To claim that the activists were strong is pretty absurd. The activists failed for approximately a century, in a regime that did a very good job of returning to the status quo ante bellum, died repeatedly while I don’t recall hearing of very many KKKers ever dying, and a partial victory at some point in some small town shows that they’re ‘strong’?...And then there’s the selection biases here; how many activists do you ever hear of? How many movements? As all analyses of power acknowledge, there’s a lot of chance & variation involved...
Certainly flukes happen. But they are flukes. If activists were weak, their victories would be isolated and of short duration, quickly reverted.
If I go into a casino and take a gander at the roulette wheel, I may win a few rounds by chance, but the trend towards the house winning will continue. But if I lose some rounds, win one spin, and keep on winning thereafter, then something funny is going on. Or maybe I own the casino.
Certainly flukes happen. But they are flukes. If activists were weak, their victories would be isolated and of short duration, quickly reverted.
Which is why the long hypothesized WWI did not happen after a fluke like a Serbian terrorist assassinating someone important, because all flukes are isolated and of short duration.
(Is that a simplified and facile claim? Yes. Is it more simplified and facile than your argument? No.)
But if I lose some rounds, win one spin, and keep on winning thereafter, then something funny is going on. Or maybe I own the casino.
What’s winning in this context? Blacks becoming wealthy, respected, functional, equals of whites and not remaining the permanent lower-class? I see… Clearly those blacks and their white allies really succeeded in their missions and just kept on winning after putting that small-town sheriff in his place!
But oh right, I forgot, Moldbug is a complete conspiracy theorist that has an explanation for that too: the blacks are constitutionally inferior, yes, but the reason for the absence of their success despite their tremendous power is that it really serves the white elite’s true purposes and the blacks are just their shock troops, whatever they might bleat about ‘equality’ and ‘rights’.
In passing, I’ll note the irony of arguing ‘the powerful are by definition those who win’ in writing about the suicide of someone aligned with and feted by these supposedly powerful folks; yes, he attacked the wrong folks, hence the complete absence of any backlash or widespread mood affiliation among elite Cathedral types like The New York Times.
Certainly flukes happen. But they are flukes. If activists were weak, their victories would be isolated and of short duration, quickly reverted.
If I go into a casino and take a gander at the roulette wheel, I may win a few rounds by chance, but the trend towards the house winning will continue. But if I lose some rounds, win one spin, and keep on winning thereafter, then something funny is going on. Or maybe I own the casino.
Which is why the long hypothesized WWI did not happen after a fluke like a Serbian terrorist assassinating someone important, because all flukes are isolated and of short duration.
(Is that a simplified and facile claim? Yes. Is it more simplified and facile than your argument? No.)
What’s winning in this context? Blacks becoming wealthy, respected, functional, equals of whites and not remaining the permanent lower-class? I see… Clearly those blacks and their white allies really succeeded in their missions and just kept on winning after putting that small-town sheriff in his place!
But oh right, I forgot, Moldbug is a complete conspiracy theorist that has an explanation for that too: the blacks are constitutionally inferior, yes, but the reason for the absence of their success despite their tremendous power is that it really serves the white elite’s true purposes and the blacks are just their shock troops, whatever they might bleat about ‘equality’ and ‘rights’.
In passing, I’ll note the irony of arguing ‘the powerful are by definition those who win’ in writing about the suicide of someone aligned with and feted by these supposedly powerful folks; yes, he attacked the wrong folks, hence the complete absence of any backlash or widespread mood affiliation among elite Cathedral types like The New York Times.