the only answer, but it is the final answer.
One can make moral arguments and ethical arguments and appeals to reason, emotion, aesthetics, and compassion. People are certainly moved by these arguments, and when sufficiently persuaded –providing of course that they are not excessively inconvenienced — people often choose to moderate or change their behaviors.
However, the willful submission of many inevitably creates a vulnerability waiting to be exploited by any one person who shrugs off social and ethical norms. If every man lays down his arms and refuses to pick them up, the first man to pick them up can do whatever he wants. Peace can only be maintained without violence so long as everyone sticks to the bargain, and to maintain peace every single person in every successive generation — even after war is long forgotten — must continue to agree to remain peaceful. Forever and ever. No delinquent or upstart may ever ask, “Or Else What?,” because in a truly non-violent society, the best available answer is “Or else we won’t think you’re a very nice person and we’re not going to share with you.” Our troublemaker is free to reply, “I don’t care. I’ll take what I want.”
Violence is the final answer to the question, “Or else what?”
Violence is the gold standard, the reserve that guarantees order. In actuality, it is better than a gold standard, because violence has universal value. Violence transcends the quirks of philosophy, religion, technology and culture. People say that music is a universal language, but a punch in the face hurts the same no matter what language you speak or what kind of music you prefer. If you are trapped in a room with me and I grab a pipe and gesture to strike you with it, no matter who you are, your monkey brain will immediately understand “or else what.” And thereby, a certain order is achieved.
The practical understanding of violence is as basic to human life and human order as is the idea that fire is hot. You can use it, but you must respect it. You can act against it, and you can sometimes control it, but you can’t just wish it away. Like wildfire, sometimes it is overwhelming and you won’t know it is coming until it is too late. Sometimes it is bigger than you. Ask the Cherokee, the Inca, the Romanovs, the Jews, the Confederates, the barbarians and the Romans. They all know “Or else what.”
The basic acknowledgement that order demands violence is not a revelation, but to some it may seem like one. The very notion may make some people apoplectic, and some will furiously attempt to dispute it with all sorts of convoluted and hypothetical arguments, because it doesn’t sound very “nice.” But something doesn’t need to be “nice” in order for it to be true. Reality doesn’t bend over to accommodate fantasy or sentimentality.
Our complex society relies on proxy violence to the extent that many average people in the private sector can wander through life without really having to understand or think deeply about violence, because we are removed from it. We can afford to perceive it as a distant, abstract problem to be solved through high-minded strategy and social programming. When violence comes knocking, we simply make a call, and the police come to “stop” the violence. Few civilians really take the time to think that what we are essentially doing is paying an armed band protection money to come and do orderly violence on our behalf. When those who would do violence to us are taken peacefully, most of us don’t really make the connection, we don’t even assert to ourselves that the reason a perpetrator allows himself to be arrested is because of the gun the officer’s hip or the implicit understanding that he will eventually be hunted down by more officers who have the authority to kill him if his is deemed a threat. That is, if he is deemed a threat to order.
There are something like two and a half million people incarcerated in the United States. Over ninety percent of them are men. Most of them did not turn themselves in. Most of them don’t try to escape at night because there is someone in a guard tower ready to shoot them. Many are “non-violent” offenders. Soccer moms, accountants, celebrity activists and free range vegans all send in their tax dollars, and by proxy spend billions and billions to feed an armed government that maintains order through violence.
It is when our ordered violence gives way to disordered violence, as in the aftermath of a natural disaster, that we are forced to see how much we rely on those who maintain order through violence. People loot because they can, and kill because they think they’ll get away with it. Dealing with violence and finding violent men who will protect you from other violent men suddenly becomes a real and pressing concern.
A pal once told me a story about an incident recounted by a family friend who was a cop, and I think it gets the point across. A few teenagers were at the mall hanging out, outside a bookstore. They were goofing around and talking with some cops who were hanging around. The cop was a relatively big guy, not someone who you would want to mess around with. One of the kids told the cop that he didn’t see why society needed police.
The cop leaned over and said to the spindly kid, “do you have any doubt in your mind about whether or not I could break your arms and take that book away from you if I felt like it?”
The teenager, obviously shaken by the brutality of the statement, said, “No.”
“That’s why you need cops, kid.”
George Orwell wrote in his “Notes on Nationalism” that, for the pacifist, the truth that, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf,” is obvious but impossible to accept. Much unreason flows from the inability to accept our passive reliance on violence for protection. Escapist fantasies of the John Lennon “Imagine” variety corrupt our ability to see the world as it is, and be honest with ourselves about the naturalness of violence to the human animal. There is no evidence to support the idea that man is an inherently peaceful creature. There is substantial evidence to support the notion that violence has always been a part of human life. Every day, archeologists unearth another primitive skull with damage from weapons or blunt force trauma. The very first legal codes were shockingly grisly. If we feel less threatened today, if we feel as though we live in a non–violent society, it is only because we have ceded so much power over our daily lives to the state. Some call this reason, but we might just as well call it laziness. A dangerous laziness, it would seem, given how little most people say they trust politicians.
Violence doesn’t come from movies or video games or music. Violence comes from people. It’s about time people woke up from their 1960s haze and started being honest about violence again. People are violent, and that’s OK. You can’t legislate it away or talk your way around it. Based on the available evidence, there’s no reason to believe that world peace will ever be achieved, or that violence can ever be “stopped.”
It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.
Originally published on Arthur’s Hall of Viking Manliness (now offline), Nov 11, 2010.
Muitas pessoas gostam de pensar que são “não-violentas.” Geralmente dizem “abominar” o uso da violência, e ela é vista de forma negativa pela maior parte delas. Muitos falham em diferenciar entre a violência justa e injusta. Alguns tipos vãos e hipócritas gostam de pensar que foram criados acima da cultura sórdida e violenta de seus ancestrais. Eles dizem que “a violência não é a resposta”. Dizem que “a violência não resolve nada”.
Eles estão errados. Cada um deles confia na violência diariamente.
No dia da eleição, pessoas de todas as esferas da vida formam fila para irem às urnas e, ao fazerem isso, esperam influenciar em quem empunhará o machado da autoridade. Aqueles que querem acabar com a violência – como se isso fosse possível ou desejável – freqüentemente procuram desarmar seus concidadãos. Na realidade, isso não acaba com a violência. Meramente dá à máfia do Estado um monopólio sobre ela. Isto torna você mais “seguro”, desde que não irrite o chefe.
Todos os governos – de esquerda, direita ou outro – são, por sua própria natureza, coercivos. Eles têm de ser.
A ordem demanda a violência.
Uma regra que no fim não é apoiada pela violência é meramente uma sugestão. Os Estados contam com leis endossadas por homens prontos a promoverem violência contra os infratores. Todo imposto, código e requisição de licenciamento exige uma progressão crescente de penalidades que, no fim, devem resultar na tomada de propriedade a força, ou no aprisionamento por homens armados, preparados para utilizarem a violência em caso de violência ou desacato. Toda vez que uma mãe de futebol [1] ergue-se e exige penas mais duras para aqueles que dirigem alcoolizados, vendem cigarros a menores, são donos de pit bulls, ou não fazem reciclagem, ela está peticionando ao Estado que ele utilize da força para impor sua vontade. Ela não está mais pedindo gentilmente. A viabilidade de toda lei de família, armas, zoneamento, tráfego, imigração, importação, exportação e regulamentação financeira depende tanto da disposição, quanto dos meios do grupo para exigi-los através da força.
Quando um ambientalista exige que “salvemos às baleias”, ele ou ela está, na realidade, argumentando que salvar às baleias é tão importante que vale a pena fazer mal aos seres humanos que fazem mal às baleias. O ambientalista pacífico está peticionando ao leviatã que autorize o uso de violência no interesse de proteger leviatãs. Se os líderes de Estado concordassem e manifestassem que, de fato, era importante “salvar às baleias”, mas se recusassem a penalizar àqueles que trazem mal a elas, ou se recusassem a impor estas penalidades sob a ameaça de uma violenta força policial ou ação militar, o sentimento expressado seria um gesto sem sentido. Aqueles que queriam trazer mal às baleias sentir-se-iam livres para fazê-lo, como é dito, com impunidade – sem punição.
Sem a ação, palavras são apenas palavras. Sem a violência, leis são apenas palavras.
A violência não é a única resposta, mas é a resposta final.
Podem-se fazer argumentos morais e éticos, apelar à razão, emoção, estética e compaixão. As pessoas certamente são movidas por estes argumentos, e quando suficientemente persuadidas – contando, é claro, que estes não sejam excessivamente inconvenientes –, elas comumente preferem moderar ou mudar seus comportamentos.
Contudo, a submissão voluntária de muitos inevitavelmente cria uma vulnerabilidade que fica à espera de ser explorada por qualquer pessoa que desconsidere as normas sociais a éticas. Se todo homem baixar suas armas e recusar-se a pegá-las de volta, o primeiro homem que pegá-las pode-rá fazer o que quiser. A paz somente pode ser mantida sem violência contanto que todos mantenham o poder de barganha e, para manter a paz, cada pessoa, em cada geração sucessiva – mesmo depois que a guerra tenha sido esquecida há muito –, deve continuar a concordar em permanecer pacífica. Para sempre e eternamente. Nenhum delinqüente ou presunçoso poderá jamais perguntar “Ou então o que?”, porque em uma sociedade verdadeiramente não-violenta, a melhor resposta disponível é “Ou então acharemos que você não é uma pessoa muito legal e não teremos nada a dividir com você”. Nosso encrenqueiro estará livre para responder, “Não me importo. Vou tomar aquilo que quiser”.
A violência é a resposta final à questão “Ou então o que?”
A violência é o padrão ouro, a reserva que garante a ordem. Na realidade, ela é melhor que um padrão ouro, pois a violência possui um valor universal. Ela transcende as peculiaridades de filosofia, religião, tecnologia e cultura. As pessoas dizem que a música é uma linguagem universal, mas um soco na cara dói da mesma forma não importa qual língua você fale, ou que tipo de música prefira. Se você está trancado em um quarto comigo e eu agarro um pedaço de cano e gesticulo para atacá-lo com ele, não importa quem você seja, seu cérebro de macaco vai imediatamente entender “ou então o que”. E, desta forma, certa ordem é alcançada.
O entendimento prático da violência é tão básico para a vida e a ordem humana como a idéia de que o fogo é quente. Você pode usá-lo, mas deve respeitá-lo. Pode-se agir contra ele, e algumas vezes controlá-lo, mas não desejar que ele desaparecesse. Como um incêndio, algumas vezes é sobrepujante e você não sabe que está vindo até que seja tarde demais. Às vezes é maior que você. Pergunte ao Cherokee, ao Inca, aos Romanov, aos Judeus, aos Confederados, aos bárbaros e aos Romanos. Todos eles sabem “Ou então o que”.
O conhecimento básico de que a ordem demanda a violência não é uma revelação, mas para alguns parece ser como tal. A própria noção disso pode tornar algumas pessoas apopléticas e alguns tentarão furiosamente disputá-lo com todos os tipos de argumentos enrolados e hipotéticos, pois não soa muito “legal”. Mas algo não precisa ser “legal” para que seja verdadeiro. A realidade não precisa se curvar para que acomode à fantasia ou a sentimentalidade.
Nossa complexa sociedade se baseia na procuração de violência ao grau de que muitas pessoas comuns no setor privado podem vagar pela vida sem realmente ter entendido ou pensado profundamente sobre a violência, pois estamos removidas dela. Podemos nos dar ao luxo de percebê-la como um problema distante, abstrato, que está para ser resolvido através de uma estratégia magnânima e programação social. Quando a violência bate na porta, simplesmente fazemos uma ligação e a polícia vem “parar” a violência. Poucos civis realmente tomam tempo para pensar que aquilo que realmente estamos fazendo é pagar um bando armado com dinheiro de proteção, para que eles venham e façam ordenadamente a violência a nosso favor. Quando aqueles que fariam a violência contra nós são levados pacificamente, a maioria de nós realmente não faz a conexão, nem mesmo afirmamos a nós mesmos que a razão pela qual o perpetrador permite ser preso é por conta da arma no quadril do policial ou o entendimento implícito de que ele será eventualmente caçado por mais e mais oficiais, os quais possuem a autoridade para matá-lo caso ele seja considerado uma ameaça. Isto é, se ele for considerado uma ameaça à ordem.
Existe em torno de dois milhões e meio de pessoas encarceradas nos Estados Unidos. Mais de noventa por cento delas são homens. A maior parte deles não se entregou. A maioria não tenta escapar durante a noite pelo fato de que existe alguém em uma torre de guarda pronto para atirar neles. Muitos são infratores “não-violentos”. Mães de futebol, contadores, celebridades ativistas e vegetarianos free-range, todos mandam seus dólares de imposto e, por procuração, gastam bilhões e bilhões para alimentar um governo armado que mantêm a ordem através da violência.
É quando a nossa violência ordenada dá lugar à violência desordenada, como acontece em conseqüência de um desastre natural, que somos forçados a ver o quanto confiamos naqueles que mantém a ordem através da violência. As pessoas pilham porque podem e matam por pensarem que poderão escapar impunes. Lidar com a violência e encontrar homens violentos que irão protegê-lo de outros homens violentos subitamente se torna uma preocupação real e urgente.
Certa vez um amigo relatou-me a história de um incidente contado por um amigo de sua família, que era um policial, e acho que ela prova este ponto. Alguns adolescentes estavam passeando no shopping, do lado de fora de uma livraria. Eles estavam jogando conversa fora e falando com alguns policiais que estavam rondando. O policial era um cara relativamente grande, não era alguém com quem você iria querer se meter. Uma das crianças falou ao policial que ele não via motivo pelo qual a sociedade precisava da polícia.
O policial inclinou-se e disse ao pequeno menino, “você tem qualquer dúvida em sua mente se eu poderia ou não quebrar seus braços e levar de você este livro, se eu o quisesse?”
O adolescente, obviamente abalado pela brutalidade da declaração disse, “não”.
“É por isso que você precisa de policiais, menino”.
George Orwell escreveu em seu “Notas sobre o Nacionalismo” que, para o pacifista, a verdade de que “Aqueles que ‘renunciam’ a violência podem fazê-lo somente porque outros estão comprometidos com ela em seu nome” é óbvia, mas impossível de aceitar. Muito da irracionalidade provêm da inabilidade em aceitar nossa dependência passiva da violência para a proteção. Fantasias escapistas do tipo de “Imagine”, de John Lennon, corrompem nossa habilidade de ver o mundo como ele realmente o é, e de sermos honestos com nós mesmos sobre a naturalidade da violência para o animal humano. Não há evidência que apóie a idéia de que o homem é uma criatura inerentemente pacífica. Há substancial evidência que apóia a noção de que a violência sempre foi uma parte da vida humana. Todos os dias, arqueólogos desenterram um novo crânio primitivo com danos feitos por armas ou traumas por pancadas. Os primeiros códigos de leis eram chocantemente horrendos. Se nos sentimos menos ameaçados hoje, se sentimos como se vivêssemos em uma sociedade não-violenta, é somente pelo fato de termos cedido tanto poder sobre nossas vidas cotidianas ao Estado. Alguns chamam isso de razão, mas nós poderíamos muito bem chamá-lo de indolência. Uma indolência perigosa ao que parece, dado o quão pouco a maior parte das pessoas diz confiar nos políticos.
A violência não provém dos filmes, videogames ou da música. Ela vem das pessoas. Já é hora delas acordarem da névoa de seus anos ‘60 e começarem a ser honestas novamente sobre a violência. As pessoas são violentas, e isso é OK. Você não pode legislar para acabar com isso ou desconversar. Baseado na evidência disponível, não há razão alguma para acreditar que a paz mundial será algum dia atingida, ou que a violência possa ser “impedida”.
Já é hora de largar as preocupações e aprender a amar o machado de batalha. A história ensina que, se não o fizermos, alguém o fará.
[1] N.T. “Soccer Mom”. Expressão norte-americana referente às mães hiper-participativas.
SPANISH
La Violencia es Dorada
Translated by Leo Molina López
A mucha gente le gusta pensar que “no son violentas”. Generalmente, dicen “aborrecer” el uso de la violencia. La violencia es vista negativamente por la mayoría. Muchos fallan en diferenciar entre la violencia justa y la violencia injusta. Algunas personas, esas de ese tipo hipócrita y vano en especial que se las da de su supuesta superioridad moral, gustan de pensar que se han elevado por encima de la sórdida y violenta cultura de sus ancestros. Dicen que “La violencia no es la respuesta”. Dicen que “la violencia no resuelve nada.”
Están completamente equivocados. Todos y cada uno de ellos depende de la violencia. Todos y cada uno de los días de su vida dependen de ella.
En la jornada electoral, personas de todas las esferas de la sociedad hacen fila para tachar sus tarjetones, y al hacerlo, esperan influenciar quién será aquel que porte el hacha de la autoridad. Los que quieren acabar con la violencia –como si eso fuera posible o incluso deseable— a menudo buscan desarmar a sus conciudadanos. Esto en realidad no le pone fin a la violencia. Apenas le da a la mafia estatal el monopolio de la violencia. Esto te hace sentir “más seguro”, siempre y cuando no le saques la piedra al que manda.
Todos los gobiernos –de izquierda, de derecha u otros— son por naturaleza coercitivos. Tienen que serlo.
El orden demanda violencia.
Una regla que no es apoyada por la amenaza de violencia no es más que una sugerencia. Los Estados cuentan con leyes que son ejecutadas por hombres listos a llevar la violencia a quienes rompen las leyes. Todo impuesto, todo código y todo requerimiento de licencia necesita de una progresión creciente de penalidades que, al final, deben resultar en la expropiación o en el aprisionamiento llevadas a cabo por la fuerza, por hombres armados y preparados a usar la violencia en caso de resistencia o no cooperación. Cada vez que una soccer mom se para y pega el grito en el cielo pidiendo mayores penas a conducir en estado de embriaguez o a la venta de cigarrillos a menores o tener un pitbull o reciclar; ella está pidiendo al Estado que use la fuerza para imponer la voluntad de ella. Ella ya no está pidiendo por las buenas. La viabilidad de todas las normas del Derecho de Familia, las prohibiciones al porte de armas, la ley de tránsito, la ley de inmigraciones, la ley de importaciones y exportaciones, y las regulaciones financieras dependen tanto de la disposición como de los medios del grupo llamado a ejecutar esa orden, por la fuerza.
Cuando un ambientalista protesta para que “salven a las ballenas”, él o ella está en efecto haciendo el argumento de que salvar a las ballenas es tan importante que vale la pena hacerle daño a los humanos que le hacen daño a las ballenas. El pacífico ambientalista está peticionándole al leviatán que autorice el uso de la violencia con el interés de proteger leviatanes. Si los líderes del estado estuviesen de acuerdo y expresaran, de hecho, que es muy importante “salvar a las ballenas”, para luego rehusarse a penalizar a aquellos que dañan a las ballenas y declinara el imponer por la fuerza estas penalidades bajo la amenaza de una policía violenta o de acción militar; el sentimiento expresado por este político sería insignificante. Aquellos que querrían hacerle todo el daño que quisieran a las ballenas estarían en la libertad de hacerlo, como se dice, con impunidad –sin castigo.
Sin acción, las palabras se quedan en palabras. Sin violencia, las leyes son solo palabras.
La Violencia no es la única respuesta, pero es la última respuesta.
Uno puede hacer todos los argumentos morales, éticos y apelaciones a la razón, a la emoción, a la estética y a la compasión. Las personas ciertamente son movidas por estos argumentos y cuando están lo suficientemente convencidas –teniendo en cuenta, por supuesto, que no sean excesivamente inconvenientes—la gente a menudo escoge moderar o cambiar sus comportamientos.
Sin embargo, la sumisión voluntaria de muchos inevitablemente da lugar a una vulnerabilidad que espera ser explotada por cualquiera a quien le dé igual las normas sociales y éticas. Si todo hombre entrega las armas y se niega a volver a tomarlas, el primer hombre en levantarlas puede hacer lo que sea que quiera. La paz solo puede ser mantenida sin violencia hasta tanto todo el mando en cada generación sucesiva –incluso cuando la guerra haya sido ya olvidada—debe seguir aceptando permanecer pacífica. Por siempre y para siempre. Ningún delincuente preguntará jamás, “¿Y si no qué me harás?”, porque en una sociedad verdaderamente no violenta, la mejor respuesta que se tiene a la mano es “Y si no es así, pensaremos que no eres una muy buena persona y no querremos compartir más contigo”. Nuestro revoltoso es libre de responder, “No me importa. Tomaré lo que quiera.”
La Violencia es la última respuesta a la pregunta, “¿Y si no qué me harás?”
La Violencia es el estándar dorado, la reserva que garantiza el orden. En realidad, es mejor que un estándar de oro, porque la violencia tiene valor universal. La violencia trasciende los caprichos de la filosofía, de la religión, de la tecnología y de la cultura. La gente dice que la música es el idioma universal, pero un puñetazo en la cara duele igual, sin importar el idioma que hables o la música que escuches. Si estás atrapado en un cuarto conmigo y yo agarro un tubo y hago como si fuera golpearte con él, sin importar quién seas, tu cerebro de mono inmediatamente entenderá “¿y si no qué?”. Así es como cierto orden es alcanzado.
El entendimiento práctico de la violencia es tan básico para la vida y el orden humanos como la idea de que el fuego quema. Puedes usarla, pero debes respetarla. Puedes irte en su contra y a veces puedes controlarla, pero jamás puedes, por más que quieras, lograr que desaparezca como si nada. Como los incendios, algunas veces es abrumadora y no sabes que viene sino hasta cuando es demasiado tarde. A veces es más grande que tú. Pregúntale al Indígena, al Cherokee, al Inca, a los Romanov, a los Judíos, a los Confederados, a los Bárbaros y a los Romanos. Todos ellos bien conocen el “¿Y si no qué?”.
El conocimiento básico de que el orden requiere de la violencia no es una revelación, aunque para algunos si parezca. La sola noción puede poner a unos apopléjicos, otros intentarán disputarla furiosamente con todo tipo de argumentos enredados y rebuscados, simplemente porque no suena “bonito”. Algo no necesita ser “bonito” para que sea verdad. La verdad no se acomoda a las fantasías ni a los sentimentalismos.
Nuestra compleja sociedad depende de la violencia (proxy violence) hasta el punto en que la persona promedio del sector privado pueda pasarse la vida sin siquiera tener que entender ni pensar profundamente acerca de la violencia. Estamos removidos de ella. Podemos darnos el lujo de percibirla como un problema abstracto y distante que es resuelto a través de una magnánima estrategia y por la programación social. Cuando la violencia viene a tocarnos la puerta, simplemente hacemos una llamada y la policía viene a “detener” la violencia. Pocos civiles rara vez se toman el tiempo para pensar que, esencialmente, lo que estamos haciendo es pagarle a una mafia armada una tarifa de protección para que venga y ejerza ordenadamente la violencia en nuestro nombre y favor. Cuando aquellos que ejercen la violencia hacia nosotros son llevados pacíficamente, la mayoría de nosotros no hacemos realmente la conexión, ni siquiera nos reafirmamos a nosotros mismos que la razón por la cual un perpetrador se deja arrestar es por el arma en el cinto del oficial o el entendimiento implícito de que eventualmente será casado por más oficiales quienes tienen la autoridad de matarlo si es estimado como una amenaza. Esto es, si es considerado una amenaza al orden.
Hay aproximadamente dos y medio millones de personas encarceladas en los Estados unidos. Más del noventa por ciento de ellas son hombres. La mayoría de ellos no se entregaron. La mayoría de ellos no intentan escapar de noche porque hay alguien en la cima del panóptico, de la torre de vigilancia, listo a disparar al menor movimiento. Muchos son criminales “no violentos”. Soccer moms, contadores, celebridades, activistas y veganos, todos juntos pagan juiciosamente el dinero de sus impuestos e indirectamente (by proxy) gastan billones de billones para alimentar un gobierno armado que mantiene el orden por medio de la violencia.
Es cuando nuestra violencia ordenada y legitimada da paso a una violencia desordenada y deslegitimada, como en el desorden sobreviniente a un desastre natural, que estamos forzados a presenciar cuánto dependemos de aquellos quienes mantienen el orden a través de la violencia. Las muchedumbres saquean porque pueden y matan porque piensan que se pueden salir con la suya. Lidiar con violencia y encontrar hombres violentos que te protejan de aquellos otros hombres violentos, de repente se vuelve una preocupación real y urgente.
Un amigo una vez me contó una historia sobre un incidente vivido por la familia de un amigo que era policía. Esta historia expresa muy bien el punto. Unos adolescentes estaban todos pasando el rato en el centro comercial, justo afuera de una librería. Estaban molestando y estaban hablándole a unos policías que estaban rondando por ahí. El policía era un tipo relativamente grande, no alguien con quien te meterías en particular. Uno de los chicos le dijo al policía que él no sabía por qué la sociedad necesita a la policía.
El agente se le acercó e inclinándosele al larguirucho chico, “¿tienes cualquier duda en tu mente de si yo podría o no romperte los brazos y tomar el libro que tienes en las manos si se me diera la gana?”
El adolescente, obviamente sacudido por la brutalidad de lo que acababa de oír, respondió, “No”.
“Es por esto que necesitas policías, amigo”.
George Orwell escribió en sus “Notas sobre el Nacionalismo” (Notes on Nationalism) que, para el pacifista, la verdadque reza, “Aquellos que ‘abjuran’ de la violencia pueden hacerlo porque otros están cometiendo violencia en su nombre”, puede ser obvia pero les es imposible de aceptar. Mucha sinrazón se sigue de la inhabilidad de aceptar nuestra dependencia pasiva de la violencia para garantizar nuestra protección. Las fantasías escapistas como las evocadas por el “Imagine” de John Lennon corrompen nuestra habilidad de ver el mundo tal y como en realidad es y no nos dejan ser honestos con nosotros mismos sobre la naturalidad de la violencia para el animal humano. No hay evidencia que apoye la idea de que el hombre sea una criatura inherentemente pacifista. Hay evidencia sustancial que apoya la noción de que la violencia ha sido siempre parte de la existencia humana. Todos los días, arqueólogos descubren otra calavera primitiva con evidencias de daños de armas o de traumas fruto de la fuerza bruta. Los primeros códigos legales eran chocantemente horrendos. Si nos sentimos menos amenazados hoy, si nos sentimos como si viviéramos en una sociedad no violenta, es solo en razón a que hemos cedido tanto poder sobre nuestras vidas al estado. Algunos denominan esto “razón”, pero podríamos llamarlo también “pereza”. Una pereza peligrosa, parecería, dado cuán poco las personas de hoy dicen confiar en los políticos.
La violencia no viene de las películas, ni de la música, ni de los videojuegos. La violencia viene de la gente. Es hora de que las personas despierten de su obnubilación sesentera y empiecen a ser honestos en cuanto a la violencia de nuevo. Las personas somos violentas, y eso está bien. Puedes derogarla o hablar tratando de racionalizarla. Basados en la evidencia disponible, no hay razón para creer que la paz mundial será alguna vez alcanzada o que la violencia podrá alguna vez ser acabada.
Es hora para dejar de preocuparnos y empezar a amar el hacha de batalla. La historia nos enseña que si no lo hacemos nosotros, alguien más lo hará.
Beaucoup de personnes se réclament de la « non-violence ». Généralement, les gens revendiquent leur « refus » de l’usage de la violence, et la violence est perçue négativement par une majorité. La plupart refusent de faire une différence entre une violence juste et injuste. Certains, particulièrement pédants, s’enorgueillissent d’avoir dépassé la « culture de la violence » de leurs ancêtres. Ils disent que « la violence n’est jamais la réponse », qu’elle « ne résout jamais rien. »
Ils ont tort. Ils sont tous dépendants de la violence, dans leur vie de tous les jours.
Lors des élections, des gens de tous horizons font la queue pour déposer leurs bulletins, et ainsi ils espèrent influencer qui maniera la hache de l’autorité. Ceux qui souhaitent mettre fin à la violence – comme si c’était possible ou même souhaitable – cherchent souvent à désarmer les citoyens. Cela ne met absolument pas fin à la violence. En fait cela donne aux gros bras de l’État un monopole de la violence. Cela vous donne la « sécurité », dès lors que vous n’ennuyez pas le patron.
Tous les gouvernements – de gauche, de droite ou autre – sont par nature coercitifs. Ils se doivent de l’être.
L’ordre a besoin de violence
Une règle qui n’est pas appuyée, au final, par la menace n’est rien de plus qu’une suggestion. Les États reposent sur des lois appliquées par des hommes prêts à user de violence contre les hors-la-loi. Chaque taxe, code et obligation requiert une échelle progressive de punitions qui, au final, doivent se traduire par la saisie des biens ou l’emprisonnement en cas de résistance ou de refus d’obtempérer.
Chaque fois que Monsieur Dupont demande que la conduite en état d’ivresse, vendre des cigarettes aux mineurs, posséder un pit-bull ou ne pas appliquer le tri sélectif soit puni plus sévèrement, il demande en fait à l’État d’utiliser la violence pour imposer son point de vue. Il ne demande plus gentiment. L’existence de n’importe quelle loi : sur la famille, le port d’armes, l’urbanisme, la circulation, l’immigration, l’import-export ou la finance dépend à la fois de la volonté et des moyens que se donne le groupe pour faire respecter l’ordre par la force.
Quand un écologiste demande que nous « sauvions les baleines », il ou elle est en fait en train de dire que sauver les baleines est si important que cela justifie de faire du mal aux humains qui font du mal aux baleines. L’écologiste pacifique demande en fait au Léviathan d’autoriser le recours à la violence afin de protéger des Léviathans.
Si les dirigeants approuvent qu’il est en effet important de « sauver les baleines », mais refusent ensuite de punir les baleiniers, ou n’assortissent pas ces punitions de mesures coercitives par des actions policières ou militaires, « sauvez les baleines » ne restera qu’un vœu pieux. Les chasseurs de baleines pourront continuer en toute impunité, puisqu’ils ne risqueront rien.
Sans action, les mots restent des mots. Sans violence, une loi n’est qu’un vœu pieux.
La violence n’est pas la seule solution, mais c’est la dernière.
On peut convaincre grâce à la morale ou l’éthique, en appeler à la raison, l’émotion ou la compassion. Les gens peuvent être touchés par ces biais, et peuvent être persuadés – à condition que ce ne soit pas trop contraignant — de modérer ou modifier leur comportement.
Toutefois, la soumission volontaire d’un grand nombre d’individus finit toujours par créer une vulnérabilité exploitée par ceux qui n’ont que faire des normes sociales ou morales. Si chacun jette son arme à terre et refuse de la ramasser, le premier à la récupérer peut faire ce qu’il veut.
La paix sociale ne peut être maintenue que si chacun veut bien la respecter, et ce à chaque génération si chaque individu – même après que la loi du plus fort ne soit plus qu’un lointain souvenir – accepte de ne pas utiliser la violence. Pour toujours et à jamais. Aucun criminel ou malfrat ne doit jamais demander « Ou sinon quoi ? » car, dans une société entièrement pacifiste, la seule réponse possible serait « Ou sinon nous penserons que tu n’es pas très gentil et nous n’allons pas partager avec toi. »
Qu’est ce qui empêchera notre fauteur de trouble de dire : « Je m’en fous. Je prendrais ce que je veux. » ?
La violence est la dernière réponse à « Sinon quoi ? »
La violence est l’étalon-or, la réserve qui garantit l’ordre. En fait, elle est même plus importante que l’étalon-or, parce que la violence a une dimension universelle. La violence transcende les frontières philosophiques, religieuses, technologiques ou culturelles. Certains disent que la musique est un langage universel, mais un coup de poing vous fera mal, quel que soit votre langue ou le genre de musique que vous écoutez.
Si vous êtes enfermé dans une pièce avec moi, que j’attrape un pied-de-biche et que je fais mine de vous frapper avec, peu importe d’où vous venez, votre cerveau reptilien va immédiatement comprendre « sinon quoi ? ». Et à partir de là, un certain ordre se crée.
La compréhension de la violence est aussi basique pour un être humain que l’est l’idée que le feu brûle. Vous pouvez l’utiliser, mais vous devez la respecter. Vous pouvez la combattre, et parfois la contrôler, mais vous ne pouvez pas la faire disparaître. Comme les feux de forêt, parfois elle est inévitable et vous ne la verrez arriver que quand il est trop tard. Demandez aux Cherokee, aux Incas, aux Romanovs, aux Juifs, aux Confédérés, aux Barbares et aux Romains.
Ils ont tous connu « Ou sinon quoi ? ».
L’idée simple que l’ordre nécessite la violence n’est pas une nouveauté, mais pour certains, ça semble l’être. Le concept pourrait même rendre folles certaines personnes, qui chercheront alors toutes sortes d’arguments tordus pour contredire ce fait, parce que cela ne serait pas très « gentil ». Mais quelque chose n’a pas à être « gentil » pour être vrai. La réalité ne plie pas devant le sentimentalisme ou les rêves éveillés.
Notre société compliquée s’appuie sur une violence par procuration afin qu’une large majorité des gens puissent vivre toute leur vie sans avoir à s’en soucier ou même y penser, parce qu’on les en a éloignés. Nous pouvons nous permettre de la concevoir comme un problème lointain, abstrait, qui peut être « résolu » grâce à des mesures et des réformes sociales. Si jamais elle vient frapper à la porte, nous passons un appel téléphonique et la police vient pour « arrêter » la violence. Bien peu se rendent compte que ce que nous faisons est en fait de payer des mercenaires pour qu’ils usent de la force à notre place.
Quand des criminels se rendent pacifiquement, la plupart d’entre nous ne réalisent même pas que, si c’est le cas, c’est à cause de l’arme que porte le policier ou du fait que s’ils n’obtempèrent pas ils seront pourchassés, voire abattus, s’ils sont considérés comme une menace. Une menace pour l’ordre public s’entend.
Il y a environ deux millions et demi de prisonniers aux États-Unis. Plus de 90 % d’entre eux sont des hommes. La plupart d’entre eux ne se sont pas rendus. La plupart d’entre eux n’essaient pas de s’échapper parce qu’il y a des gardes dans une tour prêts à leur tirer dessus s’ils essaient. La plupart sont des criminels « non-violents ».
Tous les Messieurs Dupont, comptables, artistes engagés et maraîchers végétariens payent des impôts, et par procuration donnent des milliards pour nourrir un gouvernement qui maintient l’ordre grâce à la violence.
C’est quand cette « violence légitime » laisse la place à la loi du plus fort, dans le chaos d’une catastrophe naturelle par exemple, que nous ouvrons les yeux sur notre dépendance envers ceux qui maintiennent l’ordre par la violence.
Les gens pillent parce qu’ils le peuvent, et tuent parce qu’ils pensent qu’il n’y aura pas de punition. Dans ce genre de situation, trouver des hommes violents pour vous protéger d’autres hommes violents devient une affaire de survie.
Un ami me racontait une histoire à propos d’une de ses connaissances, un policier, qui je pense résume cela clairement.
Quelques ados traînaient près d’un centre commercial, devant une librairie. Ils faisaient les andouilles et narguaient les policiers locaux. L’un des agents était un vrai costaud, pas le genre de personne à qui vous voudriez chercher des noises. L’un des garçons lui dit qu’il ne voit pas pourquoi la société a besoin de policiers.
L’agent se penche vers lui et dit à cet adolescent maigrelet : « Est ce que tu as le moindre doute sur le fait que je pourrais te casser le bras et te voler ton livre si j’en avais envie ? » Le gamin, visiblement secoué par la brutalité de la question, murmure : « Non. »
« C’est pour ça qu’on a besoin de policiers, petit gars. »
George Orwell écrivait dans Notes sur le nationalisme que, pour le pacifiste, la vérité que « ceux qui refusent la violence ne peuvent le faire que parce que d’autres acceptent de la commettre en leur nom » est évidente, mais impossible à accepter. Beaucoup d’irrationalité découle de l’incapacité d’accepter notre dépendance passive à la violence pour assurer notre protection.
Des contes de fées dignes de la chanson « Imagine » de John Lennon corrompent notre capacité à voir le monde tel qu’il est, et d’être honnête avec nous-mêmes sur le côté inhérent de la violence dans la nature humaine.
Il n’y a aucune preuve pour avancer que l’homme est un animal pacifique.
Il y en a par contre beaucoup qui permettent de penser que la violence a toujours fait partie de notre quotidien. Chaque année des archéologues découvrent de nouveaux crânes avec des séquelles laissées par des armes ou des coups de poing. Les premiers codes civils étaient incroyablement brutaux.
Si nous nous sentons moins menacés aujourd’hui, si nous avons l’impression de vivre dans une société non-violente, c’est uniquement parce que nous avons cédé tant de notre pouvoir sur nos vies de tous les jours à l’État. Certains appellent cela de la logique, mais cela pourrait tout aussi bien être de la paresse. Une paresse très dangereuse qui plus est, vue le nombre de personnes déclarant ne pas faire confiance aux hommes politiques.
La violence ne vient ni des films, ni des jeux vidéo ou de la musique. La violence vient des gens. Il est temps de sortir de notre rêve soixante-huitard et de recommencer à être honnête à propos de la violence. L’homme est violent, et c’est normal. Aucune législation ne permettra de la faire disparaître. Au vu des preuves que nous possédons il n’y a aucune raison de penser qu’il puisse un jour exister la « paix dans le monde », ou que la violence puisse être « stoppée ».
Il est temps d’arrêter de s’inquiéter et d’apprendre à aimer la hache de bataille.
L’histoire nous apprend que si nous ne le faisons pas, d’autres le feront.
GERMAN
Gewalt ist der Goldstandard
Translation by Michael Strauch
Viele Leute behaupten von sich gerne, dass sie nicht gewalttätig sind. Generell behaupten Menschen von sich, dass sie den Einsatz von Gewalt verabscheuen und Gewalt wird von den meisten Leuten als etwas Negatives gesehen. Viele schaffen es dabei nicht zwischen gerechter und ungerechter Gewalt zu unterscheiden. Viele von ihnen, insbesondere eitle selbstgerechte Typen denken gerne, dass sie über die brutalen, gewalttätigen Kulturen ihrer Vorfahren hinausgewachsen sind. Sie sagen „Gewalt ist keine Antwort“ und behaupten „Gewalt löse keine Probleme“.
Sie liegen falsch! Jeder Einzelne von ihnen verlässt sich auf Gewalt, und zwar jeden einzelnen Tag.
Am Wahltag versammeln sich Menschen aus allen Schichten der Gesellschaft um ihre Stimme abzugeben und dadurch hoffen sie einen Einfluss darauf zu nehmen, wer in Zukunft die Gewalt ausüben darf.
Diejenigen die der Gewalt ein Ende bereiten wollen, so als ob das tatsächlich möglich oder gar wünschenswert wäre, bemühen sich oft ihre Mitbürger zu entwaffnen. Dies führt jedoch nicht zu einem Ende der Gewalt, sondern gibt lediglich den Dienern des Staates ein Monopol darauf. Es macht dich „sicherer“ solange du nicht den Boss anpisst.
Alle Regierungen, Linke, Rechte oder andere, arbeiten von Natur aus mit Zwang. Das müssen Sie auch. Ordnung erfordert Gewalt Eine Regel, die nicht am Ende auch mit Gewalt durchgesetzt werden kann ist nur ein Vorschlag.
Staaten verlassen sich auf Gesetze welche von Männern durchgesetzt werden, die bereit sind Gewalt gegen Gesetzesbrecher anzuwenden.
Jede Steuer, jeder Strafzettel und jede benötigte Genehmigung, verlangt nach ansteigenden Sanktionierungsmaßnahmen welche zu guter Letzt mit der gewaltsamen Beschlagnahmung von Eigentum oder der Gefangennahme durch gewaltbereite, bewaffnete Männer, welche bereit sind diese Vorschriften, im Falle von Zuwiderhandlung oder Widerstand, mit Gewalt durchzusetzen, enden muss.
Jedes Mal wenn eine Hausfrau aufsteht und härtere Strafen für betrunkene Autofahrer, für den Verkauf von Zigaretten an Minderjährige oder für Fehler bei der Mülltrennung fordert stellt sie beim Staat einen Antrag darauf ihren Willen mit Gewalt durchzusetzen. Das ist keine höfliche Bitte mehr.
Die Brauchbarkeit jeden Familiengesetzes, Waffengesetzes, Verkehrsgesetzes, Gewerbevorschrift, Einwanderungsgesetzes, Ein- oder Ausfuhrgesetzes und jeder finanziellen Vereinbarung hängt sowohl vom Willen als auch der Fähigkeit der Gruppe ab die Einhaltung der Vorschriften mit Gewalt zu erzwingen. Wenn ein Umweltschützer verlangt dass wir „die Wale retten“, dann trifft er effektiv damit die Aussage dass das Retten der Wale so wichtig ist, dass es dazu berechtigt Menschen Gewalt anzutun die Walen Gewalt antun. Der friedliche Umweltschützer beantragt bei der Regierung den Einsatz von Gewalt zum Schutz der Wale zu genehmigen. Wenn die Staatschefs zustimmen würden und sich dahingehend äußerten dass es in der Tat wichtig sei die Wale zu retten es dann aber ablehnen das Verletzen von Walen unter Strafe zu stellen oder sich weigern diese Strafen unter der Androhung eines gewalttätigen Polizei oder Militäreinsatzes zu vollstrecken wären ihre Äußerungen nur eine bedeutungslose Geste. Jene die den Walen schaden wollten könnten dies weiterhin ohne Furcht vor Bestrafung tun.
Ohne Taten sind Worte nur Worte. Ohne Gewalt sind Gesetze nur Worte.
Gewalt ist nicht die einzige Antwort, aber es ist die endgültige Antwort.
Man kann moralische Argumente bringen und ethische Argumente und an den Verstand, an Gefühle, an die Ästhetik und an das Mitgefühl appellieren. Menschen lassen sich durchaus durch solche Argumente beeinflussen und wenn man es schafft sie zu genüge zu überzeugen – natürlich nur wenn sie sich dadurch nicht zu sehr in ihren eigenen Interessen eingeschränkt fühlen – werden sie sich oft entscheiden ihr Verhalten anzupassen oder zu ändern.
Allerdings führt die bewusste Unterwerfung der Massen zu einer unvermeidbaren Verwundbarkeit die nur darauf wartet von einer Person die sich nicht um soziale und ethische Normen schert ausgenutzt zu werden. Wenn jedermann seine Waffen niederlegt und sich weigert sie aufzuheben dann kann der erste Mann der sie aufhebt tun was er will. Frieden kann nur so lange ohne Gewalt aufrechterhalten werden, wie jeder sich an die Vereinbarung hält und um den Frieden zu erhalten muss jede einzelne Person, in jeder nachfolgenden Generation – selbst nachdem Krieg lange in Vergessenheit geraten ist – sich weiterhin friedlich verhalten. Bis in alle Ewigkeit. Kein Krimineller oder Halbstarker darf je die Frage stellen: „Was sonst?“ Denn in einer tatsächlich gewaltfreien Gesellschaft ist die bestmögliche Antwort darauf „sonst denken wir das du keine besonders nette Person bist und wir werden nichts mit dir teilen“. Unser Unruhestifter kann darauf einfach entgegnen „Mir egal, ich nehme mir was ich will.“
Gewalt ist die endgültige Antwort auf die Frage „Was sonst?“
Gewalt ist der Goldstandard, der Garant für das Einhalten der Ordnung. Faktisch ist sie besser als der Goldstandard denn Gewalt hat einen universellen Wert. Gewalt überstrahlt die Eigenheiten von Philosophie, Religion, Technologie und Kultur. Man sagt das Musik eine universelle Sprache sei aber einen Schlag ins Gesicht versteht jeder gleich gut, egal welche Sprache er spricht oder welche Musik er bevorzugt. Wenn du mit mir in einem Zimmer festsitzt und ich mir ein Rohr schnappe und damit eine Geste mache als ob ich dich schlagen werde dann ist es egal woher du bist, dein Reptilien Gehirn wird sofort verstehen „was sonst“. Und dadurch wurde ein gewisses Maß an Ordnung erzielt.
Ein praktisches Verständnis für Gewalt ist für menschliches Leben und menschliche Ordnung so unabdingbar wie das Wissen darum, das Feuer heiß ist. Du kannst es benutzen, aber du musst es respektieren. Du kannst dagegen arbeiten und manchmal kannst du es kontrollieren aber du kannst es nicht einfach wegwünschen. Manchmal ist Gewalt unbändig wie ein Lauffeuer, und du bemerkst sie nicht bis es zu spät ist. Manchmal ist es größer als du. Frag die Cherokee, die Inka, die Romanovs, die Juden, die Konföderierten, die Barbaren und die Römer. Sie alle wissen „Was sonst“.
Das Anerkennen der Tatsache, dass Ordnung Gewalt erfordert ist keine Offenbarung, auch wenn es manchen so erscheint. Alleine die Vorstellung davon, führt bei Manchem fast zu einem Schlaganfall und einige werden versuchen mit allen Arten verworrener und hypothetischer Argumente zu widersprechen… weil sich die Aussage „nicht sehr nett“ anhört. Aber Dinge müssen sich nicht „nett anhören“ um wahr zu sein. Die Realität verbiegt sich nun mal nicht nur um sich sentimentalen Wunschvorstellungen anzupassen.
Unsere komplexe Gesellschaft verlässt sich in einem Ausmaß auf die Gewaltausübung durch Stellvertreter, dass viele Privatleute durchs Leben gehen können ohne jemals das Prinzip der Gewalt zu verstehen oder sich tiefergehend damit befassen zu müssen, weil die Auswirkungen so weit von ihnen entfernt wurden. Wir können uns leisten dies als weit entferntes abstraktes Problem zu sehen, welches sich durch edle Strategien und soziale Programmierung lösen lässt. Wenn die Gewalt an unsere Tür klopft erfordert es nur einen kurzen Anruf unsererseits und die Polizei erscheint und stoppt die Gewalt. Die wenigsten Zivilisten nehmen sich die Zeit um sich klarzumachen, dass wir eigentlich nur eine bewaffnete Bande dafür bezahlen um an unserer Statt systematisch Gewalt auszuüben. Wenn jene die uns Gewalt antun wollten sich ohne Gegenwehr abführen lassen stellen die meisten nicht einmal den Zusammenhang dazu her, dass der Grund dafür das der Täter sich widerstandslos verhaften lässt, die Schusswaffe am Gürtel des Polizisten ist oder das implizite Verständnis, dass er sonst letztendlich von mehr Polizisten welche die Berechtigung haben ihn zu töten falls er zu einer Bedrohung wird, gejagt und zur Strecke gebracht würde. Als Gefährder der Ordnung.
In den USA gibt es ungefähr zweieinhalb Millionen Gefängnisinsassen. Über 90 % davon sind Männer. Die meisten von ihnen haben sich nicht freiwillig gestellt. Die meisten von ihnen versuchen nicht des Nachts auszubrechen aufgrund der Tatsache, dass jemand in einem Wachturm sitzt der bereit ist sie zu erschießen. Viele sind keine gewalttätigen Kriminellen. Hausfrauen, Buchhalter, Fernsehstars und Bio Veganer bezahlen Steuern und ihre Stellvertreter geben Milliarden und aber Milliarden aus um eine bewaffnete Regierung zu finanzieren welche die Ordnung durch Gewalt aufrechterhält.
Erst, wenn unsere geregelte Gewalt durch ungeregelte Gewalt, wie zum Beispiel nach einer Naturkatastrophe, abgelöst wird, werden wir gezwungen sein zu begreifen wie sehr wir auf jene angewiesen sind, die die Ordnung durch Gewalt aufrechterhalten. Menschen plündern weil sich eine Gelegenheit dazu ergibt und Menschen morden weil sie denken, dass sie damit durchkommen.
Einen Weg finden um mit Gewalt umzugehen und gewaltbereite Männer zu finden die dich vor anderen gewalttätigen Männern beschützen wird plötzlich zu einem sehr realen und dringenden Bedürfnis.
Ein Bekannter hat mir einmal eine Geschichte über ein Vorfall erzählt von der ihm ein Freund der Familie der Polizist war berichtet hat und ich denke diese Geschichte verdeutlicht den Knackpunkt des Ganzen. Ein paar Teenager sind im Einkaufszentrum vor einer Buchhandlung abgehangen und haben sich mit ein paar Polizisten unterhalten die dort auch gerade Pause gemacht haben. Einer der Polizisten war ein ziemlich breiter Typ, nicht gerade jemand mit dem du dich anlegen möchtest. Einer der Jungs sagte zu ihm das er nicht versteht wozu eine Gesellschaft Polizisten braucht. Der Polizist lehnte sich zu dem eher schmächtigen Jungen hinüber und sagte: hast du irgendwelche Zweifel daran das ich dir die Arme brechen und dir dein Buch wegnehmen könnte, wenn mir danach wäre? Durch die Direktheit der Frage sichtbar erschüttert stammelte er: „Nein“. „Deswegen brauchst du Polizisten mein Junge.“
George Orwell schrieb in seinen “Notes on Nationalism“ das für den Pazifisten die Wahrheit der Aussage: „Jene die der Gewalt abschwören können dies nur weil andere in ihrem Namen Gewalttaten begehen.“ zwar offensichtlich, aber unmöglich zu akzeptieren ist. Viel Unvernunft entspringt der Unfähigkeit zu akzeptieren, dass wir uns passiv auf Gewalt zum Zweck unseres Schutzes verlassen.
Realitätsferne Vorstellungen im Stile von John Lennons „Imagine“ verderben unsere Fähigkeit die Welt als das zu sehen was sie ist und zu akzeptieren, dass Gewalt eine natürliche Verhaltensweise für das menschliche Tier ist. Es gibt keine Beweise die die Hypothese unterstützen der Mensch sei von Natur aus friedlich. Es gibt jedoch eine beträchtliche Anzahl an Beweisen welche die Ansicht unterstützen das Gewalt schon immer ein Teil des menschlichen Lebens war. Jeden Tag findet irgendwo ein Archäologe einen weiteren alten Schädel der Schäden durch Waffenwirkung oder stumpfes Trauma aufweist und auch die ersten Gesetzestexte waren schockierend und grausam. Wenn wir uns heutzutage weniger bedroht fühlen, wenn wir uns fühlen als ob wir in einer gewaltfreien Gesellschaft leben dann tun wir das nur weil wir so viel Macht über unser tägliches Leben an den Staat abgegeben haben. Manche nennen das vernünftig aber wir können es genauso gut Faulheit nennen. Eine gefährliche Faulheit könnte man meinen, wenn man sich anhört wie wenig Vertrauen die meisten Menschen doch in unsere Politiker haben.
Gewalt kommt nicht von Filmen oder Videospielen oder Musik. Gewalt kommt von Menschen. Es wird langsam Zeit, dass die Menschen den Dunstschleier der sechziger Jahre durchbrechen und anfangen das Thema Gewalt wieder ehrlich zu betrachten. Menschen sind gewalttätig und das ist OK. Man kann Gewalt nicht durch Gesetze beseitigen oder darum herumreden. Auf der Grundlage der vorhandenen Beweise gibt es keinen Grund zu glauben, dass ein „Weltfrieden“ je erreicht werden kann oder das Gewalt jemals „beendet“ werden wird.
Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir damit aufhören zu zweifeln und wieder lernen die Streitaxt zu lieben. Denn die Geschichte lehrt uns, dass wenn wir es nicht tun, es jemand anderes tun wird.
