The Nation Vs. The State

0
47

“We will not submit this country or its people to the false song of Globalism.” — President Donald J. Trump

The modern assumption by the average citizen that the Nation and the State are identical & synonymous is one of the most erroneous of our time. This conflation of these two different bodies of influences presents a dangerous naivety that can be used to extensively abuse the citizens of a nation, and the differentiation is one that need be acknowledged by Americans in particular.

The Nation is comprised of its respective citizens, and the pursuit of their peace, protection and prosperity. It is defined according to these three tenets. The state is merely an extension of power from the nation, that is designated to ensure the security of these three things; and, when neglected, the state is no longer an instrument of that utility, but a path to totalitarian authority devoid of a people, nationality, or culture. A Nation without a State is sheer anarchy; A State without a Nation invokes Communism, and is devoid of identity, culture, or people.

Contrary to popular conjecture, the nationalist is not a defender of the state, he is a sentinel of the people; and, should the liberties of the people become jeopardized by the state, he will be the first to stand in opposition to it.

When the state is placed in priority over the nation, an inevitable opportunity for detrimental multiculturalism to be subtly introduced is present. What harm is there in the introduction of conflicting demographics when no native culture or nationality is acknowledged in the first place? This illustration confirms a fundamental truth: inherently multicultural civilizations are destined to fail. The American experiment, for example, introduces an inherent essence of multiculturalism in its declaration that “All men are created equal” when this is, in fact, an idealistic hope, rather than a tangible reality.

Equally detrimental are certain systems of government, including both radically individualist ideologies that would abolish and law and order and reducing a nation to pure anarchy, as well as radically totalitarian governments as seen in Communism and Socialism, that eliminate the individual. The Nation and State are interdependent upon one another for the coherent security and preservation of a country. In this way, the collective and individual are likewise interdependent upon one another, to a degree. Just as the body is collectively composed of single cells, the state is collectively composed of the people, or the Nation; and in the same way that the body would cease to exist without the presence of cells, the State could not exist without the individual, without becoming distorted into a dystopian nightmare.

Continuing with this anatomical analogy: the body requires a quantity of white blood cells that is microscopically small in comparison to the quantity of red blood cells that it requires, and yet the presence of white blood cells are absolutely necessary for the immune system to successfully defend itself from bacteria and viruses that would otherwise destroy health. However, should the white blood cells either 1) exceed beyond the minimum required, or 2) attack other cells in the body, they become an immediate threat. In the same way, the state, at a minimum, is required for the basic defense, protection and preservation of the nation, but an excessive quantity of power in the hands of the state is a direct threat to the very liberties that they are designated to defend.

The State could be considered a necessary power that is capable of enormous evil. Therefore, it need be respected due to its designation to protect our Constitutional rights; however, it need also be reminded of the constraints and limitations of its power, and its permission to defend those liberties, granted to it by the People, or the Nation, in the first place.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here