Leaving my home has always been on my mind. I just never had any opportunity to do so. To live here is at times pleasant, and at others a nightmare. Nothing is more anarchy-inspiring than living in a statist’s home, where you are despised for not eating with everyone else, or for enjoying something on your own. Why ? Because. Watch it! I’m your dad. You don’t talk to me like that. Feel the threat of the hierarchy. They’re quite nice most of the time. But there’s limits. Why? Because.
Statists appeal to non-existent obligations in order to justify their tyranny. When Edmund Burke replied to Thomas Payne’s revolutionary book, he appealed to a century-old piece of paper that no one cared about; and that no one could possibly care about, actually. Burke denies that ‘nations’ –the falsehood that Payne believed in after the fashion of the tyrants he sought to replace– have a right to choose their governors, create a government, etc. Payne summed up one of Burke’s arguments in his reply:
To prove this, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years ago, to William and Mary, in these words: “The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid” (meaning the people of England then living) “most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for EVER.” He quotes a clause of another Act of Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which he says, “bind us” (meaning the people of their day), “our heirs and our posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time.”
Mr. Burke conceives his point sufficiently established by producing those clauses, which he enforces by saying that they exclude the right of the nation for ever. And not yet content with making such declarations, repeated over and over again, he farther says, “that if the people of England possessed such a right before the Revolution” (which he acknowledges to have been the case, not only in England, but throughout Europe, at an early period), “yet that the English Nation did, at the time of the Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves, and for all their posterity, for ever.”
Obviously, if you’re an anarchist, or just some normal guy [hint: there’s no difference], then you know you cannot bind someone else than yourself; and therefore this whole statement is void, insofar as it binds not-yet-born people. And yet, some thought that it made sense. Why ? Because. We are born free and equal, and therefore there is no right to dominate in anyone; hence consensus-decision-making is the only legitimate decision-making process there is. Democracy is still a tyranny. If that really is why you abolished the monarchy…aren’t you supposed to go all the way ? Well, not if you believe in nations.
And that’s what Mr Payne liberated: “nations” that existed only to the extent that monarchs and tyrants created them through sheer force. France was a patchwork of loose regions before it was put together by a state; thus the nation is born. Why do we stay together then, even though we know we are different ? Even though we can’t stand one another ? Why? Because. It’s the “nation.” One rule only. No right size for each, but only one size for all; and this, decided by a majority vote by all those ready to tyrannize their neighbors over a territory of millions of square miles.
What then is the French national identity? From beginning to the end, it is only what the French state makes of it; just like the nation itself. Observe the way the “debate” is conducted: the existence of the nation and its common identity, pre-supposed; the only discussions, about symbols, and how much to devote our lives adoring them – once a year?-, and in the end, the imposition of it all by the state.
I recently attacked a regularized Afghan for white-washing the French state’s current criminality, gratifying with thanks the ‘country of Voltaire.’ That attack got some annoyed. I should have used better words, according to my mom. Or I should not have used this mailing list, I should have used this blog. Well no. This was disgusting. He should see the corpses of those who died trying to get across, and think again about the ‘French civilization’ that he paid homage to. I repeat what I said: he’s a dog, an obedient dog, an ‘I’m Alright Jack.’ We need to attack him. Some years after the criminal state agreed to stop aggressing against him, he gives us state-fed bullshit about French values and the French ‘national identity’. I’ve been fulminating with rage, and wanting to scream. Don’t tell me where to write what.
I’m leaving Calais soon. The meeting will be quite fine without some guy who won’t be there anymore.