I must express some confusion. The distinctions between "nativism" and "nationalism" are less distinct than I thought they were. If an ethnic German from Austria moves to Germany and is looked down upon for being a foreigner, then I think of that as nativism, while if an ethnic German from South Tyrol moves to Rome and is looked down upon for being a German, then I think of that as nationalism. I am no longer sure that is a valid description of how the two differ.

My working definition is close to Wikipedia's: "Nativism is the political position of supporting a favoured status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants." However, later on it says nativism is a form of nationalism, and not distinct from it.

> "Not fracture. Fractal"

I assure you that I know what fractal means, starting from Mandelbrot's 1982 "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", and related topics like the Hausdorff dimension, space-fulling curves, and the ties between fractals systems and chaos theory, along with the observation that in the real world, the largest known fractal-like systems are only perhaps 6 orders of magnitude in scale.

There is no need to assume I am using a different term than the correct one.

I used the the Germanic cultures because they were the most self-similar, from the personal level up to the kingdom level. It was definitely more self-similar than Rome; the expression "all roads lead to Rome" is the definition of a non-fractal system. (Rather, with low fractal dimension.)

> "Come on"

Certainly. Like I said, if you define it in a way that requires the internet, then you have something which requires the internet.

If you cut off internet to the Middle East, your hypothesis is, I believe, that ISIS will disappear. My hypothesis is that it will continue, and use other (yes, older) mechanisms of communication. They will be "crippled", to use your term, but I see no reason to believe they will be "absolutely crippled."

Not that it matters, since it doesn't seem feasible to do as you propose, and take the internet way from ISIS. Which make it impossible to tell if your statement has any real meaning. Is there any other political movement which has withered away without internet? Or is it ISIS which is special, and not the internet?

> "most social change is cyclical and not linear"

The problem with your belief is that it's impossible to predict which change is in which class. Otherwise, when do we cycle back to the divine right of kings again?

It also has a built-in assumption that phase space is very simple. Your study of fractals must surely have taught you of strange attractors, and the danger of applying simple terms like "linear" and "cyclical" to intrinsically chaotic systems. Why continue with that metaphor if it isn't something you really believe?

> "Its feedback loop has genuinely sped up human society"

As has every other communication method before it. When I read your writings, I see a trivialization of the radical changes that our predecessors have gone through.

How do you even measure speed up? More specifically, how much more do you think we've sped up in the last 40 years, compared to, say, the 40 years before 1916? 2x? 10x? 100x?

Bear in mind too that with 3.5x the population now as 1916, you would expect more change simply because more people are working on the same ideas and problems.

> "I doubt there's a woman in the neighborhood who would self describe as feminist"

Walking around Oxford, England just today I saw a young woman wearing a shirt saying something like "Feminism: the radical idea that a woman should be treated like a person". Which means you don't live in Oxford.

I live in Sweden, where the Feminist Initiative got 3.1% of the vote 2 years ago, and where the Social Democrats and the Leftist Party call themselves a feminist party. Which means you don't live in Sweden.

"Feminist" has a long history of being demonized, just like in the US how "socialist" and "liberal" were turned into abusive phrases in the first Red Scare and the 1980s, respectively. One technique is to equate "feminism" with "feminazi" or other words that twist and ridicule the term by associating it with its extremes.

The true test, therefore, is not if someone is willing to self-identify as a feminist, but if they agree with feminist principles, like 1) women and men should have equal political voting power, 2) women and men doing the same job should get the same pay, 3) men and women should both receive equal education, 4) have the same rights to own property, 5) have the same rights to make legal agreements, etc.

It would be nice to know which "huge swathes" of feminism you think are being dropped.