I sensed a moral emphasis but being fair, on rereading it may be a projection on my part. Tho if we're talking inevitable process then we might say that its both inevitable that stronger groups conquer and that its also inevitable they be overthrown once that strength fades.
I wouldnt say I like believing it personally, but it seems correct. You can say a particular revolution is the necessary outcome of brutal oppression, but then youre left having to explain the long periods of oppression where no revolution occurs. Are they just not brutal enough?
-
-
well one thing's obvious (I hope), none of that shit's gonna last literally forever (hard pill to swallow for the right, I know)
-
Theres a lot of different ways to die though
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like JF Boshers The French Revolution on this, though admittedly in that case theres no racial element so that has to be considered. How important is the racial character of a hierarchy to explaining its vulnerability?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.