1) Either a nation is the result of a free association, and thus it is possible to withdraw ourselves from it to form our own, for instance an anarcho-communist commune.
Or a nation is the result of an involuntary association imposed from above, and from there two possibilities arise:
- 2) Either the consent of each is required – tyranny as such is intolerable – and therefore the nation is not a legitimate entity.
3) Or no one’s consent is required – tyranny as such is acceptable – and therefore the nation has no reason to exist, since we are presumably banding together for mutual protection. No protection could be forthcoming in a free-for-all such as this.
Now this was a demonstration that only concerns itself with principles.
Sadly, we live under a majoritarian democracy, and I therefore have to tackle the middle-ground position which everyone is familiar with.
This position has no standing in reason, because it defends its only legitimacy with degrees of difference:
- The scope of the powers wielded by the state- today supposedly limited by the constitution.
- The way the state is organized- today supposedly defined by the same document.
- The proportion of the persons tyrannized by it- this being limited by universal suffrage, and the appeal to vote and get yourself ‘represented’ [which means give power to a rich guy who doesn’t care about you].
In order to make this lukewarm position withstand the criticisms, one principle is carried to the Heavens in order to bash our heads in with it: the supernatural and sacred existence of the nation.
Just like atheists questioning the existence of God, I would ask: where is this nation ? I never saw it, and I never will. The nation does not exist. The individuals that are said to compose it, certainly do not act as a single entity. They act as multiple differing factions with differing and contrasting interests, and under majoritarian democracy, there is a civil struggle, through the ballot, to protect those interests. Naturally, the biggest interests are those who win, having the most money to advertise and influence the system.
If this is the truth, then there is no meaningful way to speak of a nation.
Statists cannot admit to this, so they will usually add in a bit of mystical theology in the conception and history of the nation, so as to make it look actual.
For instance, Americans will say that their nation is exceptional, that it is the most inventive, the most industrious, the most dedicated to freedom, etc. Many examples and instances in American history disprove those things, of course. But it’s not about telling the truth. It’s about bullshitting yourself into believing something that is blatantly nonexistent.
One thing that got my attention recently is an attack by the Culture Minister, Frederic Lefebvre, on the No Borders network, calling its activities “anti-national.” You can see that something is bullshit when it is so taboo. Hopefully, someone in France will remember that Lefebvre’s priviledged position is precisely due to this fake hostage-nation that No Borders rejects on principle.
The nation is an involuntary association, made to exist through such things as military campaigns, imposed taxation, mandatory education, mandatory language, etc. It is said that people unite through hardship. True. But the natural hardship we all must face in this world has nothing to do with, among other things, the useless killing of millions.
It is also important to keep in mind that the French nation-state belongs to the third category. The nation is a forced union. And now you need to leave us alone.