It is true, as the left repeatedly charge, that we are living in a “post-truth” world where what was once thought to be certified fact is now no more than an object of interpretation. Ideas once (correctly) believed to be concrete are now considered obsolete and the victor of an argument is no longer he who relies upon facts, but he who argues – and often deceives – the best.
Somewhat ironically, the left use these terms such as “post-truth” and/or “fake news” as a smear with which to discredit the right, when in actual fact these terms best describe and were originally used to describe the actions of leftist commentators, scientists, politicians and reporters. The reality of this is that these are not revolutionary ideas at all and anybody who has paid attention to the political sphere at all will recognise that the left has been acting in this way with growing extravagance since the middle of the 21st century. Heavily influenced by communism and the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism, the left have subverted the very foundations of philosophy in order to bend the facts to their perverse worldview, as opposed to shaping their worldview around the facts.
The concept of nationhood is one that the left have taken a particularly heavy proverbial sledgehammer to in their quest to redefine the way in which we see the world. This is because nationhood as defined by a sense of belonging to a group and behaving in a way conducive to the greater group of said group is perhaps the biggest barrier that stands between civilisation and international Marxist socialism. This was identified strongly by the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century as a cultural institution of society that must be broken down in order for the people to accept class struggle, Marxist socialism and inevitably, world communism.
Today, we are told by the political class and their media accomplices that nationhood is a belonging of a civic nature, meaning that any persons who reside within the boundaries of a nation and who wish to be a part of that nation are by default a member of the group. An extreme example of this notion being put into practise is Canada, who’s Prime Minister famously declared to be the world’s first ‘post-national society’. Presumably what he means by this is that the very concept of Canada as a nation is outdated and that its people are instead a loose collection of groups defined on global lines as opposed to national.
The average, non-extreme example of this could be France for instance, a country in which there is a strong sense of culture and identity that anybody who sets foot on French soil and declares himself a Frenchman may belong to. This has become the accepted normality in North America and the vast majority of Western European nation states, particularly since they have been subjected to mass-immigration and the imposition of high-minded supranational organisations such as the European Union or the United Nations.
However, this was not the accepted concept of nationhood for the past two millennia. This idea that anybody may be a Frenchman or that anybody may be an Englishman is a relatively new phenomenon that would rightly be considered an alien concept to humanity in its entirety just a century ago, and for many centuries before. The very people who some may argue were the founders of western civilisation such as the ancient Greeks, the Romans and even the Egyptians would have found today’s notion of universal nationhood to be utterly absurd, as of course it is.
The very word ‘nation’ in the English language is one that is taken from the Old French word nacion, literally meaning “birth” or “place of origin”. Both the English word ‘nation’ and the Old French word ‘nacion’ have their origins in Latin, in particular with the word ‘nātiō’ meaning birth, nation and race. The word is used to describe a large group of people with common customs, traditions, habits, language and ethnicity/ancestry. We can quite confidently assume that place of birth has historically been somewhat synonymous with ethnicity and ancestry, for it is a relatively new concept of mass groups of people moving into new areas to raise their families with no intention of returning home.
The aspect of the traditionally agreed upon definition of nationhood that the left have sought to destroy is ethnicity, for it is the only definition that is not malleable. One is either of an ethnic group, or he is not – unlike concepts such as customs and language which can be learned and adopted. It is this removal of the concept of ethnicity from the meaning of nationhood that has enabled the left to redefine the boundaries in order to break the bond between the people and their group, its territory and its state. For without exclusivity, a group is not worth being a part of, therefore the allegiance of the individual to the whole is significantly weaker than it ever has been.
Whilst this is an essay discussing nationhood and its definition, it is important to acknowledge exactly how breaking one’s allegiance to a nation leads to world communism. It was an idea thought up at the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century based on the principle that human beings are inherently tribal and require allegiances and a sense of belonging as part of their natural psychological make up. Marxists are of course no difference, except they view the greatest allegiance of the people to be to their class as opposed to the nation. The Marxist worldview dictates that the ruling class of capitalists will always exploit because it is to the benefits of their class to whom they feel the greatest allegiance, and the only way to topple this class of giant capitalists is for the working class to unite and seize the means of production in revolutionary manner.
It is of course difficult to incite the working classes to violently overthrow the capitalist class if they both have a common allegiance to the nation (contrary to the beliefs of Marxism, although they seem to conveniently skirt over this fact). Therefore, the agenda of the left is to divert the people’s tribal tendencies away from nationhood and instead towards social class in order to facilitate the class warfare necessary to implement the stages of Marxist socialism. Of course, in their ignorance the left underestimated the difficulties in removing a primordial allegiance and replacing it with an unnatural allegiance in the collective psyche of humanity.
The Latin word and concept of nation is not an outdated concept, but rather it is the most relevant in a world in which the ruling class would have us forget our identities and throw away the sacred bond shared by a people with common ancestry. The word was not given a meaning, instead it took a meaning based on the natural phenomenons occurring around its creators which further demonstrates the primordial nature of nationhood and ethnicity as a concept.
It’s an idea that has been central to European people in particular for thousands of years. Roman philosophers, military leaders and historians often wrote about what they found in the far reaches of Europe and in particular, who they found. It is many of these writings that we get historic and contemporary names for our nations, as the Romans wrote about the people they discovered in terms of nationhood as meaning a cultural, linguistic and ethnic group with characteristics that are both learned and inherited, evidencing the fact that these concepts are deeply rooted in the very bedrock of western civilisation.
Ethnicity in particular was of significance to the ancestors of Northern Europe, many of whom practised a strand of Germanic paganism prior to the advent of Christianity. The peoples of what are today the nations of Germany, England, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria and so on based their spiritual beliefs on the concept of shared ancestry, for they believed that they were the descendants of the Gods and Goddesses, as opposed to beneath them as is taught in Christianity for example. It is this importance given to the shared ancestry (ethnicity) of a people that provided the essence of family values and the good of the community within the ancient tribes of Europe, values that we continued throughout history.
It is now that, all of a sudden, we find the concept of nationhood to have been appropriated and perverted by a clique of schemers who wish to alter the very psyche of society. This cannot be allowed to happen any longer. The shared ancestry of peoples is sacred and diverse across the world and we must ensure that this remains so. It is what fosters a sense of belonging that gives the virtues of community and family to a people, without it we lose not only the reason to be with one another, but the reason to be at all.