The Importance of Nationalism and Patriotic Legends

the thing that, the factor that causes, in my view, a stutter in Iranian history and makes us stumble toward the future, always limping along, I think it is the consensus that we have still failed to reach about the past. That is, when we look at history together, we still have not reached that consensus about how we should understand our own history.

And it usually takes this form: intellectuals who are against history, who are anti-historical, and they read history in a different way. They have placed a utopia of the world in front of themselves, and they evaluate the condition of human beings, of society, against that utopia. And they treat the past the same way.

Their intention is this: that throughout history there should have been no flaws whatsoever, and it should smell of paradise. Usually from history, or from the future, it should smell of paradise.

This skill might be the skill of rhetoric, or it might be in the area of epistemology. How, through the skill of rhetoric, through epistemological skills, can you consistently catch the world in the act, catch phenomena in the act, catch opinions in the act, catch people in the act. So the basic premise for entering the world is not: "I don't like this world, that deep world is what I really want, this one doesn't work." This world is built on deception, this world is built on injustice, in this world there is no justice, in this world there is no fairness, in this world there is no awareness, and whatever it is that I am looking for, that thing we need to inject into society.

Meaning we must constantly, through this critical thinking, as a method and as a habit that we have, keep going and standing over phenomena and catching them in the act, and you become a person who constantly stands over the world and is challenging the world.

First, you accept the totality of the world. You accept it as it is. The totality of this human being, as a creature that is human, with all the conditions that govern a human being. You understand this. And then you try to improve it. I promise you, no one can change the world. No human being has the power to be able to change the world.

And the people who you encounter throughout history appearing as heroes, showing up as heroes, appearing as champions, as champions. They are nothing other than those same collective and historical forces that then crystallize in one individual, and a simple-minded person might feel that this change in the world that took place was because of a certain person.

Meaning they feel that if Marx had not existed, probably this horror of communism would not have taken over the world, and then tens of millions of people would not have perished. But I, as someone who leans left, tell you that Marx was only one part of this event. It is a collective will that takes shape before Marx, in the history before Marx, and all the events that took place, for example, in European history.

That is not the question. The question is not why people separate from each other. The question is why human beings come together. This is a sociological question. It is a sociological question. Not why divorce happens. That comes second. The sociological question is why marriage exists. What is marriage? How does it work? Why do human beings, even as children, get married with each other? Think about that first.

a classless paradise, that's what you want, and throughout history you have called for it, "we want a classless society, we want a classless society, a classless, unified society." Let me tell you something you should know: a classless society is hell. For example, if someone wanted to describe hell, they would have to describe it as classless, just as Dante even classifies hell into levels.

Putting everyone, everyone together in one place, meaning when you think in terms of human ideals, even in punishment justice should still govern you. When in the thinking of someone like Dante, even sin itself has a classification, then after life, in the world of death, in the world of the dead, that same classification exists.

Those who want a classless world for the living, it is clear that the hell they build is even worse than Dante's hell, with all its levels.

from a Freudian view of the world to a Darwinian view of the world, which understands it understands that by Darwinian nature humans must be respected and maybe it is not without reason that one of the most important differences between left and right theory in general terms, I say in general because again each of these has many branches, but generally speaking, in general terms, is over the nature of humanity.

One of the greatest disagreements between them is over the definition of human nature. Is human nature fixed or variable? This is where they fundamentally, completely diverge. That is, right-wing theory says human nature is fixed. Left-wing theory, Marx himself and the Marxists who came after him, say no, human nature is variable. It varies with the means of production.

It is historically variable, and this nature can change. All you need is to build a world where the means of production are in the hands of the workers, in the hands of the people. And then at that point it all ends. Everyone stops competing, stops fighting. But the other side says no, I know that human nature is fixed. And what is that nature? A creature that seeks conflict.

It has a combative nature, it always wants to rise above others, it loves competition. So now that humans have been defined this way, the right wing says: so I will design society in a way, I will design the economy in a way, I will design the economy in a way, I will view the human being in a way that all the conditions for this cunning nature are in its hands.

You are competitive, great, go compete in the economy, go compete in trade, compete, go compete in technology, go in fashion, go in sports, wherever you want, compete, and none of these things have a moral foundation for him. So the state he forms, the ethics he forms, will ultimately not be an ethics grounded in ethics, meaning it has nothing to do with ethics at all. Competition

You cannot expect the government to support you and then say, "Don't interfere with my hijab." It will say, "No, I am subsidizing you. I am subsidizing your bread, your gasoline, your medicine. So how can I not subsidize your clothing?" And it is right. It is right. If you want the government to stay out, if you want the government's hand out of all your private domains, then stay away from the government. Do not receive any support in the form of subsidies from the government, and do not demand it from future governments.

Now, why is revolution hard in Iran today and in 1979 it was easy? Because going back to the past is always much easier than moving forward into the future. Because you had a model, an image. The revolutionary person, the revolutionary mindset of 1979, wanted to go back to the past. That is very easy, like when you have gone somewhere and you want to go back, you turn around and return, you know the road you came from.

The person of 1979 wanted to go back to their past history, to return to the same things they had before, to return to a religion that they had idealized, to return to their village life. Constantly the village is being called out, you can see from the 1940s onward that the village keeps being invoked. When I

Iran, which for thousands of years has essentially been shaped by this kind of thinking, meaning even Ferdowsi highlights the importance of national identity in his work, he carries it forward, and it never even occurs to him that this is his personal project. He does not think of it as "this is my project." That is simply the nature of Ferdowsi's speech.

Why does he feel that it matters? Because he feels that there is a danger, meaning when a threat from outside is threatening the language, he says: I feel we are in a period that could be our great historical crisis, and through the power of language I can once again show the importance of our national mythology so that once again I can bring this nation together as one unified whole and make it understood.

We need Ferdowsis in our own time, people who have truly grasped the dangers facing Iran today and the dangers facing Iran's future, and who keep repeating it, keep reinforcing it, and keep building on it so you never forget.

Why does Afghanistan fail? Why does Syria fail today? What could have motivated an Afghan soldier to fight for his country? What about his sense of nationalism? What never allowed Afghanistan to become Afghanistan? The fact that I am Pashtun, you are Tajik, there are Hazaras. These very divisions meant they never said "we are Afghans." That is why when their entire country was under threat, they had no motivation to fight.

One would say I will defend the Hazaras, another would say no, these people are my cousins, I will defend Badakhshan. My cousins are there, I will defend Badakhshan. When they came for the Hazaras,

The concept of nationalism is a concept that does not carry those conflicts within itself. You cannot show me that nationalism among Shirazi Shias might be different from nationalism among Sunni Baluch people. This idea works so well that it can ultimately shape your agenda and save it. And nationhood is a concept that operates on a broad scale, meaning all those many languages and dialects and subcultures, all of these things are held within it, and it actually acknowledges these distinctions, and then somehow rises above all of these distinctions that a number of people have as they live together in a society, and ultimately it is in relation to that canopy that they greet one another, have relationships, have bonds, because they share a common history. But the fact that

we should have. But when you look at it from a long-term perspective, you realize that you are making this government bigger and bigger. Meaning, you are now saying let's collect taxes for healthcare, and then provide free healthcare. And then you realize that free healthcare might actually cause illnesses to multiply. Meaning, you end up producing more sick people.

If you are certain that your treatment is free, a citizen might not even think about their own health anymore. Because they have a sense of assurance that there is a place where I can go, I can go there and get treated. Or look at these state hospitals in Iran. In practice, it is like a blank check that you hold in your hand and you go and do whatever you want at the state hospital.

At four in the morning you have a slight headache, well, let me go to the state hospital. It is a state hospital after all. The doctor's fee is, say, 15,000 tomans for a visit. And just a few years ago, a visit at state hospitals was five thousand tomans. Well, five thousand tomans,

A nation without memory, a nation without memory, I say, can it have a future? Its future is confused and murky. A nation without history. Anyone who fights against history and wants to convince you that part of your history is made of ammunition, a very serious question must be asked of them. And philosophically, which part of human history, even at the individual level, is not mixed with ammunition?

We have so many personal memories of our own that are mixed with ammunition. Memories we tell about a place we went, a gathering we attended, a place we were invited to, a memorable night, our military service, a memorable night, our wedding night, the night my child was born, the day I fell in love. Are all of these not real? These are stories, meaning they are woven together through