Banksy « Le Manifestant »
Aujourd'hui, j'ai eu une révélation: j'ai compris - en fin! en fin! - quel est le sens véritable de l'expression "sans violence!" qu'on se disait, l'un à l'autre, saturés de frustration, entre les dents serrées, lors des manifestations de rue auxquelles j'ai participé dans ma vie...
Il m'a fallu du temps pour comprendre, oh, ça oui !
...Et un article qui le dit de façon tellement limpide, que, là, maintenant, j'ai un peu honte de n'avoir pas compris plus tôt... Mais mieux vaut plus tard que jamais.
L'article est publié ici:
Ci-après, j'essaie de faire une traduction en français des paragraphes qui m'ont rendu les idées (beaucoup) plus claires.
Tout l'article est intéressant et je remercie beaucoup son auteur. L'article prend tout son sens dans une société où il existe une confrontation explicite entre l'idéologie d’État et la réalité du terrain.
"L’État veut avoir des citoyens violents pour pouvoir les contrôler. Lorsque les gens sont non violents et montrent de la compassion les uns envers les autres, l’État n'a pas d'excuse pour limiter la liberté (même s'il continuera à le faire). Lorsque les gens sont violents et intolérants les uns envers les autres, l’État aura la raison [nécessaire] pour limiter la liberté."
[...]
"Le revers de cette médaille, néanmoins, est l'auto-défense. Les gens doivent également prendre conscience du fait qu'ils doivent se défendre contre la violence. Que cette violence vienne d'un individu, d'un groupe d'individus ou de l'État. Le seul moment où la violence est moralement correcte est la légitime défense.
Cela peut s’avérer difficile d'un point de vue psychologique. Mais, au fond [le fil conducteur devrait être le suivant:] la violence offensive est malsaine et immorale (la tyrannie), alors que la violence défensive est saine et morale (la justice)."
"L’État veut avoir des citoyens violents pour pouvoir les contrôler. Lorsque les gens sont non violents et montrent de la compassion les uns envers les autres, l’État n'a pas d'excuse pour limiter la liberté (même s'il continuera à le faire). Lorsque les gens sont violents et intolérants les uns envers les autres, l’État aura la raison [nécessaire] pour limiter la liberté."
[...]
"Le revers de cette médaille, néanmoins, est l'auto-défense. Les gens doivent également prendre conscience du fait qu'ils doivent se défendre contre la violence. Que cette violence vienne d'un individu, d'un groupe d'individus ou de l'État. Le seul moment où la violence est moralement correcte est la légitime défense.
Cela peut s’avérer difficile d'un point de vue psychologique. Mais, au fond [le fil conducteur devrait être le suivant:] la violence offensive est malsaine et immorale (la tyrannie), alors que la violence défensive est saine et morale (la justice)."
L'article en entier
(Les paragraphes traduits ci-dessus en français seront marqués par une couleur différente du reste.)
The 4
Greatest Enemies of the State
by Gary Z McGee
Jan 15, 2019
“It’s no measure of health to be
well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
~ Krishnamurti
How do we know that our society is profoundly sick?
- 1.) Our society pollutes the air it needs to breathe.
- 2.) Our society pollutes the water it needs to drink.
- 3.) Our society pollutes the food it needs to eat.
- 4.) Our society pollutes the minds it needs to evolve with.
Any system that forces its people to breathe polluted air, drink
polluted water, eat polluted food and then continue to do all the things that
causes that pollution is a profoundly sick society.
It is in this fundamental way that human wellbeing itself has become the
enemy of the state. Statism only functions with unhealthy, divided individuals.
It cannot continue if people are healthy and connected. In short: statism fails
when enough people achieve a sense of wellbeing despite it.
So, if wellbeing is the enemy of the state, then it stands to reason
that anyone seeking wellbeing is also an enemy of the state. Just as those
seeking health, vitality and freedom do well to be maladjusted to a profoundly
sick society, those seeking wellbeing do well to become enemies of the state.
Freedom is the enemy of the
state:
“State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies;
and this lie slips from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.’” ~ Nietzsche
Have no illusions, the curtailment of human freedom is the
state’s business. At every turn the Goliath of the state rears its ugly head,
checking the free movement of otherwise free individuals. It’s a monstrous
Hydra of overreaching power, hellbent on keeping its people controlled,
corralled, and contained under the illusion of security and safety, and under
the rampant delusion of law and order.
No nation-state on the planet is genuinely free. All are falsely and
insincerely “free.” They are only ever “free” inside the unhealthy box of their
conditions. Therefore, they are not free. True freedom is allowing
the free movement of people and allowing people to govern themselves under the
guidance of the golden rule and the nonaggression principle.
So what is a free-range human to do in the face of such a monstrosity?
Become David against Goliath. Become Heracles against Hydra. Become a
well-armed lamb contesting all votes. Become lionhearted despite all cowards.
But before that, you must check yourself. You
must become free. If you are not free, then you cannot be
heroic. You must be free in order to gain the type of courage necessary
to become. Full stop.
The golden rule is the
enemy of the state:
“Live simply so that others may simply live.” ~ Gandhi
Statism is the antithesis of the golden rule. Why is this? Because the
state demands that you do unto each other as the state demands. This is the
opposite of the golden rule.
The state tricks you into believing that the state is the people. But
the state is not the people. It’s the illusion of a people. People
are made up of individuals. Individuality is predicated upon freedom. Further
freedom is predicated upon individuals allowing other individuals to be free.
The state doesn’t allow individuals to be free. It only gives individuals
“permission” to be free upon certain conditions, which is the illusion of
freedom.
If freedom is the foundation of the golden rule, then consent is its
backbone. Without consent there is only rape. Lest we allow rape, consent is
paramount.
It’s simple: The difference between robbery and a good trade is consent.
The difference between murder and assisted death is consent. The difference
between rape and a healthy sexual encounter is consent. The difference between
oppression and freedom is consent. The difference between coercion and
voluntarism is consent. Consent is everything.
If I don’t want to trade my dollar for your twinkie and you steal my
dollar anyway, that’s robbery, because I did not consent. If I don’t want to
have sex with you but you have sex with me anyway, that’s rape, because I did
not consent. If I feel that your arbitrary law is immoral and you force me to
follow it anyway, that’s oppression, because I did not consent. If I don’t want
to give up my money to your arbitrary tax system but you force me to do so
anyway, that’s coercion, because I did not give my consent.
In order to be a healthy, responsible, moral, and just human being, you
must allow others to give their consent. Otherwise, you are violating the
golden rule.
If your values are based upon violence being the solution to problems,
then your values violate the golden rule. If your values are based upon
hindering the freedom of others, then your values violate the golden rule. If
your values are based upon coercing people to give you money when they haven’t
consented, then your values violate the golden rule.
Bottom line: if your values are based upon violating the golden rule,
then your values are immoral, unjust and unhealthy.
Nonviolence is the enemy of
the state:
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world
blind.” But “When there is only a choice between cowardice and
violence, I would advise violence.” ~ Gandhi
The state wants violent citizens so that it can
control them. When people are nonviolent and compassionate toward each other
the state doesn’t have an excuse to prevent freedom (though it will still make
up excuses). When people are violent and intolerant toward each other the state
has a reason to prevent freedom.
Nonviolence is the enemy of the state because the state’s solution to
all problems is violence. When its citizenry comes up with nonviolent solutions
it makes the state obsolete. But the state will always fight to maintain its
overreaching power and control. So, in order not to become obsolete, it must
maintain its violence.
The only thing that can prevent state violence is
the people realizing that the state is not the people, and upon
realizing this, choose to be nonviolent despite the violence of the state.
The flip side of this coin, however, is
self-defense. The people must also wake up to the fact that they alone must
defend themselves against violence. Whether that violence comes from an
individual, a group of individuals, or from the state. The only time when
violence is morally correct is in self-defense.
This can become a tricky psychological briar patch. But, basically, offensive violence is unhealthy and immoral (tyranny), whereas defensive violence is healthy and moral (justice). As Albert Camus said, “Absolute freedom mocks justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other.”
This can become a tricky psychological briar patch. But, basically, offensive violence is unhealthy and immoral (tyranny), whereas defensive violence is healthy and moral (justice). As Albert Camus said, “Absolute freedom mocks justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other.”
Peace is the enemy of the
state:
“Never relinquish your ability to doubt, reflect, and consider other
options –your rationality as an individual is your only protection against the
madness that can overcome a group.” ~ Robert Greene
If wellbeing, health, freedom, the golden rule, and nonviolence are all
the enemy of the state, then what does that tell you?
Feel free to lose the wrestling match between your higher reasoning and
your cognitive dissonance. I’ll wait here…
The bottom line is this: War is the only way any nation-state maintains
itself. And yet love (peace, compassion, freedom, justice) is the only way
humans can progressively evolve in a healthy way.
The state is always at war—with itself, with its citizens, with other
states. There is no way out of its net of covert violence unless you leave it
behind and become a free-range human. In order to be a lover of humanity one
must become an enemy of the state.
The realization that in order to be a healthy, moral, and just human one
must become an enemy of the state, is a tough pill to swallow. It’s not for the
faint of heart. It will take counterintuitive reasoning to fully fathom it. It
will require you to think outside of whatever box you’ve been conditioned to
think inside of for most of your life. It will force you to unwash the
brainwash. It will involve reprogramming your programming. It will demand
that you question the profoundly sick society you were born into.
Most of all, it will require audacious courage in the face of
comfortable cowardice. But, as Ralph Waldo Emerson wisely stated, “A
man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition. I ought to go upright
and vital and speak the rude truth in all ways. Your goodness must have some
edge to it—else it is none.”
Et voilà :-)
