New Shun 1730

If the only goal was to expel William IV, the Republicans would have already won after the Hague Massacre and the threat of French invasion.

But some people wanted to do it all at once, not only to expel William IV, but also to take advantage of this perfect opportunity to abolish the federal government.

As a result, they took too big a step and made a mess of it.

Everyone knows that you have to eat one bite at a time and walk one step at a time, but when the time comes, people often lose their heads.

After the publication of the posthumous work of the former Grand Speaker, the entire Dutch editorial world was quiet for a few days, and then a new round of debate began.

At this time, those pens had forgotten the dozen people who died.

Because the death of those dozen people was nothing.

And what really matters is "eternal war".

Not long after, a great article by the Republicans came out.

However, the whole article is a debate, which is not easy for ordinary people to understand, and it is too empty.

[An eternal war exists between the power of despotism and the people. Both sides are doing their best to defend their freedom. The former's freedom means the people's eternal shackles; the latter's freedom means the former is locked in a cage. 】

We have come to this point, and we are directly defining eternity, which must rely on theology.

A large number of Latin words appear in this article. The natural rights of people in the theological sense are proved by the scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages. The proof process here requires a certain theological foundation, and a large number of Latin words have made it difficult for the Dutch people to understand.

But there is nothing we can do about it.

The religious atmosphere in the Netherlands is quite strong. At this time, the Enlightenment had just emerged in France. To discuss these concepts such as nature, God's will, and eternity, we have to use the logical basis of scholastic philosophy to prove them.

Everyone in later generations may have heard of "natural human rights", but this thing, like everyone in later generations knows that the earth is round, is just a concept, which has been instilled since childhood and has become part of the subconscious.

Even if it is a seven or eight-year-old child, if you say that the earth is square, he will laugh at you, but he can't prove it.

This time is different from later generations.

In later generations, many things are generally recognized concepts and correct; but at this time, it will take a process for these concepts to become correct.

Some things cannot make people exclaim this truth by saying four words, but a proof process must be given and the proof must be recognized by people of this era before this correctness can be passed on to the next generation.

Just like two hundred years ago, the earth was round and needed to be proved; but now, the earth is round, even the weavers in Songjiang Prefecture believe it, and pass it on to the next generation, just like people should be filial to their parents when they are alive, it has become an axiom that does not need to be proved.

It is also like the axioms and postulates in "Elements of Geometry". The most basic things do not need to be proved, and cannot be proved. When everyone learns and recognizes it, no one will doubt whether this thing is really so true. It should be said that most people who have learned geometry will not doubt whether those axioms are true or explore how they are proved.

It takes a process for axioms to become axioms that do not need to be proved.

However, at this time, the concepts proposed by these Dutch republicans need to be proved by themselves.

Once you start to prove this kind of empty talk, in the Dutch environment, you have to bring up theology.

Once you bring up theology, ordinary people can no longer understand it.

But if you don't prove it this way, you can't refute Van Siling Grant's point of view:

Because Van Siling Grant is taking history as a mirror; and the theories of the Republicans have no historical basis.

If you don't bring up theology, you can't deal with history.

Just like in Dashun, the most effective means to resist historical experience is the words of saints.

And in the Netherlands, the most effective means to resist historical experience is also theological concepts.

The road has actually narrowed down when it comes to this point.

From the inflammatory and emotional content at the beginning, it has become a boring, scholastic debate, and the influence of these editorials has immediately decreased.

What is important is to change the world, not to explain the world.

To change the world, we have to rely on the people of the Netherlands.

The Hague Massacre was an opportunity to change the world. What to do in the future, we should go up first and then see, but they turned it into a debate to explain the world.

The debate was a point that the Dutch people could not understand and could not touch their hearts. It seemed to make sense, but it was actually useless.

After this classic debate article came out, a large number of debate articles began to appear, and both sides began to debate tit-for-tat.

Those who died in The Hague were not on the stage of debate and were gradually forgotten in the public opinion field.

However, some new pamphlets were quietly circulated among the broad masses of citizens at this time, using things that the people could understand and like.

The lower three roads.

Gradually, these professional debate editorials were no longer the scenes at the beginning.

At the beginning, when there was no debate, the main focus was on inciting emotions and shouting slogans. Every time these anonymous editorials came out, they were immediately widely circulated. Some people gave them to others after reading them; some people told others after reading them.

When there was no debate, what was said was human language, and most people could understand it and really felt the same.

When the debate began, most people could not understand it very well, and it was not just slogans, but more of a dry logic and proofs that made people sleepy, and the spread of the debate suddenly dropped.

These decentralization factions among the republicans have positioned themselves wrongly: Do they want to be philosophers who explain the world in an ivory tower? Or do they want to be politicians who realize their ideals in the chaos of the Netherlands?

Politicians, especially street politicians, can of course be philosophers at the same time.

But a wise and resourceful street politician will never speak about philosophy at length when inciting on the streets, but will keenly grasp the emotions of the people and guide them; and will not face the audience they expect, knowing that the cultural level is limited, and still bring out thick Latin scholastic debate vocabulary.

Even if he can write a whole set of logically rigorous works at length when he is not on the streets. It is not that he cannot, but that he should not do it.

Just when the direction of the editorial changed from discussing things to discussing reason, the tabloids circulating among the people gradually guided the mainstream public opinion of the citizens.

Liu Yu had previously laid the foundation of the "British wife", and the people who got the sensational information of the Hague Massacre deliberately abandoned this sensational version.

Soon, a couple in the Hague court that existed only among the people, was unreal, but had complete personalities, became a fact believed by a large number of people.

In fact, the British princess would not threaten William IV with sex.

However, first of all, such a thing cannot be proved. It is impossible to open the palace and the bedroom and ask the public to visit from dawn to dusk to prove that it is really not the case.

Second, such a thing cannot be explained.

Once most people accept this gossip, the more they come out to explain, the more people suspect that they are covering up.

Third, such a thing cannot be refuted in a book.

In history, there was a person in the Qing Dynasty who wrote a book and refuted it in detail. But it would be better if he did not refute it publicly. Once he refuted it publicly, the whole world would believe that he usurped the throne.

In fact, William IV did not have intermittent mental illness; in fact, William IV was not driven crazy by his wife talking about Britain all the time, so that he would have a seizure when he heard Britain; in fact, the British princess did look down on the Netherlands, but she definitely did not say things like "The Netherlands also has this thing, I thought only England has it."

This is the fact, but Liu Yu started to slander and spread rumors when he was in Amsterdam a few years ago.

The tone of uniting the Netherlands and opposing Britain has long been set.

In the yellow tabloids that were widely circulated before, one-third of the Dutch jokes made up in them were satires of William's wife.

In addition to jokes, half of those complicated and popular ones were about the British princess as the heroine.

This tune has been circulating in the Netherlands for several years, with some true and some false, mixed together. After years of accumulation and the people's dreams being shattered after William IV came to power, the false ones gradually became true.

Now this set of low-brow tunes is exactly the same as before, and the inheritance is orderly. With the foundation laid before, the spread was very fast.

Of course, there must be some tragic whitewashing in it.

For example, William IV had already taken the initiative to propose to the princess that he hoped that Britain would relax some of its economic suppression on the Netherlands, and the princess shouted angrily: If it weren't for my father, the Netherlands would have long been destroyed by France. You Dutch people are not grateful.

William IV asked in return: If my uncle hadn't been the King of England, how could England be today?

The princess said: Your uncle just coveted the British throne. Now it's a different time. If you join the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, just call my father and the King of the Netherlands, and repay your uncle's kindness.

William IV "suffered from the decline of the Netherlands, the need for British support, and was worried that millions of Dutch people would be in danger", so he had no choice but to tolerate it.

With this as the tone, a version that is basically self-consistent in logic and easier to spread appeared.

A tragic consul, a consul who endured humiliation for the sake of his motherland, and a consul who was a true nationalist even though he had no ability to exploit the people in internal reforms as before.

The same thing, unfolded from different perspectives, leads to completely different public opinions.

If it is the version of the Hague Massacre written by Kang Budai, it will explode as soon as it is released.

It is completely described from the perspective of the victim, and how the victim loves his family and children, how he takes risks to go fishing, and how he prepares gifts for his children before going out to sea, which is full of warmth.

Then in front of the Hague Palace, for the sake of his family, he kneels down and begs for mercy, but the governor's minions step on his fingers and beat him, torture him, and put the gifts bought for his children in his arms before he died.

Then the governor's minions said, who on earth are you instructed by?

If you don't fish, can't you do something else?

You starve to death is a small matter, and affecting the friendship between Britain and the Netherlands is a big matter.

Although it is also false...

But the things written from this perspective and the things written from the perspective of the tragic, helpless, incompetent, but true nationalist Governor William, guide emotions in completely different directions.

Most people have a common problem, they tend to emotionally identify with whoever is the protagonist. If you change your perspective, even the emperor can be washed away with a heartbreaking look, not to mention William IV who only killed a dozen people.

Just as these rumors were spreading widely while the debate had caused the death of more than a dozen people, another anonymous editorial author who claimed to be a "true patriot and a true libertarian" fired at both factions in the debate.

First, he satirized and evaluated the centralization faction. Then, he blasted the decentralization faction.

[…They dug out, or even invented, some natural rights, sold them everywhere in a language that people could not understand, and enforced them, regardless of whether historical facts and social laws matched them; regardless of whether they were consistent with the country's political situation and social life. ]

[Open your mouth and speak naturally, and close your mouth and speak of God's will. They say it is virtue, and they say it is nature, but they don't know that humans with perfect behavior and noble morals only exist in myths and books. ]

[Claiming to be logical, they can't even distinguish the concepts of "leader in a government organization" and "monarch in a kingdom system." 】

【The distinction criteria of virtues they proposed are completely based on their perspective - the Netherlands they envisioned is that everyone above me is equal, and everyone below me is a pariah. 】

【If God's will and nature can really lead to the concept of Tao follows nature. Then, there is such a universal and fixed principle in the universe: Newton tells us that planets always move around stars, and planets also have their own axes, and smaller objects also have their own laws - centripetalism. 】

【Then, can we deduce from the perspective of God's will and Tao follows nature that monarchy is reasonable and that it is a rule given by God when he created the universe? 】

【... You cannot argue for the freedom you desire. 】

【A person who truly desires freedom should take to the streets to arm the militia, arm the legions of various guilds and cities - from a historical perspective, the Netherlands comes from the Utrecht Charter, and the Utrecht Charter stipulates the right of the people to have an army. 】

【A person can only be called free if he can completely control his own life without relying on others; a person can only be called free if he can skillfully use a musket to resist public, domestic, and foreign violence without relying on others. 】

【Freedom that cannot be defended by one's own hands is not secure... People who truly desire freedom should not argue here, but should go to the citizen militias of various cities and seize real freedom by violent means. 】

【What you think is your freedom. If you think you should oppose centralization and want to kill anyone who tries to centralize power, then kill him with a musket. This is freedom; if you think you should oppose decentralization and want to kill anyone who tries to decentralize power, then kill him with a musket. This is freedom; if you think you should kill merchants to defend the interests of the guild, then kill merchants. This is freedom; if you think the poor should be hanged, then drive them to the gallows with muskets. This is freedom. 】

【People who truly desire freedom should take up arms and take to the streets at this time to achieve real freedom. 】

【As Mandeville said in "The Fable of the Bees", private vices are the public interest. When everyone is free to realize their own desires, one day they will realize the true public interest and the principle of mutual compromise and recognition. 】

【Only in this way can we achieve the true public interest, the public interest that satisfies everyone and is compromised. 】

【All Dutch gentlemen, take up your muskets, kitchen knives, axes, and fish knives, take to the streets, and fully express your own desires and vices to realize the true public interest of the Netherlands! 】

【Only in this way can the final law satisfy everyone. Anyway, the French are about to invade the Netherlands, let's have a final carnival before they invade! 】