Answer: The problem of the far right faction is that it places its own people in a special place above all the rest of the peoples. However, we aren’t talking about elevation above others here, but about unity among the people. So, what’s wrong with that?
Suppose that I am French and other nations don’t interest me. France is absolutely enough for me, and I don’t want those who are not considered French to live in France. Moreover, this refers to French according to culture and not nationalism.
Belgians will come and even Jews. The main thing is that we have a generally uniform culture, a shared view of things. So, France is our common nation. We agree with its constitution, with its legislation, with its customs, norms, and language.
So, if a particular sector enhances this unity, then it doesn’t matter what it is called: right, left, center, etc. This approach is good as long as it is not realized at the expense of other nations. I don’t look at the others. I simply want my nation to live in peace and quiet, to be happy and prosperous.
What is bad about that? A person cares about his nation. He wants his people to live as one family. Even though he doesn’t have a broad vision or the moral force to be concerned about the inhabitants of other nations, and even though this is called “nationalism,” it is in a good sense. He is not a chauvinist. He has no hatred towards others, toward foreigners. He is only concerned about his own people, and not at the expense of others either.
It is true that, in a case like this, the nation is not ready to enter into some kind of partnership as in the example of the present European Union, but there is no need for it either. First its people pass through the new education, strive for equality, to unity, to a common general level accepted by all. Gradually, people will absorb new values in that they, themselves, already want to attain some kind of optimal average, a basket of necessary products and services that are uniform for everyone.
Certainly, we don’t say one size fits all. Prosperity can vary by two or three times as much. However, in sum, this is a small difference, the social “play” and not a social abyss as it is today.
Question: If the extreme right will accept an approach like this, will they increase their success?
Answer: Certainly, for this it is necessary to change the legislation in the appropriate direction. In a big way, it is necessary to record what is essential. All of the inhabitants of the nation must accept its culture. They must be, let’s say, French, regardless of religious faith. The person must be loyal to the homeland to which he has come.
For example, the African-Americans in the United States don’t act against their nation. They specifically feel themselves to be Americans. Yes, they have differences of opinion with other sectors, but they live in their nation.
In accordance with this, in Europe, even if you are a Muslim, you must maintain your allegiance to the nation in which you live. Otherwise, you invalidate your right to live there.
Question: Is national unity like this a prerequisite for world unity?
Answer: No, but now we are talking about a specific region, about European nations in which the tension between sectors has grown, and in this context the European Union is not found on the agenda for the meantime. It is possible to speak about economic and military cooperation, but this is not unity. Rather, these are joint activities on a contractual basis.
On the other hand, true unity represents a transition to familial relationships. This is something that is much denser, more intimate, deep and comprehensive, when all of Europe truly becomes a common home for its inhabitants. However, they are not ready for this today because they are very distant from each other.
From KabTV’s “A New Life” 9/9/14