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