Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

不知道多久以后我会怀念起这个时代呢？有些事物，只有失去以后才会让人回想起它的好处。

情况还能怎么样呢？每当我听到人们说体育增进了国家之间的友谊，说要是全世界的人能够在足球场或板球场上一较高下，他们就不会在战场上兵戎相见时，我总是会觉得十分惊讶。即使有人不了解铁证如山的事实（比方说，1936年的奥运会），不知道国际体育赛事会引发不共戴天的仇恨，根据常识也可以推测得出来。

如今几乎所有的体育项目都是竞技体育。进行比赛的目的就是为了获得胜利，不去拼搏争取胜利，比赛就没有意义了。在乡村绿茵球场上，当你选择哪一边球场进行比赛，没有爱国情绪掺杂进来时，或许你可以纯粹是为了乐趣或锻炼而进行比赛。然而，一旦比赛涉及到尊严问题，当你输掉比赛时，不仅是你，某个大的团体也会面目无光，你就会爆发出最为野性的战斗本能。即使是那些只是参加校园足球比赛的人也深有体会。到了国际比赛的层面，运动说白了就是一场具体而微的战争。但重要的不是球员们的行为，而是观众们的态度，以及观众们身后各个国家的态度。他们如痴似狂地投身于这些荒谬的竞赛，煞有介事地相信——至少在短时间内是这样——赛跑、跳跃、踢球这些项目是对国家价值的考验。

连板球这么一种需要优雅而不是蛮力的休闲运动，也会引起疯狂的敌意，而这一点在1921年澳大利亚板球队来访英国时朝人身上投球和采用粗野的战术这些争议做法上暴露无遗。足球是一项容易受伤的运动，每个国家都有自己踢球的风格，而外国人则认为这导致了比赛的不公，使得情况更加糟糕。最无聊的运动莫过于拳击。在这个世界上，最不堪卒睹的一幕是一个白人拳手和一个有色拳手展开拳赛，而观众里什么人都有。拳击比赛的观众总是令人十分讨厌，至于那些女性观众，她们的行为如此过分，我知道军方严令禁止她们参加由军方组织的比赛。两三年前国民自卫队和常备军之间举行了一场拳击巡回赛。我奉命把守赛场的大门，上头特别命令，不能让女人进去。

在英国，沉迷体育的风气已经够糟糕的了，而在那些新兴国家，运动与民族主义都正在蓬勃发展。在印度或缅甸这些国家，每逢有足球赛，场内都必须有严密的警察部队把守，防止观众冲入场内。我在缅甸亲眼看到一方球队的支持者在比赛的关键时刻冲破警察的防线，把对方球队的守门员打成残废。十五年前在西班牙举行的第一场重大足球比赛演变成了失控的暴乱。一旦敌对的态度被激起，遵照规则好好比赛的想法就被抛诸脑后。人们想看到的是一方球队耀武扬威，另一方球队受尽侮辱。他们忘记了靠耍诈或通过观众的干预而取得的胜利是毫无意义的。就算观众们没有以暴力的方式干预比赛，他们也会为自己的球队加油呐喊，以嘘声和侮辱“整垮”对方球员，以此影响比赛的走势。严肃的体育运动根本没有公平竞争可言，只有仇恨、嫉妒、吹嘘、蔑视规则和目睹暴力时所获得的施虐的快感：换句话说，就是没有战火和硝烟的战争。

与其喋喋不休地吹嘘足球场上的比赛是多么干净健康，说什么奥林匹克运动会让各国更加团结，倒不如思考现在这股对体育运动的狂热是如何形成的以及为什么形成。现在我们所进行的大部分运动项目都是从古代流传下来的，但从古罗马时代到十九世纪，体育运动似乎并没有这么受到重视。即使是在英国的公立学校，得等到上世纪后半叶才兴起对运动的狂热。阿诺德博士被视为现代公学的创始人，他认为体育运动纯粹只是浪费时间。然后，在英国和美国，体育运动被改造为投资不菲的活动，吸引了大批观众，挑起野性的激情，并从一个国家蔓延到另一个国家。而足球和拳击是最暴力好斗的运动，传播的范围也最广。毫无疑问的是，这整件事是与民族主义的兴起紧密联系在一起的——民族主义疯狂地将个体与象征着权力的团体联系在一起，将每件事都视为面子之争。此外，有组织的竞技体育在城市发展得更加蓬勃兴盛，因为那里的人总是过着安宁而受到种种限制的生活，没有什么机会从事创造性的劳动。在农村社区，一个小男孩或年轻人能从事散步、游泳、堆雪球、爬树、骑马和许多残忍虐待动物的活动像钓鱼、斗鸡、捕鼠，以此消磨过剩的精力。而在大城镇，一个人如果想要发泄过剩的精力或满足施虐的冲动，就只能去参加群体活动。在伦敦和纽约，如今体育运动受到了高度重视，而过去在罗马和拜占庭，体育运动也很受重视。在中世纪，体育运动或许非常暴力血腥，但它们与政治无关，也不会激起集体仇恨。

如果你要往当今世界已经如火如荼的仇恨火上浇油的话，最好的方式莫过于举行几场犹太人与阿拉伯人、德国人与捷克人、印度人与英国人、俄国人与波兰人、意大利人与南斯拉夫人之间的比赛，每场比赛组织十万个人种各异的观众去观看。当然，我不是说运动是国际敌对情绪的主要原因，我认为大型体育项目只是引发民族主义的种种成因所造成的一个结果。但是，你把十一个人组成一支队伍，称他们为国家精英，派他们出去和另一支球队进行比赛，还让所有人相信哪一支球队输了就是让国家“颜面无光”，这只会使得事情变得更加糟糕。

因此，我希望我们不要在迪纳摩队到访之后派出一支英国球队到苏联回访。要是我们必须这么做，那就让我们派出一支二流球队，这样就一定会输球，又不至于被认为这支球队代表了英国的最高水平。现在麻烦的事情已经够多了，我们不能再雪上加霜，鼓动年轻人在狂热的观众的呐喊声中互相飞铲对方的胫骨。

节选自奥威尔的一篇小短文《论体育精神》

https://twtr.plus/
据说可以将Twitter的部分内容整合进Mastodon。

中文中有“Trolls”的对应词吗？

《民族主义小记》是乔治·奥威尔在1945年写成的一篇文章，文中对民族主义的含义进行了很有价值的延伸（这一含义也许更接近当代英语中的“tribalism”），在这里，民族主义所依附的对象并不仅是可以某个特定的国家，而同样也可能是某个意识形态，某种肤色，或是某种阶级。此外，民族主义既可以表现成一种狂热的忠诚，也可以表现成一种狂热的仇恨—过于狂热，以至于使人失去了基本的常识理性和是非观念，与现实世界相脱节。本文精准地把握了民族主义的实质，并对民族主义和爱国主义进行了简洁明了的区分。从这篇文章中，人们既能感受到彼时世界的动荡不安，也能从中这个动荡不安的时代中看到历史的相似之处，明白当下世界中的许多问题的渊源所在。

在我上文尝试进行的分类中，我似乎夸大其词，过于简单武断，作出没有根据的判断并忽略了正当的动机。这是不可避免的，因为在这篇文章里我在尝试将存在于我们的脑海里并扭曲我们的思想的倾向一一分离并加以辨识，这些倾向不一定会以纯粹的状态出现，也不一定会一直发挥影响。在这里有必要更正一下我刚才不得不将其过度简化的图景。首先，一个人没有权利认为每个人或每个知识分子都受到民族主义的影响。其次，民族主义的影响或许是断断续续和有限的。一个知识分子或许会在一定程度上屈服于一个他知道很荒唐的信仰，他可能很久都不会想起这一信仰，只有在愤怒或伤感的时候，或当他很肯定无伤大雅的时候才会重新想起它。第三，一个人或许会出于真诚和非民族主义的动机接纳民族主义信条。第四，几种民族主义，即使它们之间互相矛盾，也可以在同一个人身上并存。
<br/>
我一直在说“民族主义者这般这般”或“民族主义者那般那般”，并以那些极端的、几乎无法理喻的人作为例子，他们无法做到恪守中立，除了权力斗争之外对什么都不感兴趣。事实上，这种人非常普遍，但没有必要为了他们耗费弹药。在真实的生活中，你要和埃尔顿爵士、丹尼斯·诺维尔·普里特、休斯顿夫人、埃兹拉·庞德、瓦尼斯塔爵士、科弗林神父等这些让人觉得很郁闷的人进行斗争，但他们在思想上的缺陷几乎不需要指出来。偏执狂并不是一件有趣的事情，事实上，没有哪个思想狭隘的民族主义者能写出一本在几年后仍然值得一读的书籍，这一事实肯定有一定的启示意义。但当你承认民族主义还没有全面获胜时，承认这世上仍然有些人的判断力能够不受他们的欲望影响时，有些紧迫的问题——印度、波兰、巴勒斯坦、西班牙内战、莫斯科审判、美国黑人、苏德等等诸如此类的事情——仍然无法在理性的层面上进行探讨，至少还未以理性的方式探讨过。埃尔顿、普里特和科弗林等人都只会张口闭口反反复复地说着同样的谎言，他们显然是极端的例子，但如果我们不意识到在没有防备的时候我们都会变得和他们一样，那是在自欺欺人。提及某个问题，或进入某个领域——或许那是从来没有预料到的领域——想法最公正、脾气最温和的人可能也会突然间变成一个恶毒的结党营私的人，一心只想压倒他的对手，对自己说了多少谎言或在说谎时犯了多少逻辑错误并不在乎。劳合·乔治反对布尔战争，当他在下议院放言，政府公报里所声称的被击毙的布尔军人数累加起来，要比整个布尔族的人口还要多时，据记载，亚瑟·贝尔福曾愤然起身，叫嚷道：“下流坯子！”很少有人能抵抗像这样的情绪失控。被一个白人妇女辱骂的黑人、听到英国被美国人无知地批评的英国人、听到西班牙无敌舰队的天主教护教者都会作出相同的反应。**挑逗一下民族主义的神经，思想的体面就会烟消云散，过去可以被篡改，最确凿的事实也可以被否认。**
<br/>
要是一个人的心中怀有民族主义式的忠诚或仇恨，某些事实虽然知道是真的，他也不愿意承认。这里只给出几个例子。下面我会列举五种民族主义者，每一种我附上一个这类民族主义者不可能接受的事实，即使是暗地里想想也不行。
<br/>
英国托利党人：这场战争结束后，英国的实力和威望将被削弱。
<br/>
共产党人：要是俄国没有得到英国和美国协助的话，可能已经被德国人打败了。
<br/>
爱尔兰民族主义者：因为英国的保护，爱尔兰才能保持独立。
<br/>
托派分子：俄国人民接受了斯大林的政权。
<br/>
和平主义者：那些“放弃”暴力的人是因为别人替他们实施暴力才能这么做。
<br/>
要是不加上感情色彩的话，这些事实都是非常明显的。但在上面所指的每种人看来，它们是不可忍受，因此它们必须被加以否定，并且为了否定而捏造出荒谬的理论来。回到我说过的当前这场战争中令人目瞪口呆的军事预言的落空。知识分子对这场战争的进程的设想比起普罗大众犯了更多的错误，而且他们更受党派情感的左右，我想这么说确实不为过。比方说，左翼知识分子普遍认为在1940年我们就输掉了这场战争，德国人将在1942年占领埃及，日本人将不会被逐出他们已经征服的地区，英国和美国的轰炸攻势对德国毫无影响。他们能够相信这些看法，因为他们对英国统治阶级的仇恨不允许他们承认英国的作战计划会取得成功。如果一个人被这种情感影响，那他什么样的傻事都做得出来。比方说，我曾听到有人信誓旦旦地说美国军队来到欧洲不是为了打德国人，而是镇压英国的革命。只有知识分子才会相信这样的说法，没有哪个普通人会这么笨。当希特勒入侵俄国时，新闻部的官员发布了内部消息，说俄国将在六个星期内土崩瓦解。另一方面，那些共产党员认定这场战争的每一阶段都是俄国的胜利，即使俄国人几乎被赶到里海，数百万人沦为俘虏。不需要再列举例子了。**关键的一点是，一旦涉及到恐惧、仇恨、嫉妒和权力崇拜，对现实的把握就乱了方寸。还有，正如我已经指出的，是非对错的观念也会混淆。如果是事情是“我们自己人”做的，那就绝对没有罪行，没有什么可谴责的。即使你不否认罪行已经发生，即使你知道那是你在别的情况下会进行谴责的罪行，即使你理智地承认那是不正当的行为——但你仍然不会觉得那是错的。但事关忠诚时，同情心就不再起作用。**
<br/>
民族主义为何兴起和传播是一个宏大的问题，在这里没办法进行探讨。它似乎是英国知识分子对外部世界正在发生的可怕斗争的扭曲反映，单说这一点就足够了。由于爱国主义和宗教信仰的瓦解，再愚蠢的事情都有可能发生。如果你顺着这一思路发展下去，你就有可能陷入某种保守主义或政治虚无主义。例如，你可以振振有词地争辩说爱国主义能预防民族主义，君主制能防止独裁，而有组织的宗教能防止迷信——这些说法甚至有可能是事实。又或者，你可以争辩说没有什么观念是没有偏见的，所有的信念和事业都包含了同样的谎言、罪恶和野蛮。这总是被当作完全置身于政治之外的理由。我不接受这一论述，即使仅仅只是因为**在当代世界，没有哪个知识分子能够置身于政治之外，不去在乎它。我认为一个人必须投身政治——我指的是广义的政治——而且一个人必须有所选择，也就是说，你必须认识到某些事业在客观上要比其它事业更好一些，即使它们是以同样卑劣的手段去实现的。至于我所提到的民族主义的爱与恨，无论我们喜不喜欢，它们都是构成我们中大多数人的一部分。我不知道能不能将这些情感排除掉，但我相信与它们进行斗争是可能的，而这在本质上是道德的努力。**问题的实质是，首先，**你要了解真实的自我，你真正的情感是什么**，然后认识到不可避免的偏见的存在。如果你仇恨、害怕俄国，如果你嫉妒美国的财富和实力，如果你鄙视犹太人，如果你看不起英国的统治阶级，你无法单靠思考就摆脱这些情感，**但至少你能认识到你有这些想法，不让它们左右你的思想。对于政治行动来说，感情冲动是不可避免的，甚至可能是必要的，应该能够与对现实的接纳并存。**但我要再强调一遍，这需要道德上的努力，而当代英语文学在探讨我们这个时代的主要问题时，表明我们当中没有几个人愿意去作出这番努力。

我已经尽自己的最大努力去探讨所有形式的民族主义的思维习惯。接下来就是对这些形式进行分类，但显然我无法完整地将它们罗列出来。民族主义是个宏大的主题。这个世界受到无尽的幻想和仇恨的折磨，因为它们而陷入错综复杂的分裂状态，它们当中最丑陋狰狞的一面还不为欧洲人所知。在本文中我要探讨的是英国知识分子里的民族主义。他们比普通人更受民族主义的影响，但没有夹杂爱国主义，因此能够单独进行分析。下面我列出了如今在英国知识分子群体中盛行的几种民族主义，并加上了似乎必要的评论。用三个标签进行归类会很方便：积极的民族主义、移情的民族主义和消极的民族主义。不过有的民族主义形式可以被归入不止其中的一类：
<br/>
## 积极的民族主义
<br/>
一、新保守主义。其代表人物有埃尔顿爵士、艾伦·帕特里克·赫尔伯特、乔治·马尔康·杨格、皮克松教授，保守党改革委员会出版的杂志，还有诸如《新英语评论》和《十九世纪及其未来》这些杂志。新保守主义与传统的保守主义不同，它有着民族主义的特征，其真正动机是不愿意承认英国的实力和影响已经江河日下。即使那些清楚地认识到英国的军事地位已今非昔比的人也会宣传“英国的理念”（总是语焉不详）必将主宰世界。所有的新保守主义者都是反俄派，但有时候其着重点是反美主义。重要的是，这一思潮似乎正在年轻的知识分子中渐渐普及，还有一部分人是前共产主义者，他们通常都经历了理想幻灭的过程。许多原本反对英国的人突然变成坚定的亲英派。体现了这一趋势的作家有弗雷德里克·奥古斯都·沃伊特、马尔康姆·马格理奇、伊夫林·沃、休·金斯米尔，而托马斯·斯特恩斯·艾略特、温德汉姆·刘易斯和众多他们的追随者在思想上也经历了类似的发展过程。
<br/>
二、凯尔特民族主义。威尔士、爱尔兰和苏格兰的民族主义各有不同，但相同的是，它们都持反英立场。这三个运动的成员都反对这场战争，一直都宣称自己是亲俄派，那些狂热分子甚至声称自己同时是亲俄派和亲纳粹派。但凯尔特民族主义与仇英情绪并不是一回事。它的动力是对凯尔特人在过去和未来一直都是伟大民族的信仰，拥有强烈的种族主义色彩。凯尔特人被认为在思想上比萨克逊人更加出色——更加单纯，更有创造力，没有那么低俗，没有那么势利等等——隐藏在下面的是司空见惯的权力欲。其中一个迹象就是认为爱尔兰、苏格兰甚至威尔士能在没有援助的情况下保持独立，不需要得到英国的保护的错觉。持这一思想的作家有克里斯朵夫·穆雷·格里夫和肖恩·奥卡西。没有哪一个当代的爱尔兰作家能完全不带一丝民族主义的痕迹，就连叶芝或乔伊斯这样的伟大作家也不能。
<br/>
三、犹太复国主义。这是一场不同寻常的民族主义运动，但它在美国的变种比英国的变种似乎更加暴戾。我把它归入了直接而非移情的民族主义，因为它几乎只在犹太人的群体中盛行。在英国，出于几个互相矛盾的原因，大部分知识分子在巴勒斯坦问题上都支持犹太人，但他们对此并没有强烈的情绪。所有善良的英国人也都支持犹太人，因为他们反对纳粹对犹太人的迫害。但在非犹太人的族群里，几乎找不到对犹太人的民族忠诚或认为犹太人天生就是优越民族的人。
移情式的民族主义
<br/>
一、共产主义。
<br/>
二、政治天主教主义。
<br/>
三、肤色情感。旧式的对于“土著居民”的轻蔑态度在英国已经式微，许多强调白种人优越性的伪科学理论已经被抛弃了。**在知识群体当中，肤色情感只会以颠倒的形式出现，也就是说，相信有色人种与生俱来的优越性。这一情感如今在英国知识分子中越来越普遍，而这或许源自越来越普遍的受虐心态和性挫折，而不是与东方和黑人民族主义运动接触的结果。即使是那些对肤色问题并没有强烈情感的人，势利和模仿也有很大的影响。几乎任何英国知识分子都耻于说白人要比有色人种更优越，而即使他不认同有色人种比白人优越这一论调，他也会觉得它是无可指摘的理论。寄托于有色人种之上的民族主义总是和认为他们的性生活更加美妙的想法联系在一起，坊间还流传黑人拥有无与伦比的性能力。**
<br/>
四、阶级情感。在上流阶级和中产阶级的知识分子中，这一情感只会以颠倒的形式出现——那就是，对无产阶级优越性的信念。在知识分子群体内部，公共舆论同样具有强大的压迫力。**对无产阶级的民族主义式的忠诚，对资产阶级的最恶毒的、理论上的仇恨，总是能和日常生活中的势利并存。**
<br/>
五、和平主义。绝大部分的和平主义者要么属于隐秘的宗教派别，要么是人道主义者，反对残害生命，不希望进一步推进自己的思想。但有一小撮崇尚和平的知识分子真实但没有表露的动机似乎是对西方民主体制的仇恨和对极权体制的向往。和平主义者的宣传总是含糊地说某一方和另一方其实都不是好人，但如果你仔细阅读年轻一辈的和平主义知识分子的作品，你会发现他们根本没有表达持平而论的否定，而是几乎完全和英国和美国对着干。而且他们没有一以贯之地谴责暴力，只是谴责在保卫西方国家时所使用的暴力。他们并没有像指责英国人那样指责俄国人以战争手段保卫自己。事实上，所有这类和平主义宣传都避免提及俄国或中国。他们没有说印度人在与英国人斗争时应该放弃暴力。在和平主义者的文学作品里充斥着模棱两可的言论，如果它们真有意义的话，它们似乎在说像希特勒这样的政治家要好过像丘吉尔这样的政治家，而如果暴力真的够残暴的话，或许就可以原谅。法国沦陷之后，那些法国和平主义者在面对一个他们的英国同仁还不需要面对的真正抉择时，他们当中大部分人投靠了纳粹。在英国，似乎有一小部分人既是和平誓约联盟的成员，又是黑衫党的成员。和平主义作家写过一些称赞卡莱尔的文章，而卡莱尔是法西斯主义的精神教父之一。总而言之，很难不觉得知识分子群体所展现出的和平主义是在偷偷地崇拜暴力和达到目的的残暴手段。它的错误是将这种感情寄托在希特勒身上，但要再度转移也是很容易的事情。
<br/>
## 消极的民族主义
<br/>
一、仇英情绪。在知识分子内部，对于英国的轻蔑和略带敌对的态度或多或少成了一种强迫症。但在许多情况下，这是一种无法伪装的感情。在这场战争期间，它的展现形式是知识分子的失败主义论调，在轴心国势力的失败已成定局之后还持续了很长一段时间。当新加坡沦陷或英国人被逐出希腊时，许多人毫不掩饰自己的高兴，而且他们很不情愿相信捷报，比方说，阿拉曼战役或不列颠空战中德国战机被击落的数量。当然，英国的左翼知识分子其实不希望德国人或日本人赢得战争，**但许多人看到自己的祖国蒙受耻辱时心里忍不住感到高兴。他们想看到最后的胜利将归功于俄国或美国，而不是英国。**在外交政策方面，许多知识分子信奉的是“凡是英国支持的一方必定是错的”这一原则。结果，所谓的“开明”思想在很大程度上就是保守党政策的镜像。仇英情绪总是会反转的，因此就有了那司空见惯的一幕：上一场战争中的和平主义者到了下一场战争就成了好战分子。
<br/>
二、反犹主义。目前关于这一点并没有多少证据，因为纳粹的迫害已经让任何有思考能力的人与犹太人站在同一阵营，共同对抗他们的压迫者。任何受过教育并听说过“反犹主义”这个词语的人当然都会宣扬自己不受其影响。在所有阶层的文学作品中，反犹主义的言论被精心删去。事实上，反犹主义似乎影响广泛，甚至蔓延到知识分子内部，而保持缄默的共谋或许使得情况更加糟糕。思想左倾的人概莫能外，他们的态度有时候受到托派分子和无政府主义分子通常都是犹太人这一事实的影响。不过，有保守思想的人更容易受反犹主义的影响。他们认为犹太人败坏了民族精神和民族文化。新保守主义和政治天主教主义总是会屈从于反犹主义，至少时不时会这样。
<br/>
三、托洛茨基主义。这个词的含义很空泛，包括无政府主义者、民主社会主义者，甚至自由主义者。在这里我用它指恪守教条的马克思主义者，他们的主要目标是反对斯大林的统治。研究托洛茨基主义，研究那些晦涩的宣传手册或像《社会主义宣言》这样的文章要比研究托洛茨基本人的作品更好，因为他并没有一以贯之的理念。虽然在一些地方，比方说美国，托洛茨基主义能够吸引数目相当多的追随者，并发展成一场有组织的运动，拥有自己的小小元首，它的启示在本质上是消极的。托洛茨基分子反对斯大林，而共产党员则拥戴斯大林。和大部分共产党员一样，他们改造外部世界的愿望并没有在面子之争中获胜的愿望那么强烈。他们总是钻牛角尖，不能以可能性为基础得出真正符合理性的意见。托洛茨基分子在世界各地遭受迫害，总是被指控与法西斯分子合作，这显然是不实的指控。有人认为托洛茨基主义在智力上和道德上要比共产主义更加优越。但是，无法肯定这两个群体之间是否有很大的差别。最典型的托派分子，原本都是共产党员，经历了某场左翼运动而信奉托洛茨基主义。除了那些入党多年的共产党员之外，其他共产党员随时可能投身托洛茨基主义的怀抱。相反的情况似乎没有那么频繁地发生，至于为什么就不清楚了。

显然，切斯特顿所阐述的政治天主教主义和共产主义有许多相似之处。而这两者与苏格兰民族主义、犹太复国主义、反犹主义或托洛茨基主义也有许多相似之处。要说所有形式的民族主义都一样，甚至连它们的精神氛围也一样，未免过于武断。但有几条原则适用于所有的情况。下面是民族主义思想的几个主要特征：
<br/>
**偏执。**民族主义者的所思所言所写几乎就只有他自己的团体的优越性。要民族主义者隐藏其忠贞即使并非不可能，也是很难做到的事情。只要对他的小团体稍有诋毁或称赞它的对手，他就会立刻感觉不痛快，必须尖刻地予以反驳才能心安。如果他所选择的团体是一个国家，比如说爱尔兰或印度，通常他会声称它不仅在军事力量和政治品质上有其优越性，而且艺术、文学、运动、语言结构、人民的体格美态甚至气候、风景和厨艺都更了不起。他会对诸如旗帜的正确摆放、新闻标题的字体大小和不同国家的名字先后顺序非常敏感。命名法在民族主义思想中起着非常重要的作用。那些赢得独立或经历了民族起义革命的国家总是会更换名字，任何有着强烈情感的国家或团体一般会起几个名字，每一个名字都有不同的含义。西班牙内战的交战双方加起来有不下九到十个名字，表达不同程度的爱与恨。有些名字（例如佛朗哥的支持者叫“爱国者”，政府的支持者叫“忠勇军”）让人摸不着头脑，没有哪一个名字是敌对双方达成一致，共同使用的。所有的民族主义者都视传播自己的语言以压倒对手的语言为己任，在说英语的民族中，这一斗争以方言之争这种更加隐晦的形式出现。仇视英国的美国人如果知道某一句俚语是出自英国时，会拒绝使用它，而拉丁语推行者和日耳曼语推行者之间的斗争背后总是有民族主义的动机。苏格兰民族主义者坚称苏格兰低地民族的优越性，而社会主义者的民族主义以对英国广播电台的口音发起阶级仇恨的谩骂作为形式这样的例子不胜枚举。民族主义甚至总是让人觉得有信奉交感巫术的色彩——这或许是因为焚烧政敌的肖像或拿他们的肖像当箭靶这一普遍行为而引发的。
<br/>
**不稳定性。**民族主义者的忠诚感很强烈，但它是可以转移的。首先，正如我已经指出的，它们能够而且经常被指向异国。你经常会发现伟大的民族领袖或民族主义运动的创始人甚至不属于他们所膜拜赞美的国家。有时候他们是彻彻底底的外国人，更普遍的情况是，他们来自国籍不明的周边地区。比如说斯大林、希特勒、拿破仑、德·瓦勒拉、迪斯雷利、庞加莱、比弗布鲁克。泛日耳曼运动在部分程度上是英国人休斯顿·张伯伦缔造的。过去五十年到一百年来，民族主义的移情在文坛知识分子里是普遍现象。拉弗卡迪奥·赫恩移情的对象是日本，卡莱尔和其他许多人的移情对象是德国，而在我们的时代，许多人则转投俄国阵营。但特别有趣的是，再次移情的情况也有可能发生。一个被推崇多年的国家或团体可能突然间变得面目可憎，热情被转移到另一个目标上，中间几乎没有过渡。在赫伯特·乔治·威尔斯的《历史大纲》第一版和其它同一时间的作品中，你会发现美国被夸到了天上，就像今天的共产主义者夸俄国一样。但是，几年后这一不加批判的崇拜就变成了仇视。固执的共产主义者在几个星期内，甚至几天内就变成了同样固执的托派分子是司空见惯的事情。在欧洲大陆，法西斯运动的很多成员原本是共产主义者，而接下来的几年很可能会发生相反的过程。民族主义者不变的是他的精神状况，而他的情感对象是可以改变的，还可能是虚构的。
<br/>
但对于一个知识分子来说，我在提到切斯特顿的时候已经讲过，移情是一个重要的功能。它使得他的民族主义情绪能够远远超出他在为自己的祖国或任何他有切实了解的团体鼓噪时所能达到的程度——更加粗俗，更加愚蠢，更加歹毒，更加虚伪。当你看到由非常明智感性的人所撰写的关于斯大林和红军等等奴颜婢膝或肉麻吹捧的垃圾文字时，你会意识到只有在某种形式的思想错位发生时这种情况才有可能出现。在像我们这样的社会，任何被称为知识分子的人对自己的祖国怀有深切的情感是罕见的事情。公共舆论——他作为一个知识分子所意识到的公共舆论——不允许他这么做。他身边的大部分人都在愤世嫉俗和怨天尤人，出于模仿或纯粹只是出于怯懦，他或许就会形成同样的态度。那样一来，虽然他放弃了最触手可及的民族主义思想，但他并不会拥有真正的国际主义思想。他仍然觉得需要一个祖国，自然而然地会到国外去寻找。找到之后，他会毫无节制地沉溺于那些他认为自己已经摆脱了的情感。上帝、国王、帝国、米字旗——所有被打倒的偶像改头换面之后重新出现，而由于它们的本质没有被认出来，它们可以被安心地崇拜。民族主义的移情就像替罪羊一样，是在不改变一个人的行为的前提下获得救赎的方式。
<br/>
**对现实麻木不仁。**所有的民族主义者都能做到对性质相同的事实之间的相似性视而不见。一个英国托利党人会捍卫欧洲自决，却反对印度这么做，而不会感觉自相矛盾。行为的好与坏并不取决于它们自身，而是取决于是谁在施行。几乎所有的暴行——虐待、使用人质、强制劳动、人口迁徙、未经审判判处监禁、捏造事实、刺杀、轰炸平民——如果是“自己人”做的，其道德色彩就会改变。自由党的《新闻纪实报》刊登了德国人吊死俄国人的照片，作为骇人听闻的暴行的例子，一两年后它以热情赞赏的态度刊登了俄国人吊死德国人的类似照片。历史事件的情况也是一样，总是以民族主义对其进行解读。像宗教裁判所、星室法庭和英国海盗的酷刑（例如，弗朗西斯·德雷克爵士喜欢将西班牙战俘活活淹死）、白色恐怖、镇压兵变的英雄们将数以百计的印度人绑上炮口轰出去、克伦威尔的士兵用剃刀割开爱尔兰妇女的脸庞这些事情，当人们觉得它们是为了“正义”的事业而做的，它们就都成了于道德无损甚至值得嘉奖的行为。如果你回顾过去四分之一个世纪以来的历史，你会发现几乎没有哪一年不会从世界的某个地方传来暴行的报道。但是，这些惨案中没有哪一件——西班牙、俄罗斯、中国、匈牙利、墨西哥、阿姆利则、士麦那的惨剧——会被英国的全体知识分子相信和谴责。这些事情是否应该加以谴责，甚至它们是否发生过，总是取决于政治倾向。
<br/>
民族主义者不仅不会去谴责自己人犯下的暴行，而且还能对它们做到充耳不闻。六年多来，那些英国的希特勒崇拜者故意不知道达豪集中营和布痕瓦尔德集中营的存在。而那些斥责德国集中营时声音最响亮的人，总是不知道俄国也有集中营，或者所知甚少。像1933年乌克兰大饥荒这样的数百万人死去的重大事件就没有引起大部分英国亲俄派的关注。许多英国人对这场战争中德国和波兰犹太人遭遇的灭绝行动几乎一无所知。他们自身的反犹主义让这桩滔天的罪行从他们的意识中溜了过去。在民族主义者的思想中，事实可以既是真实的，又是不真实的，既是知道的，又是不知道的。一件已知的事实或许如此不堪忍受，总是被推到一边，不被允许进入逻辑思考过程，又或者它可以被纳入考虑中，但从来不被承认是事实，就算是在自己内心承认也不行。
<br/>
每一个民族主义者都受到“历史是可以被改变的”这一信念的困扰。他的一部分时间沉溺于一个梦幻世界里，在那里发生的都是原本应该发生的事情——比方说，西班牙的无敌舰队获得了胜利，1918年的俄国革命被镇压下去——只要有可能，他就会将那个世界的某个片段搬到历史书里。我们这个时代的许多宣传作品都是捏造的。史实被打压，日期被修改，话语被断章取义和精心篡改以改变它们的意思。任何觉得不应该发生的事件都避而不提并最终予以否认。1927年蒋介石活活烹死了数以百计的共产党人，而十年后他成为了左翼人士的英雄之一。世界政治的势力重组让他投身于反法西斯阵营，因此杀害共产党人的罪行“既往不咎”，或可能从来没有发生过。政治宣传的主要目的当然是影响时下的意见，但那些重写历史的人或许在部分程度上真的相信他们在将事实塞入历史中。当你思考那些用以证明托洛茨基并未在俄国内战中扮演重要角色的精心捏造的谎言时，你很难觉得那些做出这种事情的人只是在撒谎。更加可能的情况是，他们感觉那个版本的叙事才是上帝眼中的历史，因此他们篡改事实是正义之举。
<br/>
世界各地之间的封闭加剧了对客观真相的漠视。这使得了解真相变得越来越难。人们总是对大事打心眼里感到疑惑。比方说，要对当前这场战争的死亡人数统计精确到百万甚至千万是不可能的事情。经常被报道的那些惨剧——战斗、屠杀、饥荒、革命——让普通人产生了恍如梦幻的感觉。你没有途径去确认这些事情，甚至不能完全肯定这些事情真的发生了，而且总是从不同的渠道看到完全不同的解读。1944年8月的华沙起义到底是对是错？德国人在波兰的毒气炉是真是假？谁才是孟加拉大饥荒的罪魁祸首？或许真相是可以被发掘的，但几乎任何报纸都不会诚实地报道事实，而普通的读者如果相信了谎言或没有什么想法是可以原谅的。真相总是无法得以肯定，这使得依附疯狂的信仰变得更加容易。由于没有什么事情能够被证实或证伪，最确凿无疑的事实也会被肆无忌惮地加以否认。而且，虽然民族主义者总是念念不忘权力、胜利、失败、复仇，他们总是对现实世界里所发生的事情并不感兴趣。他想要的是觉得己方压过他方，而要做到这一点，对他来说，打嘴仗比寻求事实的支持更加容易。所有的民族主义争议都是辩论社的水平。结果总是不了了之，因为每一位辩论者都相信自己获得了胜利。有的民族主义者几乎就是精神分裂症患者，快乐地活在权力和征服的迷梦中，与现实世界完全脱节。

# 民族主义小记

<br/>
拜伦在某处用了“longeur”这个法语单词，并顺便提到，虽然我们没有这个英语单词，但这种情况多的是。同样地，有一种思维方式如今非常普遍，影响了我们对于每一个问题的思考，但还没有被赋予名字。在现有的名词中我选择了最接近其内涵的“民族主义”这个词，但你很快就会发现我用的并不是这个词的一般含义，这只是因为我所谈论的情感并不总是和民族联系在一起——民族指的是某一个种族或地域的人。它可以用以指代一个教会或一个阶层，或者只是消极意义上的抵制某个事物，并不需要有任何积极意义上的忠诚的对象。
<br/>
说到“民族主义”，我首先指的是认为人可以像昆虫那样分门别类，可以给数百万乃至数千万人贴上“好人”或“坏人”的标签这一思维定式。但其次——这一点更加重要——我是说**一个人对一个国家或一个团体产生了认同感，将其凌驾于善恶之上，并认为除了维护它的利益之外再无其它责任。**
<br/>
**民族主义不能和爱国主义混为一谈。这两个词的用法都很模糊，对其加以任何诠释都会引起争论，但你必须在二者之间划清界限，因为它们涉及到两个不同的甚至是相抵触的概念。“爱国主义”我指的是一个人对某一个地方和某一种生活方式充满了解和热爱，认为它们就是世界上最好的，但并不希望强迫他人接受。爱国主义的本质无论军事上还是文化上都是防御性的。而民族主义则与对权力的欲望是分不开的。每个民族主义者一以贯之的目的就是攫取更大的权力和更高的权威，不是为了自己，而是为了他所选择的吞没其个体身份的国家或团体。**
<br/>
如果它只是被用于描述更加明显、臭名昭著的德国和日本等国的民族主义运动，所有这一切都再明显不过。当我们面对纳粹主义这一现象，从外部进行观察时，我们几乎所有人都会对它作出相同的评价。但在这里我必须重复上文说过的内容——我用了“民族主义”这个词，是因为没有更贴切的词语可供使用。在我使用“民族主义”时，它的延伸含义包括了诸如共产主义、政治天主教主义、犹太复国运动、反犹主义、托洛茨基主义与和平主义。它不一定表示对政府或国家的忠诚，更谈不上对祖国的忠诚，严格来说，它所涉及的团体甚至不一定真的存在。举几个明显的例子：犹太人、伊斯兰教、基督教国家、无产阶级和白种人，都是热烈的民族主义情怀的对象，但它们存在与否却值得进行严肃的质疑。它们当中没有任何一个拥有能够被广泛接受的定义。
<br/>
值得再次强调的是，民族主义的情绪可能是完全消极的。比方说，托派分子成为与苏联不共戴天的敌人，而又缺乏对某个组织的忠诚。当你理解了这些含义时，我所说的民族主义的本质就变得更加清晰明了。 **一个民族主义者指的是一心只想着或考虑的重点只有争权夺利的人。他可能是一个积极的或消极的民族主义者——他的精神力量可能用于鼓励打气或诬蔑诽谤——但他一心只想着胜利、失败、荣誉和羞辱。他眼中的历史，尤其是当代历史，只有强权势力无休止的起起落落，在他看来，每一个事件都象征着己方的阵营蒸蒸日上，而被痛恨的敌方阵营江河日下。** 但最后我要说的是，不能把民族主义和对成功的膜拜混为一谈。民族主义者并不会遵循投靠最强的一方这一原则。正好相反，在选择了解自己的阵营后，他会说服自己所选择的阵营就是最强大的，即使在全然对己不利的事实面前也能坚持自己的信仰。民族主义是自欺欺人的对权力的饥渴症。 **每个民族主义者都能做出最厚颜无耻的卑鄙勾当，但由于他知道自己是在为某个比自己更崇高的事物服务，他还坚定不移地相信自己是正义的一方。**
<br/>
现在，在我进行了这番冗长的定义后，我想应该承认我所谈论的这种思维方式在英国知识分子中的传播比在人民群众中的传播更加广泛。对于那些对当代政治深有体会的人来说，某些问题被理解为面子问题的流毒如此之深，以至于要进行真正理性的思考几乎是不可能的事情。你可以举出数百个例子，但单举一例，想想这个问题：在同盟国的三大势力苏联、英国和美国中，哪一方对打败德国贡献最大？理论上应该可以对这个问题的答案作出一番合理的甚至决定性的解答。但在实践中，必要的计算无从实施，因为任何愿意琢磨这么一个问题的人都不可避免地会从面子之争的角度去看待它。因此他会先决定自己倾向于对俄国、英国或美国有怎样的看法，然后才开始寻找似乎能支持自己的看法的论证。类似的问题还有一长串，你只能从对整个问题能淡然处之的人那里得到诚实的答案，而他的观点可能根本没有价值。因此，部分程度上，我们这个时代在政治和军事预测上遭受了严重的挫折。奇怪的是，所有思想流派的所有专家，没有一个人能够预见到1939年俄国与德国签订条约这么一件很有可能会发生的事情。当条约破裂的消息传出时，对它的解释可谓五花八门，预测刚被提出就立刻得修改，几乎每一个预测都不是建立在对可能性的研究之上，而是基于一厢情愿，想将苏联渲染成正义或邪恶、强大或弱小的一方。政治或军事的评论家就像占星师一样，犯了什么样的错误都可以继续胡诌下去，因为他们那些更加热切的信众并不指望他们对事实进行评估，而是寻求民族主义忠诚的鼓舞。美学上的评论，特别是文学评论，就像政治评论一样被败坏了。要一个印度民族主义者喜欢读吉卜林的作品或一个保守党人在马雅可夫斯基身上看到优点大抵上是很困难的事情，你总是面临着这个诱惑：因为你不认同某一本书的思想倾向，所以从文学的角度看它一定是一部蹩脚的作品。有着强烈民族主义世界观的人总是没有意识到自己在不诚恳地玩弄这一手段。
<br/>
在英国，如果你只是考虑人数，或许最普遍的民族主义形式是旧式的英国沙文主义。可以确定地说，这一思想仍然广泛传播，比大部分观察者在十几年前所相信的更广为流传。但是，在本文中我所关心的主要是知识分子的反动思想，在他们当中，沙文主义和老式的爱国主义几乎已经死去，虽然现在似乎在少数人身上得以复兴。在知识分子群体中，不消说，占据了主导地位的民族主义是共产主义——这个词取的是它的广义，既包括共产党员，也包括其“同路人”和笼统的亲俄派。我这里所说的共产主义者指的是以苏联为自己的祖国，认为自己的责任就是为俄国的政策辩护并不惜任何代价捍卫俄国利益的人。显然，今天英国有很多这样的人，他们的直接和间接影响非常巨大。但许多其它形式的民族主义也在蓬勃发展，通过留意不同的甚至似乎互相矛盾的思想潮流之间的相似之处，你能最好地理解这个问题。
<br/>
在十到二十年前，与今天的共产主义最接近的民族主义形式是政治上的天主教主义。它最杰出的代表——虽然他或许是一个极端个案，并不具有代表性——是吉尔伯特·基思·切斯特顿。切斯特顿是一个才华横溢的作家，为了罗马天主教的宣传事业，他压抑了自己的敏锐性和思想诚实。在他生命中的最后二十年，他所写的东西其实是在不停地重复着同样的内容，就像《以弗所书里伟大的戴安娜女神》那样刻意卖弄小聪明，却又思想简单，令人觉得很沉闷。他写的每一本书和每一段对话都是在最大限度地错误地展现天主教比新教或非基督教更加优越。但切斯特顿并不满足于认为这一优越只是思想层面上或精神层面上的优越，它还体现在民族尊严和军事实力上，这意味着盲目无知地将拉丁国家理想化，尤其是法国。切斯特顿在法国居住的时间并不长，他对法国的描绘——天主教的农民不停地喝着红酒高唱着《马赛曲》——与现实的联系就好像《朱清周》与巴格达的日常生活的联系。他不仅高估了法国的军事实力（在1914—1918年的一战前后，他认定法国单凭一己之力就比德国更加强大），而且愚蠢低俗地赞美战争的实际进程。切斯特顿描写战斗的诗作，例如《勒班陀》或《圣芭芭拉的民谣》使得《轻骑兵冲锋》这首诗读起来就好像是和平主义者的宣传册。它们或许是英语中最低俗的描写。有趣的是，要是有人以他惯用的赞美法国和法国军队的手法去描写英国和英国军队，他会是第一个予以嘲讽的人。在内政上他是一个英格兰本土主义者，对沙文主义和帝国主义真的深恶痛绝，而且他真心拥戴民主。但是，当他展望世界时，他就抛弃了自己的原则，甚至不知道自己正在这么做。因此，他对民主几乎可以用神秘主义加以形容的信念并不能阻止他崇拜墨索里尼。墨索里尼摧毁了代议制政府和出版自由，而这些是切斯特顿在英国孜孜以求的。但墨索里尼是个意大利人，让意大利走向强盛，光这一点就足够了。而且切斯坦顿对于意大利人和法国人对有色人种的征服式的帝国主义不置一词。一旦事关他的民族主义忠诚，他对现实的把握、他的文学品味，甚至在某种程度上他的道德意识就都错位了。

@MrZan@club.mrzan.xyz 买ROM包多的二手机，或者利用project treble刷系统镜像。

NEGATIVE NATIONALISM

(i) ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, 'enlightened' opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.

(ii) ANTI-SEMITISM. There is little evidence about this at present, because the Nazi persecutions have made it necessary for any thinking person to side with the Jews against their oppressors. Anyone educated enough to have heard the word 'antisemitism' claims as a matter of course to be free of it, and anti-Jewish remarks are carefully eliminated from all classes of literature. Actually antisemitism appears to be widespread, even among intellectuals, and the general conspiracy of silence probably helps exacerbate it. People of Left opinions are not immune to it, and their attitude is sometimes affected by the fact that Trotskyists and Anarchists tend to be Jews. But antisemitism comes more naturally to people of Conservative tendency, who suspect Jews of weakening national morale and diluting the national culture. Neo-Tories and political Catholics are always liable to succumb to antisemitism, at least intermittently.

(iii) TROTSKYISM. This word is used so loosely as to include Anarchists, democratic Socialists and even Liberals. I use it here to mean a doctrinaire Marxist whose main motive is hostility to the Stalin régime. Trotskyism can be better studied in obscure pamphlets or in papers like the SOCIALIST APPEAL than in the works of Trotsky himself, who was by no means a man of one idea. Although in some places, for instance in the United States, Trotskyism is able to attract a fairly large number of adherents and develop into an organised movement with a petty fuerher of its own, its inspiration is essentially negative. The Trotskyist is AGAINST Stalin just as the Communist is FOR him, and, like the majority of Communists, he wants not so much to alter the external world as to feel that the battle for prestige is going in his own favour. In each case there is the same obsessive fixation on a single subject, the same inability to form a genuinely rational opinion based on probabilities. The fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference. The most typical Trotskyists, in any case, are ex-Communists, and no one arrives at Trotskyism except via one of the left-wing movements. No Communist, unless tethered to his party by years of habit, is secure against a sudden lapse into Trotskyism. The opposite process does not seem to happen equally often, though there is no clear reason why it should not.

TRANSFERRED NATIONALISM

(i) COMMUNISM.

(ii) POLITICAL ATHOLICISM.

(iii) COLOUR FEELING. The old-style contemptuous attitude towards 'natives' has been much weakened in England, and various pseudo-scientific theories emphasising the superiority of the white race have been abandoned.[Note, below] Among the intelligentsia, colour feeling only occurs in the transposed form, that is, as a belief in the innate superiority of the coloured races. This is now increasingly common among English intellectuals, probably resulting more often from masochism and sexual frustration than from contact with the Oriental and Negro nationalist movements. Even among those who do not feel strongly on the colour question, snobbery and imitation have a powerful influence. Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it. Nationalistic attachment to the coloured races is usually mixed up with the belief that their sex lives are superior, and there is a large underground mythology about the sexual prowess of Negroes.

[Note: A good example is the sunstroke superstition. Until recently it was believed that the white races were much more liable to sunstroke that the coloured, and that a white man could not safely walk about in tropical sunshine without a pith helmet. There was no evidence whatever for this theory, but it served the purpose of accentuating the difference between 'natives' and Europeans. During the war the theory was quietly dropped and whole armies manoeuvred in the tropics without pith helmets. So long as the sunstroke superstition survived, English doctors in India appear to have believed in it as firmly as laymen.(Author's footnote)]

(iv) CLASS FEELING. Among upper-class and middle-class intellectuals, only in the transposed form–i.e. as a belief in the superiority of the proletariat. Here again, inside the intelligentsia, the pressure of public opinion is overwhelming. Nationalistic loyalty towards the proletariat, and most vicious theoretical hatred of the bourgeoisie, can and often do co-exist with ordinary snobbishness in everyday life.

(v) PACIFISM. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should–in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918–and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied[Note, below]. In 1927 Chiang Kai Shek boiled hundreds of Communists alive, and yet within ten years he had become one of the heroes of the Left. The re-alignment of world politics had brought him into the anti-Fascist camp, and so it was felt that the boiling of the Communists 'didn't count', or perhaps had not happened. The primary aim of propaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. When one considers the elaborate forgeries that have been committed in order to show that Trotsky did not play a valuable part in the Russian civil war, it is difficult to feel that the people responsible are merely lying. More probably they feel that their own version was what happened in the sight of God, and that one is justified in rearranging the records accordingly.

[Note: En example is the Russo-German Pact, which is being effaced as quickly as possible from public memory. A Russian correspondent informs me that mention of the Pact is already being omitted from Russian year-books which table recent political events.(Author's note)]
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. For example, it is impossible to calculate within millions, perhaps even tens of millions, the number of deaths caused by the present war. The calamities that are constantly being reported–battles, massacres, famines, revolutions–tend to inspire in the average person a feeling of unreality. One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. What were the rights and wrongs of the Warsaw rising of August 1944? Is it true about the German gas ovens in Poland? Who was really to blame for the Bengal famine? Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to FEEL that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive, since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.

Obviously there are considerable resemblances between political Catholicism, as exemplified by Chesterton, and Communism. So there are between either of these and for instance Scottish nationalism, Zionism, Antisemitism or Trotskyism. It would be an oversimplification to say that all forms of nationalism are the same, even in their mental atmosphere, but there are certain rules that hold good in all cases. The following are the principal characteristics of nationalist thought:

OBSESSION. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking. He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags, relative size of headlines and the order in which different countries are named.[Note, below]

Nomenclature plays a very important part in nationalist thought. Countries which have won their independence or gone through a nationalist revolution usually change their names, and any country or other unit round which strong feelings revolve is likely to have several names, each of them carrying a different implication. The two sides of the Spanish Civil War had between them nine or ten names expressing different degrees of love and hatred. Some of these names (e.g. 'Patriots' for Franco-supporters, or 'Loyalists' for Government-supporters) were frankly question-begging, and there was no single one of the which the two rival factions could have agreed to use. All nationalists consider it a duty to spread their own language to the detriment of rival languages, and among English-speakers this struggle reappears in subtler forms as a struggle between dialects. Anglophobe-Americans will refuse to use a slang phrase if they know it to be of British origin, and the conflict between Latinizers and Germanizers often has nationalists motives behind it. Scottish nationalists insist on the superiority of Lowland Scots, and socialists whose nationalism takes the form of class hatred tirade against the B.B.C. accent and even the often gives the impression of being tinged by belief in symphatetic magic –a belief which probably comes out in the widespread custom of burning political enemies in effigy, or using pictures of them as targets in shooting galleries.

[Note: Certain Americans have expressed dissatisfaction because 'Anglo-American' is the form of combination for these two words. It has been proposed to submite 'Americo-British'.(Author's footnote)]
INSTABILITY. The intensity with which they are held does not prevent nationalist loyalties from being transferable. To begin with, as I have pointed out already, they can be and often are fastened up on some foreign country. One quite commonly finds that great national leaders, or the founders of nationalist movements, do not even belong to the country they have glorified. Sometimes they are outright foreigners, or more often they come from peripheral areas where nationality is doubtful. Examples are Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, de Valera, Disraeli, Poincare, Beaverbrook. The Pan-German movement was in part the creation of an Englishman, Houston Chamberlain. For the past fifty or a hundred years, transferred nationalism has been a common phenomenon among literary intellectuals. With Lafcadio Hearne the transference was to Japan, with Carlyle and many others of his time to Germany, and in our own age it is usually to Russia. But the peculiarly interesting fact is that re-transference is also possible. A country or other unit which has been worshipped for years may suddenly become detestable, and some other object of affection may take its place with almost no interval. In the first version of H. G. Wells's OUTLINE OF HISTORY, and others of his writings about that time, one finds the United States praised almost as extravagantly as Russia is praised by Communists today: yet within a few years this uncritical admiration had turned into hostility. The bigoted Communist who changes in a space of weeks, or even days, into an equally bigoted Trotskyist is a common spectacle. In continental Europe Fascist movements were largely recruited from among Communists, and the opposite process may well happen within the next few years. What remains constant in the nationalist is his state of mind: the object of his feelings is changeable, and may be imaginary.

But for an intellectual, transference has an important function which I have already mentioned shortly in connection with Chesterton. It makes it possible for him to be much MORE nationalistic–more vulgar, more silly, more malignant, more dishonest–that he could ever be on behalf of his native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge. When one sees the slavish or boastful rubbish that is written about Stalin, the Red Army, etc. by fairly intelligent and sensitive people, one realises that this is only possible because some kind of dislocation has taken place. In societies such as ours, it is unusual for anyone describable as an intellectual to feel a very deep attachment to his own country. Public opinion–that is, the section of public opinion of which he as an intellectual is aware–will not allow him to do so. Most of the people surrounding him are sceptical and disaffected, and he may adopt the same attitude from imitativeness or sheer cowardice: in that case he will have abandoned the form of nationalism that lies nearest to hand without getting any closer to a genuinely internationalist outlook. He still feels the need for a Fatherland, and it is natural to look for one somewhere abroad. Having found it, he can wallow unrestrainedly in exactly those emotions from which he believes that he has emancipated himself. God, the King, the Empire, the Union Jack–all the overthrown idols can reappear under different names, and because they are not recognised for what they are they can be worshipped with a good conscience. Transferred nationalism, like the use of scapegoats, is a way of attaining salvation without altering one's conduct.

INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage–torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians–which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side. The Liberal NEWS CHRONICLE published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians.[Note, below] It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the 'right' cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities–in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna–believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.

[Note: The NEWS CHRONICLE advised its readers to visit the news film at which the entire execution could be witnessed, with close-ups. The STAR published with seeming approval photographs of nearly naked female collaborationists being baited by the Paris mob. These photographs had a marked resemblance to the Nazi photographs of Jews being baited by the Berlin mob.(Author's footnote)]

Notes on Nationalism (1945)

Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word LONGEUR, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the WORD, we have the THING in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word 'nationalism', but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation–that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, AGAINST something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.

By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled 'good' or 'bad'.[See note, below] But secondly–and this is much more important–I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

[Note: Nations, and even vaguer entities such as Catholic Church or the proleteriat, are commonly thought of as individuals and often referred to as 'she'. Patently absurd remarks such as 'Germany is naturally treacherous' are to be found in any newspaper one opens and reckless generalization about national character ('The Spaniard is a natural aristocrat' or 'Every Englishman is a hypocrite') are uttered by almost everyone. Intermittently these generalizations are seen to be unfounded, but the habit of making them persists, and people of professedly international outlook, e.g., Tolstoy or Bernard Shaw, are often guilty of them. (Author's footnote)]

So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word 'nationalism' for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to ONE'S OWN country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.

It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist–that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating–but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it IS the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also–since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself– unshakeably certain of being in the right.

@MrZan@club.mrzan.xyz nexus4的

@MrZan@club.mrzan.xyz 旧MD确实很好看，比新版的material you好看得多。