Why nationalism is too attempting to the narrowminded?
Nationalism includes movements and tendencies such as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism, and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or country, nor to one's own country.
Examples of nationalistic feelings include Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat, and the White Race. Nationalist feeling can be purely negative, as some individuals become enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit.
A nationalist thinks solely in terms of competitive prestige, turning on victories, defeats, triumphs, and humiliations. They see history as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event seems to demonstrate their own side is on the up-grade and some hated rival is on the down-grade.
Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception, and every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty but is unshakeably certain of being in the right. In conclusion, nationalism is a powerful emotion that affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but it should not be confused with mere worship of success. It is a power hunger tempered by self-deception, and every nationalist is capable of dishonesty but is unshakeably certain of being in the right.
The habit of mind in English intelligentsia is widespread, with certain topics being infected by considerations of prestige, making a rational approach to them almost impossible. For example, the question of which of the three great allies, the U.S.S.R., Britain, and the U.S.A., has contributed most to the defeat of Germany is an example of this.
In practice, people would inevitably see it in terms of competitive prestige, starting by deciding in favor of Russia, Britain, or America as the case might be. This has led to the remarkable failure in our time of political and military prediction. Out of all the 'experts' of all the schools, no single one was able to foresee such a likely event as the Russo-German Pact of 1939. Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, as their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.
Attributive judgements, especially literary judgments, are often corrupted in the same way as political ones. People of strongly nationalistic outlook often perform this sleight of hand without being conscious of dishonesty. In England, the dominant form of nationalism is old-fashioned British jingoism, which is still widespread.
However, the reactions of the intelligentsia are concerned with the reactions of the intelligentsia, who now seem to be reviving among a minority. Among the intelligentsia, the dominant form of nationalism is Communism, which includes not merely Communist Party members but 'fellow-travellers' and russophiles generally.
A Communist is someone who views the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it is their duty to justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Ten or twenty years ago, the form of nationalism most closely corresponding to Communism today was political Catholicism, with its most outstanding exponent being G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton was a writer of considerable talent who chose to suppress both his sensibilities and intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda.
The author discusses the failure of military prediction in the present war, arguing that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people and were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of their conquered lands, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany.
The author also discusses the rise and spread of nationalism among English intellectuals, which is a distorted reflection of the frightful battles actually happening in the external world and its worst follies have been made possible by the breakdown of patriotism and religious belief. If one follows up this train of thought, one is in danger of being led into a species of Conservatism or political quietism.
The author does not accept the argument that no unbiased outlook is possible, as in the modern world no one describable as an intellectual can keep out of politics in the sense of not caring about them. He believes that one must engage in politics and have preferences, recognizing that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means.
The author believes that it is possible to struggle against nationalistic loves and hatreds, which are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. It is essentially a moral effort, first of all of discovering one's true self and feelings, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias.
Emotional urges that are inescapable and necessary to political action should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. However, this requires a moral effort, and contemporary English literature shows how few of us are prepared to do so.
