Language provides clarity with definitions.
If we have no clarity, no definitions and no boundaries we cannot define ourselves and cannot communicate with others of matters of interest.
I am therefore asking. What is your understanding or defintion of
A nation
A nationality
A country
A people
A race
A state
Taking this one step further once we have reached consensus in the above defintions which nation/country/state/people today can define themselves appropriately according to set and defined criteria?
In an era where a woman can have a penis and a man can be pregnant it is language that will save or destroy us.
Go !
I am inviting u/free-will-of-choice to join in the debate.
Language....the English language especially is a double speak language. Our terms and shit have dual meanings. And more importantly. Our words can do Magick. Intention on the words spoken matters.
A Nation is where many people of either a local nationality live, maintaining social and cultural norms.
A Nationality is where where ancestors/family come from, it carries certain languages and also certain traditions and customs.
A country is basically interchangeable with nation.
A People: is anyone is Us, is them.......We are all people. And we should all respect eachother.
A race is a genetic heritage passed through blood lineage that manefests in the dermis of the person. Heriteges and cultures pass along accordingly.
A state. This is tricky. This is a border of a nation. Where the inhabitants have their own local customs and traditions. And other geographical differences from the rest of the "country/nation. Where local governances help in "aiding" smaller scale than Nation/Country in most cases.
Latin to Pig-Latin (English); English (common) to legalese (maritime-admiralty); English as the front for numerology (gematria); rhetorical spell-craft (kabbalism) and ongoing contradiction (talmudic reasoning); English as the weapon of unification (e pluribus unum aka out of many; one) as propagated through the world wide web; English as the consequence (merging) of revisionism done to every suggested language beforehand.
And underneath all of that...the suggested word (fiction) as the overlay upon perceivable sound (reality) like suggested "insane person" tempting one to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by, out of and in response to the perceivable source of sound.
Sleight of hand...
"Word up (suggested upon perceivable), it's the code (collection of rules) word (suggested)"...No matter where you say it (suggestion)...You'll know (perceivable) that you'll be heard (perceiving).
As performed by CAMEO aka CAMERA OBSCURA - "dark chamber, in optics, an apparatus representing an artificial eye"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA
a) suggested dualism (expressing two) tempts one to ignore the expressing ones (living) within impressing oneness (process of dying).
b) nature doesn't communicate "two"; it designates units (Latin unus; one) through self differentiation of whole (process of dying) into partials (living).
c) nature doesn't count (accumulation of numbers) it sets apart (whole into partial).
d) the parasitic few suggest counting (want of accumulation) to tempt the many to ignore being one (need to resist accumulation). The process of dying first self differentiates (inception); then accumulates (death) those (life) within who struggle to sustain themselves momentarily (within momentum).
e) show me "two" things and I ask you how you could perceive each "one" of them without them being apart from one another?
a) matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying)
b) object (process of dying) to subject (living) for IN (being within) TENDO (streched by)...subjecting oneself to the suggested subjects by others tempts one to ignore the need to resist the object.
Aka each one of those who you label "many"...
NATURE, noun - "born, produced", which implies born differences (living) produced by sameness (process of dying).
IN (being within) CHANGE (being changed by) ABLE (reaction within enacting) implies BASE, adjective - "low in place"; hence being partial (living) within whole (process of dying), reaction within enacting; able within enabling; changed within change; temporary within ongoing etc.
Aka a partial (you) suggesting in the name of (we) other partials (all people) that they represent togetherness (us) instead of apartheid (one).
Now let's look at the issue at hand...the many are desperately trying to get "together" as to survive the few chosen "ones" who always set themselves apart; while suggesting the many to come together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one).
Tell me...does the desperate attempt to get the many together requires each "one" of them to consent to what "one" like you suggests them to agree with? What if there's a few "ones" who exploit the shit out of many "ones" by tempting each one to consent to suggested "us" + "we"?
If you have a solution (process of dying) and each partial ingredient (living) is busy struggling to sustain apartheid...would merging them help to sustain longer or would it tempt them to drown faster? Why does one steer ingredients when cooking?
"This speech is my recital, I think it's very vital...To rock a rhyme, that's right on time...It's Tricky is the title, here we go..."
Your representatives: "the state of your nation is borderless"
We are all people? So there is no...let's say...American people or Japanese people?
Are we all American people? Are we all Jpanese people? Are we undefined people?
When the new King Charles III referred in his speech to the peoples (plural) of Britain who did he refer to or what did he mean?