“Arab countries are not “nations” as we understand it.”
And neither is Britain! Since going “multi-ethnic” in such a big way.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a NATION is “a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].
Also, "ethnic" drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the notion of a “multi-ethnic British nation” an oxymoronic absurdity.
It's an absurdity which the majority of Britain's indigenous (ethnic European) population, are mildly to extremely uncomfortable with (depending on circumstances), but can say, let alone do, nothing about, without being branded and dismissed as “racist” by STATE media (the BBC), which the rest of the media and political elite had to follow, or be branded “racist” themselves, just as anyone deviating from state/church ideology in the Middle Ages was branded a “non-believer”, “heathen” or “heretic”.
Europe’s tribal societies were destroyed by the STATE centuries ago, which then coerced and taught us to identify ITSELF as our tribe or nation, which we owed our powerful (and in times of war, passionate) tribal loyalties to. This made the state extremely powerful and goes a long way to explaining European global dominance.
Only, the British STATE is not a NATION, but merely poses as such, in order to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation (as an artificial environment) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” (and not just at the BBC). When the principal interest is in “human resources”, “markets” and voters as vassals to the political elite, race and ethnic origins (vital to “human beings” for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity) are irrelevant, except as as something to deny the importance of as an expression of “moral superiority” and continued allegiance to the STATE.
No comments:
Post a Comment