2021/01/20 The Nation State's diseases
Diseases of the mind aren't unique to people. Indeed, entire countries can suffer from the same ailments, depressions, anxieties, phobias and complexes that are usually diagnosed in a mentally ill individual. Take post-WW1 Germany for example: Germany as a nation, as a collective people, were struck with the rough end of an inferiority complex - a complex which had bubbled under the surface since Bismark unified the country, leading them to pursue vicious colonialism in an attempt to catch up with their neighbours, after having shamefully losing in WW1 which was exceedingly painful for them. Who is this collective consciousness of the nation then? Why, that would be the king.
As shown on the cover of Hobbes' Leviathan (above), the king is the more than a figurehead - he is the head, the cumulation of a nation: the people embodied in one man. The monarch operates on a level above ordinary men since the king is in contact with God - he is the intermediary between god and man, directing and coordinating the people to fulfill God's will. The king is also connected with the land, as the deliverer of crop health and the people's health; take for example the Mandate of Heaven from dynastic China which states the king must be deposed when China is devastated by natural calamity, or in an example closer to home, we have the Peasant's Revolt, which was set in motion by the Black Death. The sickness of the land and of the people is the fault of the king - fundamentally it is the sickness of the king. This is no scapegoating, it's pure understanding of what a king is. King's have existed since records began: they're a fundamental aspect of the universe.
The examples above are examples of physical illnesses of nations, like famine and pestilence, but the same can be said of illnesses of the mind. Oppressed people who are trapped by inferiority complexes of some kind grapple outwards for guides, for gurus, for senseis, for some kind of fatherly hand to tell them the right way to go. The aforementioned post-WW1 Germany is a good example for this: upon the dethroning of their king, the fatherland was without its father, lost adrift looking for a new father. At first, the national psyche turned to rebelliousness with the swinging Weimar republic where there was a certain naughtiness in breaking every taboo that the strict father of the nation had once imposed. Germany had gone to University and left home, experimenting with all their repressed fantasies. However the novelty of rebelling soon wears away and a post-modern meaninglessness sweeps in, demanding a father to once again lead. And in rides the false messiah, the new father, Hitler.
Given then that a nation can develop an illness of the mind, how do these illnesses form? What kind of complexes can a nation develop? Phobias are the simplest form of complex - it's just "ahhh scary thing" - and we see them in culture all the time. Innumerable topics cannot be spoken of, many a thing cannot be done, even though it isn't too out of the ordinary, like eating pork for a Jew, eating beef for a Hindu, or eating dog for a Westerner. Certain ideas like eugenics or words like the n-word, create this phobic response in people, which they derive from the phobic response possessed by the culture-at-large. Many complexes like these originate in a nation's childhood, like with the Nazis for eugenics or slavery for the n-word, however in the nation's psyche they live on as complexes. It's worth noting that not all complexes are bad - they're a form of adaption to the world. We're better off not having eugenics or racism, and the Nazis and slavery taught us those valuable lessons, however, even though these valuable lessons help us adapt, irrational behaviours which can at times be pathological can arise out of those very national complexes.
A major way for complexes to form is repression of an instinct. In each and every one of us, and particularly in men, there is an instinct to fight - a bit of rough and tumble to settle a dispute or even a score. Through ever stricter moralities, this instinct to fight is repressed on a personal level, with kids being heavily chastised by their teachers for fighting, playing war games, or even pretending to fire guns. There is an anger, a yearning for fighting, which can't just be dampened down - this instinct wants to actualise itself, and repressing it will only make youngsters feel unhappy. This principle operates on the level of nations also, with countries who would regularly settle disputes with a little rough and tumble being told by intergovernmental mothers like the UN, EU, NATO or any other acronym that war is wrong, and you're wrong for wanting to settle the situation with fighting. But the instinctual pressure bubbles beneath the surface, fueling discontent between countries who are in clear conflicts but will never be able to resolve their differences with a bit of pugilism in fear of the deployment of their nuclear arsenals. China's growing up, vying to usurp the US' global domination, yet due to their world-destroying weaponry, they can only fight cold wars, leaving all parties with anxiety disorders from repressing their instinct to fight.
In summary then, nations have a mind of their own, as understood as the king, the people, the royal 'we', who have complexes manifesting as national depressions, anxieties and phobias. The method by which nations contract these diseases, however, is just like how an individual would - repression of instincts, childhood traumas, etc - ultimately leading to a loss of soul, the estrangement from the nation's soul and thus its creative energy. To end on a positive note, however, national complexes are certainly not confined to pathology - national identity is very much built upon complexes regarding preferences of foods, cultural traditions, and general national personality. The difficult task, therefore, is to differentiate between what is pathological and what is natural - what is the sickness of the monarch and what is the monarch's personality. To throw out national identity with our national illnesses will only leave us lost.
As shown on the cover of Hobbes' Leviathan (above), the king is the more than a figurehead - he is the head, the cumulation of a nation: the people embodied in one man. The monarch operates on a level above ordinary men since the king is in contact with God - he is the intermediary between god and man, directing and coordinating the people to fulfill God's will. The king is also connected with the land, as the deliverer of crop health and the people's health; take for example the Mandate of Heaven from dynastic China which states the king must be deposed when China is devastated by natural calamity, or in an example closer to home, we have the Peasant's Revolt, which was set in motion by the Black Death. The sickness of the land and of the people is the fault of the king - fundamentally it is the sickness of the king. This is no scapegoating, it's pure understanding of what a king is. King's have existed since records began: they're a fundamental aspect of the universe.
The examples above are examples of physical illnesses of nations, like famine and pestilence, but the same can be said of illnesses of the mind. Oppressed people who are trapped by inferiority complexes of some kind grapple outwards for guides, for gurus, for senseis, for some kind of fatherly hand to tell them the right way to go. The aforementioned post-WW1 Germany is a good example for this: upon the dethroning of their king, the fatherland was without its father, lost adrift looking for a new father. At first, the national psyche turned to rebelliousness with the swinging Weimar republic where there was a certain naughtiness in breaking every taboo that the strict father of the nation had once imposed. Germany had gone to University and left home, experimenting with all their repressed fantasies. However the novelty of rebelling soon wears away and a post-modern meaninglessness sweeps in, demanding a father to once again lead. And in rides the false messiah, the new father, Hitler.
Given then that a nation can develop an illness of the mind, how do these illnesses form? What kind of complexes can a nation develop? Phobias are the simplest form of complex - it's just "ahhh scary thing" - and we see them in culture all the time. Innumerable topics cannot be spoken of, many a thing cannot be done, even though it isn't too out of the ordinary, like eating pork for a Jew, eating beef for a Hindu, or eating dog for a Westerner. Certain ideas like eugenics or words like the n-word, create this phobic response in people, which they derive from the phobic response possessed by the culture-at-large. Many complexes like these originate in a nation's childhood, like with the Nazis for eugenics or slavery for the n-word, however in the nation's psyche they live on as complexes. It's worth noting that not all complexes are bad - they're a form of adaption to the world. We're better off not having eugenics or racism, and the Nazis and slavery taught us those valuable lessons, however, even though these valuable lessons help us adapt, irrational behaviours which can at times be pathological can arise out of those very national complexes.
A major way for complexes to form is repression of an instinct. In each and every one of us, and particularly in men, there is an instinct to fight - a bit of rough and tumble to settle a dispute or even a score. Through ever stricter moralities, this instinct to fight is repressed on a personal level, with kids being heavily chastised by their teachers for fighting, playing war games, or even pretending to fire guns. There is an anger, a yearning for fighting, which can't just be dampened down - this instinct wants to actualise itself, and repressing it will only make youngsters feel unhappy. This principle operates on the level of nations also, with countries who would regularly settle disputes with a little rough and tumble being told by intergovernmental mothers like the UN, EU, NATO or any other acronym that war is wrong, and you're wrong for wanting to settle the situation with fighting. But the instinctual pressure bubbles beneath the surface, fueling discontent between countries who are in clear conflicts but will never be able to resolve their differences with a bit of pugilism in fear of the deployment of their nuclear arsenals. China's growing up, vying to usurp the US' global domination, yet due to their world-destroying weaponry, they can only fight cold wars, leaving all parties with anxiety disorders from repressing their instinct to fight.
In summary then, nations have a mind of their own, as understood as the king, the people, the royal 'we', who have complexes manifesting as national depressions, anxieties and phobias. The method by which nations contract these diseases, however, is just like how an individual would - repression of instincts, childhood traumas, etc - ultimately leading to a loss of soul, the estrangement from the nation's soul and thus its creative energy. To end on a positive note, however, national complexes are certainly not confined to pathology - national identity is very much built upon complexes regarding preferences of foods, cultural traditions, and general national personality. The difficult task, therefore, is to differentiate between what is pathological and what is natural - what is the sickness of the monarch and what is the monarch's personality. To throw out national identity with our national illnesses will only leave us lost.