What a Nation is Not

Posted By Asier Abadroa On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled

[1]3,055 words

A Nation is not a language

The fact that language is a secondary criterion of no importance is demonstrated by the simple observation that learning and mastering a new language does not make you a different person. In fact, almost all languages have different words for the same concepts, except for a residual percentage of exceptions which in any case are easily circumvented by resorting to loanwords. It is therefore absurd to base nationalism on idiomatic criteria. It is not languages that define the borders of Nations.

As for the practical implications of such an idea, it is necessary to mention that there are about 7,000 languages in the world. A world in which language would be the defining element for a population to become a State would mean that some 6,800 new countries would have to be created, as at present there are barely more than 200.

Moreover, the immediate geopolitical consequence would be that a few superpowers would remain intact or even increase in size (as is the case with English, Spanish, and other languages with an imperial past), while most of the rest of the world would be fragmented into an infinite number of taifas that would be so small in size and so easily controlled by larger powers that their sovereignty would be no more than a fiction.

Another implication is that any invader who wants to come to our land would only need to learn our language in order to claim citizenship — something that this destructive system we suffer under would be delighted to do.

A Nation is not a religion

Religion makes no fundamental difference in the way human beings live. It effects them more than languages, for it is something more directly related to values, but its importance is overshadowed when compared to other factors such as Race. Christian blacks are always going to murder and steal more than atheist whites, no matter how much the fifth and seventh commandments forbid it.

Likewise, atheists do not commit crimes in greater numbers than believers among members of the same race. This is not surprising, for people already knew that stealing and killing were wrong before any enlightened prophet came along to tell them so. People only comply with religious precepts that are irrelevant to them, or that they were already predisposed to comply with. In fact, when comparing believers and atheists there does not seem to be any significant difference even when it comes to things that are seen as sinful, such as divorce. The role that religion plays in affecting people’s behavior is negligible, if not non-existent. Some studies estimate that its effect is even counterproductive, probably due to the psychological bias that Jean Decety calls “moral licensing,” which holds that those who fulfill certain religious obligations, such as praying or going to church, relax their moral behavior in the conviction that, in the divine accounting, they already start with a balance in their favor that allows them to take license.

[2]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here [3]

Not only do most people not take religion seriously enough for it to make a difference in their lives, but even when religion was considered to be far more important than it is now, the “holy scriptures” have always been reinterpreted at will to match the interests and preconceptions of the believers, and have always been applied in conformity with the Zeitgeist and the elites’ vision at the time. Our current situation is just one more iteration of that.

Of course, everyone always that his own particular interpretation is correct, but the same religious texts that were once used to justify the separation of the races, slavery, the stoning of sodomites, and other such things were likewise used by their detractors to justify what they were doing. Just as religions do not mold the individuals, religions do not mold the thinking of peoples; it is peoples that invent religions in accordance with their mentality and customs. In cases where the religion of one race is exported to another, what happens is that the neophyte race transforms that religion into something closer to its own mentality, regardless of the fact that the same sacred texts are used.

The domestic political implications of dividing the world into religious nations would be the categorization as second-class citizens of all those who are agnostic or less religious than required, and surely their persecution. In the international sphere, this would mean the creation of vast states, constantly engaged in wars of conquest, given that many of them would be inherently imperialistic and expansionist because they would often be based on proselytizing religions that aim at converting the whole world (such as Christianity and Islam), or on supremacist religions (such as Judaism, which prescribes that the Jews should dominate the other Nations of the world and seize their wealth).

Such wars would not only occur between States, but civil wars might also take place as a reflection of the schisms that recurrently appear in History within each religion. Millions of Europeans exterminated each other because of contradictions in “the Word of God.” A paradigmatic case is the Thirty Years’ War, in which not only did various countries wage war against each other, but the German people themselves massacred each other by the millions because of the struggles between different Christian sects. Although religion does not determine people’s values, it has been effective in making brothers fight among themselves, since sometimes schisms are nothing more than a pretext for pursuing political interests, as in the case of Henry VIII’s Anglican Reformation. Another example, but in reverse, would be the counter-schism of “Positive Christianity” that Hitler had in mind in the early years of the Third Reich whereby an independent German National Church would have been created, purged of the more Jewish elements of Christianity, and with the Protestant and Catholic sects being merged into a single body. This project was gradually abandoned, however, in favor of a return to more indigenous religious conceptions.

Finally, it is also possible for a Nation to change religion at any time. Since religion does not determine a people’s particularity, allochthonous invaders of incompatible mentality and behavior can enter a country under the pretext of having converted to its “national religion.” This is undoubtedly not a good criterion for deciding to grant citizenship to foreigners or to consider other peoples as compatriots.

The problem with any form of nationalism that claims to be based on individual values is that, in addition to excluding citizens who do not follow the norm and favoring foreign invasions, it also ignores the fact that individuals are not isolated entities, but belong to biological groups. This means that the descendants of the immediately subsequent generations are subject to a phenomenon called “regression to the mean”: even if an allochthonous individual behaves like a good citizen in all matters, the power of blood or, expressed in more academic terms, regression to the racial mean would cause his offspring to be more similar to the average individual of his race than to this particular ancestor.

A Nation is not a State

As Joaquim Bochaca used to say, “The current Nation-States have been made by cannon fire and copulations” — that is, by means of wars and dynastic liaisons. The fact that we have inherited geographical boundaries as the result of such trivial reasons as who a monarch chooses to marry, or how many of his children inherited and shared his kingdom, does not seem to be a very reasonable criterion for defining what our Nation is. This was precisely the main difference between early Italian Fascism and National Socialism. The former believed that the State preceded and determined the Nation, while the latter, on the contrary, held a racial-völkisch view of the national subject; i.e., that the Nation is genetic and the State must adapt its geographical borders to the biological borders, not the other way around. Both Fascism and National Socialism sought national unity: religious, geographical, linguistic, and so on. However, while one wanted to achieve it through the homogenization of all the elements within the State (through miscegenation and assimilation — faccetta nera, sarai romana” — thus pretending to repeat the same mistake that led to the fall of the Roman Empire), the other sought to adapt the State’s pre-existing arbitrary borders to the German people itself, uniting the territories where it was present and encouraging the immigration of Volkdeutsche from other countries while favoring the emigration of allochthonous elements elsewhere.

Since the belief that the State determines the Nation is the predominant criterion in the world today, it implies maintaining the status quo. Whoever possesses or obtains a passport from a particular country is considered a legitimate citizen of that nation.

A priori, the formula of State nationalism (civic nationalism, passport nationalism, or whatever we want to call it) might not seem problematic, since, although it does not affect those aliens who might already be within its borders, at least supposedly limits the infiltration of aliens from outside. And it was like that at one time, since, consequently, anyone who did not belong to the same State as oneself, and who therefore did not have a passport, was considered a “foreigner.” The main problem comes when our governments fall into autocidal hands, which have not only decided to give away passports to the entire Third World but have already allowed the entry of many millions of aliens to the point that we will become a minority in our countries unless we expel them. These sepoy elites have come to allow many new ways of achieving such State citizenship, such as by breaking the immigration laws, giving birth to “anchor babies,” and so on. But since granting a passport does not change the character of an “immigrant” or his offspring, it is as ludicrous as any of the other criteria already mentioned — or even more so, since it is not based on any criteria related to the preexisting population).

On the other hand, when we say that this implies “maintaining the statu quo,” this does not mean maintaining the current borders but maintaining the current globalist centripetal trend that seeks the unification of all the countries in each continent as a step towards the creation of a “World Nation.”

Logically, the characters of two highly differentiated human groups cannot be magically twinned by the mere fact of cohabiting within the arbitrary borders of the same State. On the contrary, coexistence in the same national home and under the same government tends to bring to the surface — and exacerbate — differences, provoking conflict between them in the same way that coexistence in the same house, even among those who originally had a good relationship and who seemed predisposed to respect and understand each other.

The greater the difference, the greater the division; and it is an outrage against common sense to claim that such a thing strengthens any society. Throughout the world, most civil wars arise precisely on racial or ethnic grounds, and they tend to be the most vicious of all. This is why the pseudo-pacifist mission of those globalists who support a World Nation as an alleged remedy for wars is absolutely fallacious. Who believes that putting two very different people in the same house is a way for them to automatically begin loving each other? Being part of the same State does not prevent such conflicts, but rather sparks them. And such conflicts do not always take the form of wars, but can manifest in the form of crime and delinquency, mistrust, social disorder, political instability, chaos, terrorism, and so on.

The well-being and internal peace of a State depends on an identitarian unity, and on the quality of that identity’s population. Nothing can be done about the latter in the short term, but we can do a lot about the former.

A Nation is not merely a self-determined community

Self-determination is necessarily a fundamental aspiration by which a Nation takes shape. Even so, we must be aware that, ultimately, self-determination as such is an illogical concept based on the premise that one can choose what one is. That, obviously, is nonsense. Identity is precisely that which cannot be changed [4], let alone decided. Although cultural Marxism and its “transgender,” transformist propaganda try to make us believe that surgically altering one’s genitals means “changing sex,” the truth is that one does not decide to be black or white, human or dog, mammal or a reptile. One does not become smarter or stronger simply by wanting it. One doesn’t become Superman by believing that one is and then jumping into the void.

[5]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here [6]

Similarly, a people’s identity is not determined by voting. It is possible to speak about self-government and independence, regardless of the motivations that lead a group to want to obtain it, but one cannot properly speak of self-determination as such.

Self-determination is based on the feeling of belonging. This can not only be detached from reality, but it can also be manipulated to a great extent by those who control the media, to the point that it is possible to intoxicate a people and make them sick to the point of self-hatred. When one tribe controls the media consumed by another, it is easy for the former to convince the latter to act against their own interests, and even that it does not in fact exist as a distinct subject. Indeed, the “non-existence” of races is the modern version of the Emperor’s New Clothes — and has become the principal dogma in the white world. None of them exist, except for that of the exterminators themselves, who may have their own Racial State — but that is rarely acknowledged. The white race, as a result of systemic propaganda, is the only one that lacks a strong racial sentiment today, and the only one [7] that is mostly unaware that race is the main defining factor of a people. Of course, if the white race is freed from the media yoke, it will return to normalcy.

The strongest argument in favor of “self-determination,” “self-perception,” or the need for a feeling of belonging is that it is impossible for a people to become a State except through the will of a collective subject; ergo, it is the only possible nationalism. Without a sense of belonging, there can be no Nationalist cause, and any other type of nationalism is doomed forever to failure and marginalization. This is not an argument concerning the identification of the national subject, however, but is only relevant as far as the planning and strategy involved in achieving its practical implementation is concerned. Or, to put it another way, it only indicates that we must succeed in instilling that national consciousness in the collective subject that we know actually makes up a Nation.

As far as geopolitics is concerned, States are generally not in favor of giving up any of their territory, even when they claim to be pro-democracy, for the sake of the principle of self-determination. On the other hand, the practical implications of a nationalism truly based on this criterion would be of two types, since it can be conceived as an individual concept (a foreigner claims that he has determined that he is our fellow citizen) or a collective one (by the inhabitants of a society that has already been established and conceived as a bloc, regardless of who comprises it).

Leaving aside the role of the media, as happens in all nationalisms based on presumed values, it is never possible to know if one who claims to experience such a feeling of belonging is being genuine or is simply motivated by economic factors, convenience, and so on. In any case, even if it is sincere, it does not change anything, because Identity is something alien to anything that can be voted on or any individual belief. There are amusing survey results which show that almost everyone claims to be smarter or a better driver than the average. Self-perception is therefore irrelevant.

The important thing to understand is that, since the feeling of national belonging is manipulable, it can be built from scratch, even if it does not yet exist at present. For example, several nationalisms, such as that of the Basque, did not even exist as significant social forces until well into the twentieth century. In the case of the Race, it has always existed and remains in a latent state in our very genes; it only needs to be awakened.[1] [8]

Thus, we should not proceed from the opposite perspective: looking at one’s purported sense of belonging and “deciding” the national subject based on it. Our task is, first, to correctly identify our national subject, and then to consciously create the conditions that will make that subject become aware of itself — and then create a feeling of belonging around it.

A Nation is not social class, sex, etc.

Social class is never something fixed and immovable, and is even less so today. It is possible to change one’s social class; in fact, it happens more often than we realize. Similarly, money does not change people, but only shows what would otherwise remain latent in them, just as a politician shows more of his own personality when he has more power.

The only reason I include social class here is because of Karl Marx’s famous statement that the fatherland is an invention of the bourgeoisie and that, if it existed, the worker’s fatherland would be his social class. Logically, he never intended for this statement to have an actual political meaning, since it is obvious that class can never be a Nation. From the historical moment in which the social division of labor took place, the existence of a society in which different classes do not coexist is impossible, given the specific talents of each. A Nation composed of a single social class is as unfeasible as a single-sex Nation — something that we could also include in the list — and that some of the most unrealistic androphobes and MGTOW types will surely come to defend. But it is something that hardly requires further elaboration.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[10]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.

Note

[1] [11] The feeling of racial belonging is so naturally instilled in our genes that by the age of three months, many babies begin to prefer the faces of people of their own race to those of a different race. See here [12].