note that I'm neither an alienist nor a nativist, because both involve a certain intense dislike of categories that I don't share.
-
-
Show this thread
-
nativism is straightfoward and I think everyone knows what it is. R*cist is a particular slur used against nativists by alienists. It's a slur because it's scurrilous, i.e. it's intentionally false in a way designed to make someone publicly look bad.
Show this thread -
alienism is less straightforward to most, but "self hating" is a slur we presently often seem used against alienists by nativists. Again, it's a slur because it's false, although more in this case I think Nativists understand it's probably inaccurate rather than false.
Show this thread -
To explain the paradigm, we generally falsely think that alienists are self-hating members of their own people. This is completely false, because alienists understand that, especially according to one's own group, there are multiple levels of identification.
Show this thread -
Alienists seem to accuse "their own" of certain errors. This is not true! People who want illegal immigration don't want it into their own communities, and if/when they try this (foolishly) they are immediately reprimanded by reality.
Show this thread -
Notice that both nativists and alienists are uniformly against things which would clearly affect all of "their people", say, Americans. No one in either party really wants America nuked. Those who would actively support this as a policy are deranged.
Show this thread -
(notice whenever this gallows-subject comes up, nativists joke about alienist centers like NY or DC getting nuked.) People who delight in all Americans being destroyed by a disaster will never receive power; their views are irrelevant or satirical.
Show this thread -
Alienists are so called because of the observation that the things they condemn their fellow - say - Americans - for, they excuse in strangers. "Poor Americans of a certain race are r*cist", but "Out groups displaying the same behavior are not." Alienism.
Show this thread -
America is a peculiar situation because as a clearly multi-ethnic society from early time (we mean here the divide between blacks and whites) there is always a ready-made out-group for alienists to use.
Show this thread -
Alienist claims that out-groups cannot have the same condemnable attributes as their in-group rivals because they are out-grouped is irrelevant. The moral force of their arguments lies in condemning conduct regardless of position, alienists consistently excuse strangers.
Show this thread -
The flip side is true of nativists, of course. Nativists will consistently condemn attributes in strangers that they would excuse in their own. This is the origin of Alienist behavior, because Alienists are politically recruiting outsiders to out-flank their rivals.
Show this thread -
Consider the case of Jewish people: why does no single Jewish person wish to see "the J*w named"? Because regardless of internal conflict, either side would affected negatively if everyone started being suspicious of a person just because they were Jewish, whether Zionist or not.
Show this thread -
The other conflicts you see are Alienists (i.e. Soros types) attacking Nativists (i.e. Zionists) or vice versa. (Zionist is an Alienist slur, 'self hating Jew' is a Nativist one.)
Show this thread -
It's possible for people to get so wrapped up in their politics that they would be glad to see ALL of their people wiped out just to deal with their rivals. FELLAS, do not stare into this abyss
Show this thread -
Alienism seems to co-arise with Nativism. Under normal circumstances people are not nativistic; they have no specific dislike for outsiders. This is the natural state of civilized man, sorry everyone, it's science.
Show this thread -
What is true however that civilized men may be led to have a strong dislike for a certain group because that group is -- for example -- a threat. Under normal circumstances, under what situation would a Somali be a threat to an Englishman?
Show this thread -
I use the term nativist because it is a fluid category of "us" vs "them". Civic nationalists are nativists who more loosely define "us" (i.e. as people who are willing to follow a certain tradition of law, instead of those ruled by a particular government, territory, ethny etc)
Show this thread -
In the action of a political class, the weaker part may take the tack of bringing outsiders into the class or realm to strengthen itself against them. This naturally places some of their own in direct conflict with outsiders!
Show this thread -
This naturally generates two distinct positions: 1. Certain neutral outsiders are now a threat; they are disliked. 2. Certain neutral outsiders are now an asset; they are especially liked.
Show this thread -
If the society already has significant groups of outsiders, which isn't uncommon, the impulse can begin the other way. Imagine it's 1830 and you're in a region that's 80% black folks. You could easily say, "look what happened in the Haitian revolution!" - quite a voter turnout.
Show this thread -
In the absence of democracy, this impulse still exists but is much less profitable on both ends. Whigs still could import foreigners to work cheaply in their factories, but the impact on their political power isn't immediate.
Show this thread -
One way to look at the nativist/alienist angle without polluting your mind with skin color heebie-jeebies is to think about Roman Patricians vs. Plebians.
Show this thread -
The patricians potentially form a distinct "us" - they had their own marriage rituals, special powers and privileges, etc. But in the balanced state, notable plebian families were incorporated into the class gradually.
Show this thread -
This prevented Patricians AND Plebians from forming a highly distinct "us vs them" while still maintaining the thick barrier in fact between the two classes. Neither the nativist nor the alienist impulse could take hold,
Show this thread -
In the latter era, the plebians counter-organized. As I understand it this is because they stopped incorporating them. Now this counter-organized group forms a potential political bloc for weaker Patricians to use against their stronger rivals.
Show this thread -
Clearly, a state in which a significant portion of *highly distinct* foreigners is imported cannot easily incorporate this "other" and retain the character which allows it to do so. Instead, the failure mode will present itself.
Show this thread -
That is, the nativists will rightly see that assimilation is infeasible and wall themselves off, creating a previously unrealized level of real antagonism against the "other".
Show this thread -
This antagonism, generally unrepresentative of the magnanimous character that the powerful ought to show, is then easily used against them by the counter-party, who will seem to be targeting "themselves."
Show this thread -
But note that the whole conflict here is happening within the group. The risk here is twofold 1. The nativists manage to create a permanent enemy of some group resulting in war 2. The alienists manage to his themselves anyway, causing massive damage to their society
Show this thread -
These tend to happen because the successors of these two original movements, because these movements are saying one thing but really mean another, tend to forget the joke and take the rhetoric completely seriously.
Show this thread - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
