Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Füh... erm... Parliament?

As I have written many times before, it is the goal of the Statist occupants to divide us against one another. Patrick Henry's famous motto "United we stand, divided we fall" is actually applicable to libertarians and anarchists. The Statists know very well that if the public unites they will fall, but if the public is divided they will stand - and stand strong.
Once again I have to come down hard on the issue of nationalism and even patriotism. Any loyalty to the nation-state is unhealthy and will lead to divisions. I am, for instance, a strict opponent of any European Union centralization. But this does not mean I bear any loyalty towards my own national Polish Parliament. In fact I despise the national Parliament even more since it focuses its attention on leeching blood from the Polish people - my people (they are my people not because I am assiciated with them involuntarily, but because I am of their heritage). However evil it is, however, it is always more local than any Pan-European state can ever be. What we must avoid is the confusion of these two things: that the national Parliament is good because it is local and that the national Parliament is good because it is national. Nationhood is not a sign of goodness. The Third Reich was a nation-state, but it was evil. Supranational states are not any better either as illustrated by the Soviet Union.
The difference between the Nazi Reich and the modern Germany (or any other state) is not a difference of kind - it is a difference of degree. Quite a good analogy is thinking of murder. You can kill someone swiftly and painlessly or torture them to death. But both are a type killing. The difference lies not in the result or the intention of the action, but only in the method. For purists like myself murder is murder plain and simple. Just as statism is statism. Of course in a pragmatic sense I would rather be slaughtered quickly and painlessly. But I would prefer not being killed at all!

As Samuel Langhorne Clemens (A.K.A. Mark Twain) wrote in his autobiography "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." This has always been my problem with most people, especially those who accept the nation-state as good 'for the people'. They have no arguments to back their positions... They are simply religious (i.e. patriotic) worshippers of the statist machine and should be addressed as superstitious illogical individuals.