<!–

–>

January 29, 2024

The Rio Grande border conflict is not an isolated incident. It is part of the World Economic Forum program of “denationization” of the United States.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

In the same way that a “state” is a form of self-organization of human society, a “nation” can also be treated as a form of self-organization. These terms are different in nuance, and Russian conservative philosopher Nicolai Berdyaev was the first to devise a formula to discern between them a century ago. His analysis proceeds from the application of the eschatological way of thinking. Berdyaev stated that humans are mortal; therefore, a state or government, as an example of human creation, is also mortal. “Nation” emerged when our ancestors realized the need to self-organize along transcendental lines rather than administrative ones.

The newly created self-organized form was intended to achieve what was radically unachievable — immortality. Unlike all other animals, humans have always sought to transcend ordinary biological existence. Our predecessors figured that life is a process while death is an event and focused on life.

Berdyaev wrote in 1923 that “[t]he manner of life of a nation is not to be defined nor explained, be it by race, nor by language, nor by religion, nor by territory, nor by state sovereignty, although all these signs more or less are extant for the national manner of life. And most correct are those who define the nation as a oneness of historical destiny. The awareness of this unity is also what comprises the national consciousness.”  

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Finally, “[t]he nation is not merely the generation alive today, nor is it the sum of all the generations. A nation is not a mere composite accumulation; it is something primordial, an eternally alive subject within the historical process, it is there live and dwell all the past generations, no less so than the contemporary generations. Nation possesses an ontological core. The national manner of life conquers time. The spirit of the nation forestalls the devouring of the past by the present and the future. The nation is always striving towards imperishability, toward a victory over death, it cannot allow the exclusive triumph of the future over the past.”

A country is created when its boundaries are drawn and its administration is set up. A nation is created when a communication link is up and running, connecting the past, present, and future.

Compare Berdyaev’s proposition with Edmund Burke, who, in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” described society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

Berdyaev’s nationalism concept casts the issue of mass illegal immigration in a very unusual light. Illegal aliens directly threaten the immortality facet of social self-organization because they alter and disturb — sometimes beyond repair — the communication mechanism connecting past, present, and future generations.

Berdyaev’s theological argument is one of those rare contributions of divine inspiration to the field of realpolitik. The illustrated proposal clearly distinguishes between two items. The first is objective, material, measurable, and mortal — a country, its citizens, and its government. The second one is subjective, immeasurable, and immortal — a nation.

As a corollary, the terms “National Conservatism,” “National Socialism,” or “National Bolshevism” have no meaning as they attempt to unite ununitable mortal and immortal terms. However, as we know, these contradictory terms exist; therefore, we must use them with a strong reasoning that they can be applied only to a particular historical period and place. That also applies to another commonly reputable term: “nation-state.” The term “Christian Nationalism” is also an oxymoron as it unites ununitable items — relationship with God and relationship with time.