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.
