domingo, 12 de março de 2017

O Santo



A Guerra Pessoal e os Moderados



Após ter discorrido sobre a Guerra Pessoal e o Apoio a Outrém, vou mostrar qual é a opinião dos contendores sobre os Moderados. Basicamente é: “Se não estás comigo, estás contra mim”.
Mais uma vez comparo a Guerra de Nações[i] com a Guerra Pessoal, e apresento a opinião de Adam Smith retirada de “A teoria dos sentimentos morais”.

“In the same manner, to the selfish and original passions of human nature, the loss or gain of a very small interest of our own, appears to be of vastly more importance, excites a much more passionate joy or sorrow, a much more ardent desire or aversion, than the greatest concern of another with whom we have no particular connexion. His interests, as long as they are surveyed from this station, can never be put into the balance with our own, can never restrain us from doing whatever may tend to promote our own, how ruinous soever to him. (…)
When two nations are at variance the citizen of each pays little regard to the sentiments which foreign nations may entertain concerning his conduct. His whole ambition is to obtain the approbation of his own fellow-citizens; and as they are all animated by the same hostile passions which animate himself, he can never please them so much as by enraging and offending their enemies. The partial spectator is at hand: the impartial one at a great distance. In war and negotiation, therefore, the laws of justice are very seldom observed. Truth and fair dealing are almost totally disregarded. Treaties are violated; and the violation, if some advantage is gained by it, sheds scarce any dishonour upon the violator. The ambassador who dupes the minister of a foreign nation, is admired and applauded. The just man who disdains either to take or to give any advantage, but who would think it less dishonourable to give than to take one; the man who, in all private transactions, would be the most beloved and the most esteemed; in those public transactions is regarded as a fool and an idiot, who does not understand his business; and he incurs always the contempt, and sometimes even the detestation of his fellow-citizens. In war, not only what are called the laws of nations, are frequently violated, without bringing (among his own fellow-citizens, whose judgments he only regards) any considerable dishonour upon the violator; but those laws themselves are, the greater part of them, laid down with very little regard to the plainest and most obvious rules of justice.
That the innocent, though they may have some connexion or dependency upon the guilty (which, perhaps, they themselves cannot help), should not, upon that account, suffer or be punished for the guilty, is one of the plainest and most obvious rules of justice. In the most unjust war, however, it is commonly the sovereign or the rulers only who are guilty. The subjects are almost always perfectly innocent. Whenever it suits the conveniency of a public enemy, however, the goods of the peaceable citizens are seized both at land and at sea; their lands are laid waste, their houses are burnt, and they themselves, if they presume to make any resistance, are murdered or led into captivity; and all this in the most perfect conformity to what are called the laws of nations.”


Conclusão

Em Conflitos de grande alcance é preciso escolher uma posição e a manter.
Esta opinião é validada ou invalidada pelo que os mais experientes viveram e viram no PREC: os Moderados foram perseguidos? os Moderados foram desprezados? os Moderados foram ignorados? ou Todos fizeram-se Revolucionários?

               
Eu, O Santo





[i] Esta comparação só serve para mostrar as tendências, não os efeitos da Guerra de Nações tais como o horror, a pulhice , o sangue, a maldade, a injustiça, a sacanice,… Para mim é óbvio que os efeitos de uma Guerra de Nações (ou civil, de fações ou qualquer que seja o nome que se lhe queira dar) são de tal forma danosos que não me lembro de uma justificação para a Guerra que não seja o evitar da Guerra.
A Guerra Pessoal tem algo de belo: o aprimorar do Espirito, e o viver Aqui e Agora. A Guerra de Nações nada tem de belo.

2 comentários:

Anónimo disse...

O ideal é acompanhar a maioria pois, além da memória humana ser curta, dificilmente acontecerá, à posteriori, alguém dessa anterior maioria, errado como nós,fazer questão de recordar publicamente o facto de termos estado errados no passado.Entretanto a minoria que terá tido razão antes de tempo não nos poderá apontar o dedo de forma convincente simplesmente porque além de minoritária estará a embaraçar toda aquela maioria que terá estado igualmente errada no passado.
Como não há um deus que intervenha na história humana o ideal é acompanhar a onda de cada momento.
Claro que sabe-lo não basta até porque ainda há quem prefira ter "razão" a ser "feliz".

amsf

Anónimo disse...

Santo, não dês seca à gente, já basta o Albuquerque e o Cafofo. Tem pena de nós!