Xiovan Clezie was born September 23, 1972. He is a Faelish-Pentapolese political philosopher, politician and the current Chairman of the Faeland Federal Party (FFP). He has been described by the press as a decisive and peculiar "everyman" who emphasizes moral codes and values. In his early years he was seen as something of a reactionary, but as time has progressed, his opponents have become more receptive to his centrist framing of his own politics.
Before the Siege of Crearrho, Clezie was a policeman in the small Pentapolitan town of Abestro, Axher Fucinus, having never been in combat. He was conscripted to fight with the Latin Guards during the Northern Insurrection; while in a shootout against a rebel unit with the Free Coast Guard, he was wounded and subsequently fell into a coma. After recovery, he began speaking publicly and entered national politics. He is often called "Aggressore" for his wartime quote, "No defense ever won a war; read the histories."
Within the framework of his speeches and essays, Clezie repeatedly addresses certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, and the influence of institutions such as religion, academia and media on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress non-conformist thought instead of analyze it for strengths and fold it into mainstream thinking. His approach to these themes has led to wildly divergent interpretations of his views within the FFP, ranging from fascistic to libertarian.
Speech # 1
On market value vs. personal (life) value.
"The Marxist definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one can do cannot make lead into gold; it remains lead, value nil (or very near to nil). In fact, bungling workmanship will subtract value. For example, my mother can turn wholesome pasta and fresh green vegetables, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. My father, a great cook, can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than any common lasagna (except your grandmother’s, of course), with no more effort than any ordinary cook uses to prepare any ordinary meal.
If such cooking show demonstrations can demolish the Marxist theory of value —upon which the entire magnificent tin cathedral of communism sets itself up — we should hold a great portion of Marxism suspect.
Still, the Teutonic prophet of Das Kapital glanced at a very important “truth.” If he had possessed a stronger mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value, sparing communism its embarrassing flop. Or maybe not. Speculation is a waste of time.
Value is relative, not absolute. You cannot build anything on relativity. Not without great risk. As the depravity of the post-Lenin Soviet Union shows. Value, human value, is only in relation to other living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person. Completely personal and different in quantity for each living human. Market value is a fiction, a rough guess at the average of personal values.
The value of a piece of merchandise to a human is a personal thing: what he can do with it and what does it cost. Everything in life has a cost. The more dear the item (or principle, as the case may be) the more dear the price. Democracy fails, ultimately, because the people have been led to believe that they can simply vote for whatever they want! Without toil, without sweat, without tears – without cost!
Nothing of value is free.
Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain. If you in the crowd had to grasp feebly for your creature comforts the way a newly born baby has to struggle to live you would be much happier with your prize. And yes, richer. As it is, with some of you, I pity the poverty of your wealth.
You! Say I declare you an eroe della federazione. Does it make you happy? Really? Would you value it — or no?
No! Such a prize is worthless to you . . . because you haven't earned it.
I fancy that most would agree that the best things in life must be purchased other than with money — which is true — just as true as the literal meaning of the words “the best things in life are free” is false. The best things in life are beyond money, without a doubt; but not free; their price is agony and sweat and devotion. And the price demanded for the most precious of all things, life, is life itself — ultimate cost for the paramount value."
Speech # 2
On the utility of morality and a cultivated consciousness and the so-called natural rights of man in the face of life-affirming duty and/or action.
"Law-abiding people hardly dare to go into our piazze at night. To do so would be to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, homemade guns, bludgeons… to be hurt, robbed most certainly, injured for life perhaps — or even killed as part of some street gang machismo test. This has continued unabated for years! Right through the Northern Uprising.
Murder, drugs, larceny, assault, vandalism …are all commonplace. These things happen also on the streets, on school grounds, even inside school buildings—like in gun-loving America!
We have many more police than the other states. And more courts. All overworked.
It starts with the young…define a 'juvenile delinquent.' A 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms, one which gives a clue to the problem and the failure to solve it.
If you've ever raised a puppy you will know you have to housebreak him. When it made mistakes you didn't get angry. After all, it was just a puppy, right? It didn't know any better.
You teach the puppy that you are upset, however, by swatting him. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? After all, the poor thing didn't know that it was doing wrong. Yet you inflicted pain.
Why? Because you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he damned well won't do it again — and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him.
Now, let's get back to those juvenile criminals. They often start their lawless careers very young. Let us never forget that puppy. These children are often caught; police arrest batches every day. Are they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Are their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. The media and public officials usually keep their names secret — in many places the law requires it for criminals under eighteen. Are they spanked? Of course not! Many have never been spanked even as small children; there is a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, does a child permanent psychic damage.
Corporal punishment in schools is forbidden by law. I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment — and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mechanism?
Our epoch is loaded with faux-scientific pseudo-psychological nonsense!
As for 'unusual,' punishment MUST be unusual or it serves no purpose!
Such punishment is so unusual so as to be significant, to deter, to instruct. Back to these young criminals — they probably were not spanked as children; and they're certainly not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence is: for a first offense, a warning — a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he is punished — and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learns still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation — 'paroled' in the jargon of our times.
This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increase in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save for rare, dull but comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal — and sometimes winds up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.
Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house… and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again.
Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken — whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead.
Whose fault would it be?
The time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young does not appeal to our faux-scientific bourgeoise class who call themselves 'social workers' or sometimes 'child psychologists.' It is too simple for them, apparently —since anyone can do it— using only the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes wondered if they cherish a vested interest in disorder — but that is unlikely; we almost always act from conscious 'highest motives' no matter what our behavior.
The tragic wrongness of what these well-meaning people do, contrasted with what they think they are doing, goes very deep. They have no scientific theory of morals. They do have a theory of morals and they try to live by it but their theory is wrong — half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they are, the farther it leads them astray. You see, they assume that Man has a moral instinct.
Bear with me, please, as I explain. We all possess a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not — not even the puppy has one.
We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals are born with none, just like you and I, and they have no chance to acquire any; their experiences do not permit it.
What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do.
But the instinct to survive can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. What you mis-identify as your 'moral instinct' was in fact the instilling in you by your elders —society— of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, if and when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive — and nowhere else! — and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.
All moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: 'Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.' Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.
These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a peer group: a street gang. But the "do-gooders" attempted to 'appeal to their better natures,' to 'reach them,' to 'spark their moral sense.'
Rubbish! They have no 'better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he did with pleasure and success must be 'moral.' IS moral…to him.
The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to the group that self-interest has to the individual. Nobody preached duty to our kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. Instead, the society we're in speaks to them endlessly of their 'rights.'
The results have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature. Take the 'inalienable rights' proffered by the Americans. Every time I deliver this speech someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'inalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great Declaration of Independence pledged themselves to BUY liberty with their lives. Liberty is never inalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes, as Thomas Jefferson himself was keen to notice. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
And the third 'right'? — the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed inalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives — but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.
As you can see, 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue — indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents — people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.
And that is the soft spot which destroys what was our admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roam our streets are symptoms of a greater sickness; our citizenry glorifies a mythology of 'rights' . . . and loses track of its duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.
Speech # 3
On what "peace" means to the unattached civilian, and how that peace must be turned on its head and that all death in the name of the body of citizens must be acknowledged; and also why defense can never mean defense, but offense (for which statement Clezie has received much criticism).
There is no police action, no intervention, there is only the extension of politics by another means: the will to war.
"Peace" is a condition in which no civilian pays any attention to military casualties which do not achieve page-one, lead-story prominence-unless that civilian is a close relative of one of the casualties. But, if there ever was a time in history when "peace" meant that there was no fighting going on, I have been unable to find out about it.
Which is silly, of course; but you don't keep a peace by defense but by attack — no "Department of Defense" ever won a war; see the histories. But is seems to be a standard civilian reaction to scream for defensive tactics as soon as they do notice a war. They then want to run the war — like a passenger trying to grab the controls away from the pilot in an emergency.