rahtruelies
VIP Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 321
- 30
- 68
Activism Versus Territorialism - Social Matter
................
Status and territory are inseparable.
Each of us also has his own way of defending his territory. Whether it’s literally wrestling to protect our reputations, crushing a fellow nerd in a math competition, or making a knock-down argument in court for all to see, we fight to protect what we own—and often win. Often, as men who sublimate our violent streaks, this is what we live for.
No passivist would oppose territorialism defined as fighting to hold one’s own domain and winning. Indeed, it’s among the surest ways to show worthiness when the territory is genuinely held. However, the passivist’s territorialism is not the activist’s, because he always traces these steps: become worthy; accept power; rule. Pin your opponent, let them tap out, then take the prize. He never reverses the steps: first trash talk, then wrestle, then claim superiority even after a loss. (This was often even Alinsky’s fate, however much he has a reputation as a modern Machiavelli.) But I don’t expect this to be fully convincing. This essay isn’t written as a defense of passivism.
The Internet, unfortunately, is a bad place to separate claims of winning from facts of winning. And history is too often written by people with no sense for the real stakes in action. It’s too often written by the people who are so busy admiring the tactical brilliance of a Hannibal that they ignore his larger strategic failures. The Internet is fertile soil for activists and armchair tacticians, and I doubt I have yet convinced you I’m not either.
Still, think slowly and you’ll see that there’s a difference between the territorialism of the growing European Right and the mere activism of, say, the Tea Party. At its best, the former focuses on actual borders of real territory they factually control, whether that’s protecting young women on the streets at night or simply building real-world networks of like-minded people with shared goals, standing sober testament to the fact one can oppose immigration without being an evil caricature. The latter, on the other hand, is most famous for futile symbolic gestures like electing politicians who sell out their interests immediately after reaching Washington.
The key, which is not easy, is to keep a realistic idea of what one can truly defend as one’s territory and what claims will just make the bigger dogs angry and activate a potent immune response..................
................
Status and territory are inseparable.
Each of us also has his own way of defending his territory. Whether it’s literally wrestling to protect our reputations, crushing a fellow nerd in a math competition, or making a knock-down argument in court for all to see, we fight to protect what we own—and often win. Often, as men who sublimate our violent streaks, this is what we live for.
No passivist would oppose territorialism defined as fighting to hold one’s own domain and winning. Indeed, it’s among the surest ways to show worthiness when the territory is genuinely held. However, the passivist’s territorialism is not the activist’s, because he always traces these steps: become worthy; accept power; rule. Pin your opponent, let them tap out, then take the prize. He never reverses the steps: first trash talk, then wrestle, then claim superiority even after a loss. (This was often even Alinsky’s fate, however much he has a reputation as a modern Machiavelli.) But I don’t expect this to be fully convincing. This essay isn’t written as a defense of passivism.
The Internet, unfortunately, is a bad place to separate claims of winning from facts of winning. And history is too often written by people with no sense for the real stakes in action. It’s too often written by the people who are so busy admiring the tactical brilliance of a Hannibal that they ignore his larger strategic failures. The Internet is fertile soil for activists and armchair tacticians, and I doubt I have yet convinced you I’m not either.
Still, think slowly and you’ll see that there’s a difference between the territorialism of the growing European Right and the mere activism of, say, the Tea Party. At its best, the former focuses on actual borders of real territory they factually control, whether that’s protecting young women on the streets at night or simply building real-world networks of like-minded people with shared goals, standing sober testament to the fact one can oppose immigration without being an evil caricature. The latter, on the other hand, is most famous for futile symbolic gestures like electing politicians who sell out their interests immediately after reaching Washington.
The key, which is not easy, is to keep a realistic idea of what one can truly defend as one’s territory and what claims will just make the bigger dogs angry and activate a potent immune response..................
