War is not inevitable when it comes to a clash of institutions.

I didn't argue it was certainly inevitable, just likely.

I'd say that these days, civil war is far less likely due to a number of factors. First, the profligate expansion of lethal technology; second, a much broader awareness of history and conflict; and third, the reluctance of a reasonably secure, well-fed population to start hacking at each other over ideological differences.

There's not really an effective point of compromise. The interests of the establishment run diametrically opposed to the vast majority of interests of a significant sub-population.

And on a very fundamental level.

Yeah, it's certainly not going to happen until people are far less comfortable and secure. That's for sure.

People are still too comfortable, distracted, and feel they have too much to lose.

Basically, the point at which it will likely occur, is when a critical mass of people are in such a desperate situation, that death is a preferable alternative to inaction.

True, but that doesn't make war more likely. In this day and age, when Western governments have to at least pretend to care under more powerful spotlights, it makes war less likely. Look at the Civil Rights and Indian independence movements as an example of this; the non-violent protesters carried the day because whenever the government or establishment got violent, usually for no justifiable reason, they were the ones who lost.

Obviously this doesn't work in tyrannical regimes, but we're not talking about those kinds of societies.

The Civil-Rights didn't achieve a non-violent victory. It achieved a victory through violent, financial, political, and academic subversion.

wat

It leveraged both political violence in the streets, as well as leveraging the threat of force from the institutions it subverted.

I was referring specifically to the non-violent protests.

Rules for Radicals is a book on how to gain political victory *without* violence.

It only worked because they were leveraging the violence of others who were working towards the same end, and counting on the good faith of others who might otherwise have stopped them.

There were political assassinations, attacks, and tremendous amounts of money involved.

What are you even talking about? The violent actors wanted nothing to do with the peaceniks.

It's a scam. The peaceniks utilized the fear the masses had of the radicals to appear more reasonable by comparison.

I'm not saying the violent extremists weren't there. I'm saying the non-violent actors were the ones who brought victory.

Of course a peacenik group is going to say something to the effect of "We don't believe in violence, unlike Group X." That's part of the whole idea of being peaceful.

Granted, it probably wouldn't have been so effective, if they hadn't already had so many allies in media, academia, and law.

And finance.

Are you saying it was all a comspiracy amongst the various groups, violent and non-violent?

As well as the media, finance, etc.?

It was heavily compartmentalized, but no doubt their were networkers between both who knew what the grand strategy concerned.

*[citation needed]*

<:Doubt:588038713938804760>

Look into communist and socialist connections in media, academia and law, it's a big component of it. As well as those associations where they overlapped in social justice advocacy, and anti-racism.

Compare it to modern antifa, and the left academics. They're still doing it today.

I've no doubt there's strains of socialism in the various groups—especially given Soviet tendancies and the ongoing Cold War—but that's quite the leap. And I'm certain MLK and other peace advocates weren't perfect. But that doesn't mean it was all one huge plot. Sometimes revolutions are organic, and come about through natural forces—death being preferrable to inaction, et cetera.

Antifa may be more centralized than they let on, but they still have their various cells. They're a more modern beast anyway, and certainly like their violence.

@Goodwood of Dank™ This is far from an exhaustive analysis, but it does explore the connection between MLKJ and the communist/socialist elements in finance, and law.
https://youtu.be/OGUNHsh4Ax8

Antifa has always liked their violence.

They're most effective when operating in tandem with compatriots who have infiltrated a nation's institutions, however.

"saints of the 20th Century." Oh boy, I can see where this is going...

"white people usually run away from ethnic diversity, and rightly so." Woof!

Feel free to prove him wrong by moving to an area with maximum diversity.

You can't disprove a non-argument.

Translation: "I'm too afraid of living around black people to put my life where my mouth is."

Aidspiggery.

I don't think you know what that means.