Nationalism is often described as a "poison" because it divides people, fosters intolerance and leads to wars. Similar views, however, are frequently expressed by political analysts and columnists who present themselves as experts and authorities. They carry titles, such as doctorates, to impress audiences with their credentials. History has recorded this phenomenon in the prominent example of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. His propaganda convinced Germans that the Jews were responsible for all their misfortunes.

Nationalism does not begin by fighting with hatred. It begins much earlier. It begins the moment it removes truth from public discourse and replaces it with suspicion through insinuation. That is where its real poison lies. Not in the strength of its arguments, which are castles built on sand in any case, but in its ability to turn evidence-based discussion into a trial of intentions. Because truth is the opponent it cannot defeat.

Democracies rest on a simple yet demanding principle: ideas are challenged by ideas and arguments by arguments. When that principle is abandoned, public discourse begins to distort. The discussion shifts from content to people. The question is no longer what is being said, but who is saying it. Evidence is no longer sought; connections are. Facts are no longer assessed; suspicions are manufactured.

This mechanism can be found in totalitarian regimes, periods of political fanaticism and even democratic societies that remain silent. The objective is always the same: to discredit the speaker before their argument is even heard. Instead of questioning the position itself, attention is directed towards the person expressing it. Searches begin for "centres," "funders" and "shadowy connections." Nothing needs to be proven. It is enough for suspicion to be planted. From that point onwards, layer upon layer of mud is thrown.

The most dangerous form of propaganda is not always the outright lie. Much more effective is the half-truth: the selective use of real facts, the omission of information that does not serve the intended purpose and their connection in a way that leads the reader to certainty about who the guilty parties are. In this way, an image is created without being wholly true. Yet those who employ such methods do not avoid outright lies either. On the contrary, they often embellish them with an appearance of plausibility.

Cyprus has witnessed this method many times. Not only today, when the vipers emerged from beneath the stones because the presence of the UN Secretary-General had to be undermined. During the 2004 referendum, instead of a substantive debate on the content of the Annan Plan, much of the public discussion moved elsewhere. People who supported a "Yes" vote were portrayed as instruments of foreign interests, as individuals financed by foreign centres. The substance of their arguments was relegated to the background.

The same is happening now with the visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Nationalist pens have become factories of mudslinging. Publications based on half-truths have appeared, referring to alleged "funding" that is not substantiated. Attention should be paid to the deliberate wording. It avoids outright libel and instead seeks to create verified suspicion, exactly as happened during the referendum.

It was then that former President Tassos Papadopoulos referred to those who voted "Yes" as 'Neneki.' Unfortunately, this was not merely an insult. The term derives from the name of the military leader Nenekos, who collaborated with Ibrahim and the Turks.

The same logic presents a differing opinion as evidence of diminished patriotic consciousness. Instead of a dialogue about the country's real interests, a process of moral destruction is created. Society is divided into the "genuine" and the "sell-outs," into "patriots" and "traitors".

This is propaganda's greatest success. It does not necessarily persuade people that it is right. It persuades them that the other side is not worth listening to. And when a society stops listening, it also stops thinking freely.

Nationalism does not fear differing opinions. It fears evidence-based argument. Because that is where myths are tested against facts. And when facts become the measure of discussion, propaganda loses its power.

Democracy does not require unanimity. It does not require everyone to agree. It does require, however, acceptance that no one has the right to replace evidence with insinuation and substantiation with mudslinging. Truth belongs neither to nationalists nor to their opponents. It belongs to facts and evidence.

For this reason, the greatest patriotism is not defending one's myths. It is having the courage to confront history as it truly was. Societies do not become strong by concealing the truth. They become strong when they possess the maturity to face it, even when it is painful.

Because, in the end, the first victim of nationalism is truth itself.

Nikos Mesarites