Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

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。

@xihuhanbi@m.cmx.im 有些道理，只有经历了才会明白。但如果这些道理一直不让讲，经历一直不让谈，用不了多久整个社会又会失忆。

@jiumi 在得到一些东西的同时，人总会失去另一些东西，在中国移动互联网的发展历程中，普通人得到的是便捷，失去的是（计算机等领域的）知识，技能，和视野。而一旦失去了这些宝贵的知识，技能，视野，一味依赖于某个特定平台所提供的“傻瓜式服务”，普通人实际上就丧失了任何讨价还价的能力，仿佛是双翅退化，被圈养者的飞禽，无法飞翔，因此只能仰仗这主人的鼻息，不敢逃离，无法迁走，命运被掌握在他人手中。 而等到所有人都被用蝇头小利所收买，平台也就再无讨好用户的必要，相反，它所给予和允诺的一切，包括便捷本身，都将从用户手上收回，因为这么做有利可图，而用户已无任何还手的能力。

@MrZan@club.mrzan.xyz 状态栏图标像是Android5.0或者6.0的。

@chouti 谁来记录日常行为？谁来罚款？几个App就能对私人生活实行如此细致入微的监视与控制，这得是什么App？

@yun5s 明面上的规定十分严苛，实际执行的过程中又留有余地，高调的道德标准与现实生活中的真正逻辑严重脱节。要获取财富和地位，就不得不学会遵守潜规则，可是一旦上面的人要来整你了，他又能义正词严搬出一整套“为人民服务”的冠冕之词作为搞倒你的理由。这些冠冕堂皇的表面规定就像缰绳一样，一松一驰，底下的人尽在掌控之中。

@yyFish 党同伐异是人的生物本性，是人在自然状态下容易趋向的结果。相反，容忍异已则不是人与生俱来的特点，而是在不断学习，不断与他人接触之后形成的产物。共产党并没有改变人性本身，而只是将人性中既有弱点无限放大了而已。此外，社交媒体的推荐算法使得人长期只能接受到特定范围的信息，追星文化在许多年轻人中也有着不小的影响力。

欧美的政治正确是“现代文明是资本主义，殖民主义，白人至上主义，种族主义，恐同主义和男权主义等一切罪恶的集合，因此必须被觉悟的左翼精英们解构，破坏，摧毁和改造。中国的政治正确是“代表先进势力的中国共产党将中国人民从资本主义、西方列强和豪强士绅的压迫中解放了出来，使中国成为了世界所畏惧的铁血强国。

欧美的政治正确可以简化成“西方坏，左翼好 ” 中国的政治正确可以简化成“共产党万岁”和“汝等不得辱华”。

欧美的政治正确主要依赖于专业人士，技术巨头，学术机构，和主流媒体。中国的政治正确主要依赖由共产党完全控制的国家机器，以及向前者献媚的社会各界。

@xuhanyun 中国并不是一个法制国家

是党不允许工人自发地组织罢工和游行，而且自建国以来一直如此。

@shannonwu 实名上网了。

“历史是由胜利者书写的”这句话，既可以被当作一种事实判断，也可以被当作一种价值取向。如果这句话只是作为一种事实判断，那么这种判断是可以由逻辑和证据所证实或证伪的，但如果这句话被当作一种了价值取向，或者说一种信仰，那么再充分的反面事实，再严密的论证，也无法将其动摇，因为其信徒们不仅相信历史由胜利者书写，而且希望历史由胜利者书写。如果这句话能够成立，它将能释放出多少的可能！它意味着不仅个体是可以改造的，社会是可以改造的，就连事实本身也是可以改造的，理想不再需要基于事实，相反，事实却需要遵从理想。这意味着历史不是被发现的，而是被创造的，理想可以通过彻底地掌权而实现，而彻底的权力可以重新创造历史。掌握了权力，就可以掌握一切 。这是一种对权力塑造现实的能力的崇拜，和对通过彻底掌权来塑造世界的渴望！

如果理想在现实中竟然没能实现，或者理想本身竟是错的，那这也一定是因为现在掌权的是别人，而不是自己，等到自己掌权的那一天，就是重新书写历史，改造现实的那一天。历史由胜利者书写，这意味着事实本身是不重要的，唯一重要的是话语权，有了权力，就有了话语权，掌握和使用权力，是唯一有价值的目标。 并且，既然过去的历史是由胜利者书写的，现在的历史也是由胜利者书写的，那么哪天自己当了胜利者，篡改和扭曲历史不也是理所当然的吗？遵守史实，就必然会被束缚住手脚，摆脱现实的限制，才能使理想天马行空。

在对理想的迷信，对权力的崇拜，和对现实的恐惧面前，“历史由胜利者书写”是一种必要。事实判断是可以被证伪的，但是信仰则水远不能，只要推动这种信仰的情感与欲望永远存在，这种信仰就永远存在市场

@ellipses @xihuhanbi@m.cmx.im 真正接触到了生活的艰辛，并且获取到了足够信息，能够将国内外同类工作的报酬相对比的，反而有可能对国内制度更为不满，一个典型的例子就是卡车司机，国内运输的现状是业内恶行竞争严重，运费被越压越低，卡车司机普遍超载和疲劳驾驶，收入也远低于欧美国家。对于这些每天起早贪黑，冒着生命危险工作的司机来说，再激昂的爱国宣传也无法让他们忽视自己与西方工人阶级的明显生活差距。这一点可以在B站有关卡车司机的视频下方评论区中获得验证，例如(https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Rs411t7j9)(https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Cs411h7rP)
(https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ux411j7AW)
其中有些评论就很明确地呼吁建设工会和行会，有的认为西方国家对司机权益的保障更充分，还有的把香港的最低工资立法夸赞了一番。而在其中一篇视频的下方，某位粉红的说道“能看出来这个司机对于美国的发展和治度和在美国生活有一定的优越感，他绝对不会再回来了”，一位网友这样回复他：“老百姓想要生活好的选择是一件很合理的事。道德绑架你应该去要求权贵，而不是你我一样的普通民众”。