The Jews in Nazi Germany were hardly intransigent or intolerant. They were a dominant part of the German society and when Hitler came into power most preferred to remain under the radar than cause a big stink. A lot of them even gained the moniker self-hating jews for submitting placidly to the nazis without a fight. In some cases even collaborating with them. The modern day equivalent is the self-hating whites that are very happy to condemn their own culture and race.
In the case of Nazi Germany the intolerant ones were the German majority not the minority Jews.
So where Taleb is a bit off is in putting the emphasis on “intolerant minorities”. An intolerant minority “with skin in the game” only wins if they’re up against a tolerant majority with little or no skin in the game.
But if you have a majority that is intolerant and has lots of skin in the game that an intolerant minority is trying to play, that minority will never win the game.
So the crucial point of this discussion is not the minority, but who is most intolerant, i.e. which group is more willing to fight for its interests.
So for example, it is quite obvious that Muslims are much more intolerant and much more willing to fight for their interests than the majority Christians, and as a result they’re winning.
If the Christian majority were to become as intolerant and as willing to fight for their beliefs, the Muslims wouldn’t stand a chance, like in the Crusades.
I think that the author is making the point that Moslems are gaining power because they are stubborn.
He is correct.
I believe that he is advocating that they be met with stubbornness.
He is correct.