Friday, December 21, 2007

Stakes Be High, pt. 3

Continuing my five-part political discourse with DeAngelo Starnes (pt. 1 is here, pt. 2 is here), Mr. Starnes poses the next question.

It deals with the subject of economics.

As always, readers are encouraged to follow the discussion in the comments section and to weigh in if you are so moved.

QUESTION #3: I remember reading the following quote from Neely Fuller: “In a socio-material system dominated by white supremacists, white people are the greatest producers of money. In a socio-material world dominated by white supremacists, all non-white people are in a weak ‘economic’ condition. None of them can afford to borrow from, or lend to, the other.”

The conclusion that seems to flow from this premise is that worldwide wealth is controlled by white persons, regardless of whether they are racists (it is recognized that not all white persons are racist/white supremacist under a system of white supremacy). Does Mr. Fuller’s premise suggest evidence of a white supremacist system, regardless of whether you agree with it?

Second, do you believe that worldwide wealth is controlled by white persons?

76 comments:

Undercover Black Man said...

Interesting question, DeAng. Let me say up front: I'm no kind of expert on economics. But...

I think that "worldwide wealth" is in flux. And that even the whites who do control certain institutions that generate or govern wealth on a global level -- corporate CEOs, bankers, etc. -- they don't operate as whites. That is, they don't operate out of a sense of racial partisanship.

Do people control wealth... or does wealth control people?

I think capital is like an organism unto itself. Capital makes one demand, and that is to grow. To grow regardless of political interests... regardless of national interests.

That is why white nationalists (like Jared Taylor), avowed white supremacists (like the late William Pierce) and other "white parisans" (like Lawrence Auster and Pat Buchanan) bemoan the white capitalist elites who have shipped so many manufacturing jobs overseas (to non-white nations such as Mexico and China), and who, for the sake of cheap labor, push for non-white immigration into the U.S., thereby eroding the political influence of white Americans.

What leads you to believe that capitalist elites operate as racial partisans, not as aracial greedheads?

Ding!

DeAngelo Starnes said...

You came across the ring Ricky Hatton-style on my ass on this one.

First, I'm no economics expert either. And my question might seem to come from an economics perspective, but it's not economics in the academic sense with all those formulas and shit. It's more about wealth control, who controls it, and what group is best served by that control.

To work backwards on my response, capitalist elites may seem not to operate as racial partisans but aracial greedheads. However, watch what happens when a nonwhite power move occurs in the effort to gain control of world-wide wealth.

You don't have to come off as a racial partisan when the system is set up in such a manner that you can come off as an aracial greedhead.

From my perspective, three hundred years of chattel slavery and the rape of Africa's resources for the past five hundred or so years have provided the control Fuller alludes to in the quote I provided.

The World Bank and the IMF keep nonnwhite countries, non-euphemistically referred to as Third World developing countries, down and beholden to white-controlled capital with "loans/financial aid" accompanied by usury rates.

"Do people control wealth ... or does wealth control people?" I think it's a little bit of both. White people control wealth and the way it flows, i.e. into their pockets. And they use their wealth to control nonwhite people.

Example, in Bolivia, the new President, Evo Morales, is the first indigenous person elected to that office. His platform was to distribute the country's wealth to the majority nonwhite population. However, he's facing a political challenge with the states controlled by whites who own and control the country's natural resource wealth, i.e. oil and natural gas. They've threatened to secede from the country and form their own, much like the South did in the 1860s here in the U.S.

Now, in a so-called democracy, majority rules, right? Well, how is it these white-controlled states are holding up the reforms Morales proposed to get the country's overall economic health up to par? So that it's not considered a Third World nation? Why is it when nonwhite elected officials, who should be able to call the shots, are held up when trying to do right in the interest of the entire country?

Is that racial partisanship or an
aracial greedhead move?

On a similar note, Chavez is sitting on top of a heap of oil. Wants to do right by his nonwhite majority nation. Wants to be a player in the worldwide wealth control game. But he's seen as a nut.

He wants to break free of World Bank/IMF control. He's doing this by paying his country's debts. But that's lost in the translation. Isn't financial/fiscal responsibility preached?

But let's go micro on this shit.

Mo' Blacks make mo' money than ever before. But who writes the checks?

Ding!

Michael Fisher said...

First off, guys you gotta define wealth.

Well, let's first start with money.

Apparently both of you think that money = wealth.

Let stick with that. If money = wealth then clearly those who aquire lots of money acqire lots of wealth. Problem is, however, how is money created and who creates money?

Well, look at it logiaclly.

First off, money is nothing physical. The vast majority of moeny "circulating" today is not even printed paper. It's just ledger entries. These ledger entries are created by the various central banks of the "western world" and are all legitimized by the one central bank of all central banks, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland.

Since money is nothing physical but real nontheless, it is something social. In other words, money is a social relationship.

And moreover it is a social relationship each unit (or maybe quantum) of which allows the holder and/or creator of money to obtain a material good or service.

That's a powerful thing. Thus the functional content of the social relationship, the social construct "money" is power.

Thus the term "money is power".

Now, these days the money we know and love is not even backed by any arbitary physical material such as gold.

Therefore, don't even believe that we live in a "capitalist" society. Nope. Not when money can be created out of thin air at the touch of a computer button.

If you look closely at a Dollar bill you'll see the phrase: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

In other words, regardless what I might have promised to pay you for your service - lets say I promised to provied you with a Masseratti in exchamge for a script, if I decide I do not want to let you have that Masseratti and offer you dollar bills in the amount "worth" the Masseratti you are obligated to take them, else, if you do not, my debt to you is extinguished.

Now how is it that this can be enforecd? What makes the social relationship "money" so powerful?

Simple. Dollars, this money are legal tender. Legal means the state. The state means being able to enforce this notion of ledger entries having value. And that enforcement power is based on the ability to force people to accept it as such. And that ability is based on the ability to inflict organized violence. Which is based on military force in the form of police and armed forces formations.

Thus, the social realtionship money is realy armed force.

Now you gotta look at the following:

Who controls the ledgers which create money?

But more importantly...

WHO CONTROLLS THE ARMED FORCES?

Once you figure that out, there's your answer.

Michael Fisher said...

Once again, forgive the typos. But y'all get my drift...

DeAngelo Starnes said...

fisher, I almost got soft when you began your answer with some macro shit.

But let's stay with your question, what is "wealth?"

Wealth is what muthafuckas with the guns say it is.

Now, we're struggling with a premise here and trying to beat our way out of the woods.

But I don't think we, at least me, thought of wealth in terms of dollars. Even though dollars are the currency of the language of wealth.

I think you made a very valid point that Dave and myself, or at least me cuz I don't want to speak for Dave, were swimming to.

Wealth is about power relationships.

If that is the case, how do we explain Saudi Arabia's invisible hand behind the Iraq invasion or China's holding American paper?

Those are nonwhite countries. Does their economic power undercut the theory of the existence of a global white supremacy?

(Yeah, I turned tables on myself. But that's self-critical thought in action. Struggle to make your premise strong. Let's go).

Ding! To Fisher.

Undercover Black Man said...

I was scared of this question because I don't know jack about the science of money. Already I'm struggling to keep my head above water here.

But I come back to: what's "white" got to do with it, if the elite capitalists' primary objective is to grow their capital... regardless of how that affects the majority of white (let alone non-white) peoples?

When it comes to global capital, doesn't race just muddy the issue?

Nigeria is sitting on top of shitloads of oil too. Oil only has value because industrialized countries need it. (Thus only industrialized countries have the expertise of drilling, pumping, shipping, refining the oil, etc.) So Nigeria, Venezuela, etc., gots to deal with the global capitalists.

If Chavez tries to cut the global capitalists out of the action, they will push back... not as whites, but as capitalists whose primary objective will always be to protect and grow their own wealth.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, we're all struggling with the macro of it all.

Stick with yo' points. They're valid and body blows. If you could come off hard with the brainiac shit, this be a piece of cake.

So to kick off some throwdownics (love the term - Pedro Bell-style shit), let's look at like dis.

Jordan, Magic, Denzel, Jay-Z, P. Diddy, Prince, Wesley, Spike, Quincy - major league dollars.

Robert Johnson, Cathy Hughes, Oprah - bank dollars writing checks.

Chavez - country-running world player dollars.

Why do I feel they could be brought down tomorrow under the right circumstance and I don't feel that way about Cheney, Gates, and Bush family?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

For you macro lovin' mugs, what would happen if the IMF/World Bank called loans to a Nigeria? Would we see an Iraq-styled invasion?

And for the pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps types.

Why are nonwhite people the face of the predatory mortgage crisis? Was that an instance of white supremacy controlling wealth?

Michael Fisher said...

deangelo...

"If that is the case, how do we explain Saudi Arabia's invisible hand behind the Iraq invasion or China's holding American paper?

Those are nonwhite countries. Does their economic power undercut the theory of the existence of a global white supremacy?"


Deangelo, that's excatly what they are holding. Namely "paper". That is Ledger entries, cause one doesn't really use paper anymore.

Go back and look at a Dollar bill. It says that it is a "Federal Reserve Note". "Federal Reserve" is just another fancy name for "Bank". Thus these are Bank Notes.

Now what is a Bank Note? It is nothing but an I.O.U. Originally Banks issued receipts to people who deposited their precious metals such as gold in the Bank's safes. People began to use these receipts to conduct trade instead of hauling the heavy metal around.

These receipts said that the bank owed the barer of the receipt, that is of the note, that is the bank note a certain amount of precious metal to be given over to the bearer of the note on demand.

That particular system has been abolished for US citizens since the days of FDR and for foreigners since 1971.

In any case, a banknote still is a receipt, an IOU, but all that a bearer of such bank note can demand is... drum role... another bank note. Why? "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private".

In other words, the Chinese who keep delivering millions of tons of stuff to our shore do that for payment in IOUs. Which IOUs they can only demand to be redeemed by ... more IOUs. Now, of course, they could buy up some land or buildings here in the US, but what if no one wants to sell to them? Or take it away a al "eminent domain"?

Same with the Saudis.

I mean, imagine Deangelo, you see a dope Beemer and decide to get it.

You run up to the BMW dealer and tell him you'll give him a 100,000 Deangelo IOUs ("Deangelo Dollars"). Not only is he obligated to accepte them, but when he comes to collect on your IOUs he is required to accept more Deangelo IOUs. Lovely, eh?

So Deangelo you could run around all over the place and get whatever you like, cars, houses, pussy, and steak and lobster. All you got to do is pick up a napkin, put a few scribbles on it and say: here you go.

Life would be grand!

Well, life is grand. In essence what this is, is a system of tribute just as Roman Empire of old.

The Chinese know it and the Saudis know it. I suspect the Chinese are acquiescing to it in order to get some technology transfers and built up their military in order to get from under White Supremacy, I know the Saudis are acquiescing to it because they have no other choice. After all, what weapons are they gonna bring to bear against the rulers of the US and Europe?

Now, if you, Deangelo were able to keep writing IOUs like that and actually be able to buy pretty much everything important on earth (as long as your wrist doesn't start to hurt), who then de facto OWNS THE EARTH?

That would be you, Deangelo.

Now remeber what I said earlier what the social essence of money, that is your IOUs is? Military power.

This is why the United States and the European powers are the most powerful military powers on the planet.


And intend to remain so, by the way.

This is how they can enforce that de facto tributary system.

And that ain't capitalism.

It's White Supremacy.

Undercover Black Man said...

Your rap is tight, Fisher. But I wonder...

Didn’t the nations of Western Europe form the European Union and create a new currency – the Euro – to compete with the U.S. dollar? Yet you handily lump Europe and the U.S.A. together as whites in opposition to non-whites.

And aren’t transnational corporations, be they based in Europe or America, heavily invested in Asian markets? Don’t these whites, therefore, want Asian nations (non-whites) to prosper?

When it comes to military power and muscle-flexing, it’s perhaps worth remembering that, for most of our lifetimes, the U.S. built up a massive nuclear arsenal and aimed at another white nation... the Soviet Union? What did race have to do with that?

If capital, by its nature, wants only to grow and grow... then doesn’t capital (and the human decision-makers it moves through, like the Holy Spirit) want all nations to prosper, so that everybody can buy more shit?

I still can’t accept that global capitalists are motivated by any racial consideration whatsoever.

David J. Montgomery said...

The vast majority of new wealth being created today is in non-white countries, primarily India and China, but also to a lesser extent in places like Brazil.

The times they are a-changin'.

Michael Fisher said...

David Mills...

"Didn’t the nations of Western Europe form the European Union and create a new currency – the Euro – to compete with the U.S. dollar?

Did they?

Remember, there is an international monetary system in place regulated by the central bank of the central banks, the BIS the owners of which are these central banks.

Thus whatever competition (if any such exists) does take place dos so within an agreed upon institutional framework.


And aren’t transnational corporations, be they based in Europe or America, heavily invested in Asian markets? Don’t these whites, therefore, want Asian nations (non-whites) to prosper?

Is the object of "investment" by outsiders profit or prosperity?

When it comes to military power and muscle-flexing, it’s perhaps worth remembering that, for most of our lifetimes, the U.S. built up a massive nuclear arsenal and aimed at another white nation... the Soviet Union? What did race have to do with that?

And, in fact, "white" people fought two extremely bloody "world" wars against each other.

But over what?

Open white supremacists such as Buchanan correctly refer to these wars as civil wars.

No one says that white supremacy does not generate intense rivalry for the top spot. In fact, the whole concept of white supremacy logically makes such a competition and rivalry within the framework of the System of Racism/White Supremacy inevitable.(But that requires a separate and larger post).

Let's just say that, at the end of the day, slave masters do fight over the who and how to rule the slaves. Unless, of course, you believe the bladderdash that the Soviet Union was the anti-imperialist liberator of non-white people.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

fish, I agree with Dave. You came correct on this topic.

Where are the thordaddys, dragonhorses, and memomachines on this?


Let's marry you and Dave's concept about capital having cancer-like greed for growth and then more growth. Can a "Buy Black" community campaign effectively combat white supremacy?

SJ said...

"Can a "Buy Black" community campaign effectively combat white supremacy?"

Nope. How can you run a "buy black" campaign anyway? You are going to have to stop buying just about everything.

I know that Sharpton organized a similar campaign for a day in September or October due to the Jena 6 incident, yet nobody cared.

Dougfp said...

A question for our esteemed commentators...and I don't intend this as sarcasm:

Would blacks behave any differently if they were in charge?

If not, isn't this about human greed? Not black or whiteness?

SJ said...

^ Exactly what I was thinking. I think that the majority will always end up discriminating against minorities in some form.

Reminds me of this article where the Justice Department came to the conclusion that blacks in Mississippi where curtailing the rights of whites. Whites make up 30% of the population in that area.

Undercover Black Man said...

DeAngelo wrote: "Can a 'Buy Black' community campaign effectively combat white supremacy?"

Well, it couldn't hurt. But no matter how you slice it, black Americans aren't going to create oil companies, automobile companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

That's another reason why I think the black nationalist paradigm -- in this case, economic nationalism -- is an idea 40 years out of date.

The infrastructure of global capital exists. Even if black folks were given their own nation on the soil of the Southern United States... they'd still have to deal with the infrastructure of global capital.

At the same time, new wealth is being created all the time. And I'm afraid this touches back on the "cognitive" area we talked about earlier...

I'm saying, some black folks or some mestizos or some Navajos could have created Microsoft. But they didn't. Some white guys did. Now they're multi-billionaires.

A black guy could've created Amazon.com. But Jeff Bezos did. And he's a billionaire too. (Even if, as Fisher points out, his billions are just integers in a database.)

The future of wealth creation is gonna be in the hands of the cognitive elite... not the social elite (like 100 years ago). All the more reason to accept the world as it is and get to maximizing our cognitive capital.

Undercover Black Man said...

Dougfp wrote: "Would blacks behave any differently if they were in charge?"

Exactly. It sounds silly to suggest, "Yo, if black people ran Exxon and General Motors and IBM, the world would be a much better place."

Regardless of who runs transnational corporations, the rules of capital would be the same. Buy low, sell high. Supply, demand. All that shit. Capital doesn't give a shit about race. Capital wants only to grow, and you can't feed it, it'll go where it can get fed.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"The future of wealth creation is gonna be in the hands of the cognitive elite..."

Well, that makes you and Nulan birds of a fascist feather, don't it?

"I'm saying, some black folks or some mestizos or some Navajos could have created Microsoft. But they didn't. Some white guys did. Now they're multi-billionaires.

A black guy could've created Amazon.com. But Jeff Bezos did. And he's a billionaire too."


No a black guy usually couldn't have. Why?

Access to capital and special favors.

Gates' claim to fame is the DOS (operating system) for IBM's PC which he was allowed to lease to IBM on a non-exclusive basis, after he hoodwinked the original developer of the OS to sell it to him for a few dollars and a trinket or two.

After that Gates was able to leverage his IBM-"lucky" relationship into getting Wall Street behind him.

It had nothing to do with "cognitive elite" and everything to do with "social elite".

Bezos the same thing. I'm not sure whether Amazon is yet making money (on a real basis, rather than the so-called EBITDA or whatever it was called). Bezos was able to leverage social-relationships and get Wall Street behind him.

There are plenty of black folks who came up with revolutionary ideas sooner than white folks (including the ideas that led to the development of the chip that development of the PC which was developed by a black man). But more often than not they have been refused access to the social power construct money and investment. More often than not the ideas were stolen.

Like I said, why is it that a talented named Davis Mills has to go on pitching his stuff and make black Baltimore mayors white, when folks half his talent and half his seniority get nice and fat writer's contracts?

Is a "just a coincidence" or is David Mills just too non-cognitive compared to these "other" folks? Or maybe is is...dddddddruuuuummmm rooooollllllllll... systematic racist exclusion?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

One misconception that folks have about so-called Black nationalists or anyone calling out the system of white supremacy is that we want to turn the world upside down and/or paint white black.

And that ain't the case.

We're just tired of getting fucked over because we ain't white.

And so the underlying theme in response to Fisher's comments and my questions is that Black folks aren't talented or smart enough to run shit. They ain't smart or talented enough to come up with innovative ideas that sell money - even though we've being doing it since the dawn of time.

And the second theme, and this has been true for all the Stakes Be High remarks, is that Black folks will do the same to whitey if he gets a chance.

And still no one thus far has refuted Fisher's point. Who controls the flow of capital, regardless of "cognitive" ability?

I guess the point trying to be made is that the flow of capital and distribution of wealth has more to do with aracial greed than having a racial component to it.

But I agree with Fisher, on the surface, it may seem a colorless notion. But who has all the access? Who controls the money? Who defines wealth? Cuz when a bruh has an idea he still needs financing. Now, is going to go to another nonwhite person for that?

If Bill Cosby, Oprah, Bob Johnson, Cathy Hughes, and some of these others who took big checks from white supremacy pooled their resources, a dent could get started.

But I'm curious to know what would the reaction of whites be?

odocoileus said...

dragonhorse has the formal training in econ and development, so I hope he weighs in here.

There's a difference between wealth and money. Wealth is goods and services that people want and need, and more importantly, the ability to produce these goods and services.

People buy Japanese cars, as opposed to Russian ones, because the Japanese have a culture, with an economic system growing out of it, which lends itself to producing something lots of people want.

This isn't any more a function of white supremacy than the global dominance of black American pop music is. The only rivals for global pop music success are the English, and they borrowed as much as they possibly could from black Americans.

Black Americans have headed up Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, Am Ex, and the effing State Department.

I don't buy the idea of a worldwide system of white racists keeping black folks down. It's just so much bs fantasy. Are there plenty of individual racists? Hell yeah. Are they smart enough to keep black folks down and out? No way.

The likelihood is that in the future, all of us, black, white, brown or beige, will be working for some kind of Japanese-Chinese-Korean consortium. I think it would have happened already, but for the fact that the East Asians still hate each other so much.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

fisher, I think you and I need to just surrender.

Cuz Black people just aren't smart enough to run shit.

Cuz even though a few house jerks like Rice, Thomas, and Powell bust through, there's still this perception that there's equal access.

Cuz nonwhite people have equal access to capital.

Cuz New Orleans is about irresponsible Black folks who ruined a great American city.

Cuz affirmative action keeps good qualified white folks down even though there's been affirmative action for white folks known as the good ol' boy network.

Cuz the most popular athletes and artists are Black.

Cuz Blackstyle is evident at every juncture of life and we blend with inter-racial dating without batting an eyelash.

Cuz we took out mortgages we knew we couldn't afford.

Cuz we keep having babies when we know we don't have jobs.

Cuz we don't pay child support.

Cuz we are just some lazy shiftless ass deadbeats draining on society.

So fuck all the intellectual debate.

Let's surrender to this.

White supremacy is a figment of our Black nationalist whining ass imagination.

Slavery has been over for over a hundred and forty years.

Jim Crow has been outlawed for the past 53.

You niggers get to vote.

So let's just surrender.

Because everytime we point some shit out and back it with credible empirical evidence, we hear the screams that there is no white supremacy.

Are we blind?

Or are the rest of these muthafuckas fooling themselves?

Ding!

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

deangelo...

"Because everytime we point some shit out and back it with credible empirical evidence, we hear the screams that there is no white supremacy.

Are we blind?

Or are the rest of these muthafuckas fooling themselves?"


Well, since none of these black gentlemen have reached the pinnacle promised by their formal training while on the average other people with lesser formal training and classified as "white" have overtaken them, the only explanation that could then logically be offered given their denial of the existence of the System of Racism/White Supremacy is their own inherent lack of mental ability.

In other words, they are telling us that they are stupid. Which, although they if we follow the logic are telling us this, I think this is clearly not the case.

The denial of certain truths to oneself can affect the most intelligent person. Especially when one has to daily deal with a system as awesome and refined as the SR/WS is.

Sometimes, no usually, it is better for the victim to take the blue pill. Who wants to wake up and find out that they are nothing than a lump of flesh in a pod?

Michael Fisher said...

odocoileus said...

This isn't any more a function of white supremacy than the global dominance of black American pop music is. The only rivals for global pop music success are the English, and they borrowed as much as they possibly could from black Americans.

What is the content of current "black American pop music"?

Who controls the distribution and marketing of live and recorded "black American pop music"?

Michael Fisher said...

odocoileus said...

"Black Americans have headed up Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, Am Ex, and the effing State Department."

And you know what?

They gonna have a black person be US President, too. (Besides Harding)

I.B. Whitey said...

"They gonna have a black person be US President, too."

If that's true -- or if it's even plausible -- what does that do to your position that American society is fundamentally racist?

Or is it all just part of whitey's plan? (That whitey... damn, he crafty.)

A point was made above that is very illuminating: there are white racists and there are white people who get things done, but the intersection between the two groups is quite small.

Bill Gates is too busy rolling in his money like Scrooge McDuck to keep anybody down. Just as Oprah is to lift anybody up.

And the richest man in the world is a Mexican. (Damn -- that whitey IS crafty. I can't figure that one.)

odocoileus said...

The empirical evidence supports the view that the powerful and the wealthy will do just about anything to hold on to their wealth and power. No one willingly gives up privilege.

This is wealthy powerful Africans too. Mugabe took one of the most prosperous, stable nations in Africa and turned it into a disaster area because he didn't want to let go of power. He'd rather rule in hell.

It's not whiteness or blackness, it's wealth and power.

Undercover Black Man said...

i.b. whitey wrote: "And the richest man in the world is a Mexican. (Damn -- that whitey IS crafty. I can't figure that one.)"

Let me beat Fisher to this punch...

i.b., you don't think there's white people in Mexico? Proud of their unadulterated European bloodlines? Then you've never been to Mexico City.

Mexico's got whites, mestizos, indios... even black folks. And the fact that the whites are clustered in the elite levels of economics and governance... well, that would tend to support Fisher's case.

SJ said...

"And the richest man in the world is a Mexican. (Damn -- that whitey IS crafty. I can't figure that one.)"

Actually it's an Indian now.

SJ said...

Carlos Slim is actually of Lebanese descent (dad was an immigrant to Mexico). Ethnically he's "Arab" I guess.

I.B. Whitey said...

"i.b., you don't think there's white people in Mexico? Proud of their unadulterated European bloodlines? Then you've never been to Mexico City."


Ask any white supremacist (the underlying subject of this post, after all) if there are white people in Mexico.

This is all about discrimination, right?

Do white supremacists who hold sway over global wealth consider a Lebanese-Mexican white?

Undercover Black Man said...

Ethnically he's "Arab" I guess.

One day we'll have to play that game. That peculiarly American game of "Who's White, Who's Not?"

Because Arabs (and Persians and Turks) are a sticky wicket among white nationalists. I used to love instigating those kinds of arguments at American Renaissance, and see people go back and forth as to whether Lebanese are or aren't white.

Maybe it boils down to: Lebanese Christians, white... Lebanese Muslims, non-white.

John Sununu, Donna Shalala, Casey Kasem... dem is white.

Undercover Black Man said...

This is all about discrimination, right?

Read closer, i.b. It's all about power.

I.B. Whitey said...

Telling someone to read closer is insulting. Come on, UBC, you're better than that.

Yes, it's about power. What do those who have it DO with that power? Do they use it to discriminate against those whom they dislike for racial reasons?

Saying "it's all about power" it too gross an oversimplification.

SJ said...

Ralph Nader, Frank Zappa and many other whites are of Lebanese descent. So yeah I guess you can classify most of them as "white".

In any case, they are the most beautiful people in the world imo...I knew quite a few Lebanese people back in the UAE and all of them were good looking (the women are gorgeous).

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Okay, it seems that there is agreement that wealth, money, distribution of goods and services, and flow of capital is white-controlled.

The point of disagreement seems to be that the control is being used to keep nonwhite people powerless.

If we can agree that's where we are, I think we can move the debate along.

Dave?

I.B. Whitey said...

I follow your point, SJ.

But when your average white supremacist walks into a 7-11 and some Lebanese dude rings up his can of Copenhagen -- does he see a fellow white behind the counter? Or is it just some damn A-rab?

The famous always transcend race, which is why even bigots want to fuck Halle Berry.

Undercover Black Man said...

I wasn't trying to insult you, i.b. (When I insult you, you'll know it.) I meant, literally, that if you follow this conversation closely, you'll see that you're the only one who used the word "discrimination."

Black folk on the starboard side of the bell curve hardly ever use that word any more. It's kind of an old-fashioned word, actually.

Nowadays it's all about studying the subtleties as well as the monster footprints of power.

Undercover Black Man said...

If we can agree that's where we are, I think we can move the debate along.

I got something for you, DeAngelo. But it's gonna take me an hour or two.

Michael Fisher said...

I.B. Whitey, I assume your moniker means that you are a white person.

What makes you "white"?

SJ said...

I see your point too I.B. And what about famous white supremacist David Duke attending conferences with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Also, ever since I moved to Florida I have been surprised by how many "whites" I have met who have the last name Rodriguez or Garcia. Do white supremacists hate them too?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

i.b. whitey (clever name), Dave was pointing out that the discussion has been more macro. So that's where the comment about power came from.

Discrimination is a racist tactic to control white power over nonwhite powerlessness.

And to that point, it's easier to argue on that level because to defeat the discrimination argument, all you have to do is point to bruhs "heading Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, Am Ex, and the effing State Department" the Democrat Party, Super Bowl winning football teams, etc. to claim white supremacy does not dominate economics.

But discrimination, in the simple sense, is just one component to the argument.

Because that's where the opponents to the notion of global white supremacy stop. They focus on discrimination because the point is that capital and wealth aren't motivated by race but by capital and wealth with no regards to color.

I think where fisher and I come down is that you don't need to necessarily have a racially discriminatory motive to maintain and refine a system of white supremacy. After it's established, you can afford to have nonwhite people be rich and lead government departments and multinational corporations.

Because ultimately the control does not belong to nonwhites. They merely contribute to the maintenance.

Control of direction belongs to maintenance of the system. It doesn't matter the color of the symbolic leader.

When there are real moves to dismantle the system is when you will see the fangs come out.

But most of the comments opposing the existence white supremacy in economics are merely focused on racially discriminatory motives.

That's an easy argument to make and an even easier one to refute.

Let's keep it deeper than that.

Ding!

DeAngelo Starnes said...

"Also, ever since I moved to Florida I have been surprised by how many "whites" I have met who have the last name Rodriguez or Garcia. Do white supremacists hate them too?"

White supremacy isn't necessarily about hate. It's about white power over nonwhite powerlessness.

Hate and greed may power the motive to maintain it. But hate is a strong emotion. And true white supremacists are too calculating to make a decision based solely on "hate."

SJ said...

^ But do the Hispanic whites factor into that "white power"?

I'm sorry I know this is sort-of off-topic, but I'm just curious.

Undercover Black Man said...

Carlos Slim is actually of Lebanese descent...

Carlos Slim?? Who knew a rapper could become the richest person in the world?

(Sorry. Just had to get that in.)

SJ said...

I would like you guys to talk about the "Nation Of Islam" sometime if it's not a problem. I am quite fascinated by this organization. I watched "Malcolm X" recently (yeah I know, I'm 15 years late...) and am quite intrigued about what still motivates them.

Just a suggestion I thought I should put out there...

DeAngelo Starnes said...

sj, slightly tangential but not off topic.

Speaking of tangents, watching my boys, the Raiders, getting blown out by the Jaguars. Bruh with the name of Jamaal Fudge just intercepted a pass. Great name. Gonna steal it for a future short story.

But speaking of names, that was kinda the topic of your post.

You know there was a time when group classification was based on what tribe you came from, and that designation was primarily based on geographical location.

At some undetermined point, group classification began to be based on color. And then color morphed into race.

With persons classifying themselves as Hispanic, the designation has been based primarily on language. The latin-based language called "spanish" in particular.

So you have Black so-called Hispanics, e.g. Dominicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans.

You have spanish-speaking Indians, e.g. Mexicans, Guatamalans, and Puerto Ricans.

And white Hispanics, e.g. Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans.

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, there are white Bolivians who are holding hostage reforms the spanish-speaking Indian President, Evo Morales, has proposed.

I think the notion of race could be its own blog subject.

But the bottom-line is if you're white and can pass for white, you're white.

If you're white and people think you have some nonwhite in you, you'll be treated that way.

As an example of the second point, look at Jews and Italians.

So your question counts, as a part of the calculation when discussing the existence of white supremacy in economics.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, I think we are finally slapping around ideas like hockey pucks!

sj, within the context of this discussion, the Nation of Islam preached a program of economic self-sufficiency. They took bruhs out of jail and off the street and got 'em on farms to bring in food that was distributed to NOI-run stores and sold in areas where Black folks resided.

Now I know the caricature is that they made money hawking Muhammed Speaks newspapers and bean pies on the corners. But they did more than that and for quite a while.

Without touching some of their nonsensical religious dogma, they truly had a positive impact on Black mentality. And with them making some strides, in terms of economic self-sufficiency, you saw the system of white supremacy take notice of a threat to its power.

So it took advantage of internal immature jealousies and split the group up.

The FBI's COINTELPRO, under J. Edgar Hoover, led to the assassination of Malcolm X. Then they became a fringe group.

Even with the rise of Farrakhan in the 80s culminating with the Million Man March in 1995, the Nation of Islam's momentum, with economic self-sufficiency as its centerpiece, was killed when Malcolm X was forced from the NOI.

Which serves as a point I made earlier. When nonwhite people make a strong economic move, white supremacy will quash it. In this instance, it just needed self-hatred induced tendencies to set the effort in motion.

Ding!

Undercover Black Man said...

DeAngelo wrote: ”The point of disagreement seems to be that the control is being used to keep nonwhite people powerless.”

Let’s talk about Africa. Do you honestly think global capitalists want Africa to be poor and underdeveloped? Or would global capitalists rather see thriving industrial economies in Africa, with a thriving middle class that’s got disposable income... so they can sell even more cell phones, TV sets and microwave ovens?

If Africa as a region got its shit together – like India – you’d see U.S. and European investment dollars pouring in there, lifting the economic fortunes of everyone.

How do I know? Well, SJ just provided a great link. The key point for this discussion is the reference to the “record-breaking performance by India’s stock markets”:

“Buoyed by unprecedented inflows from US and European investors, the benchmark Mumbai Sensex stock index topped 20,000 for the first time yesterday – having almost doubled in value in the last two years.” [Emphasis mine.]

You see? India’s getting wealthier. Quickly. You think global capitalists give a damn that India is a non-white nation? No. Capital goes where it will be fed.

Now... why can’t African nations do like India? I say the responsibility lies with the African leadership class.

Consider electricity... a fascinating subject. Did you know that only 10 to 20 percent of Africans have regular access to electricity? I’m not talking about cable TV or wireless Internet... but electricity!

How you gonna make the black nation rise without electricity? And what electricity they do have is thanks to white colonialists who built the power plants.

What are the economic repercussions of the lack of reliable electricity? Here’s a 2005 article from the United Nations publication Africa Renewal:

“On the outskirts of Accra, Ghana, business plans are only as final as the next electricity outage permits. In July, food tins at the Prime Pak canning factory were positioned on the assembly line, ready to be sealed before export. Without warning, the machines came to a screeching halt, leaving entrepreneur Cyril Francis standing helplessly in the dark.”

According to this UN article, “Blackouts are routine in almost all West African countries. The bulk of power plants and transmission facilities were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Little investment and maintenance has left the infrastructure creaking at the seams. Nigeria, a prime example, operates at one-third of its installed capacity due to aging equipment.” [Emphasis mine.]

Nigeria. Nigeria makes $20 billion a year in oil revenues! Is it white supremacists’ fault that only about 40 percent of Nigeria’s population has electricity? (And less than 50 percent has running water?)

Who’s keeping who down??

DeAngelo Starnes said...

Dave, your last post just got a little micro vis a vis Africa.

In order to carry out the continued rape of Africa's natural resources, it's necessary to keep strong men in there to continue the chaos.

In Iraq, there's very little electricity or any infrastructure at all but they sit on a shitload of oil. We, the US, took that shit over to keep it off the market to keep oil prices high.

Same with Africa. You're talking a continent with the greatest amount of coveted natural resources in the world. It behooves white supremacy that chaos rules, where there is no electricity, because if you didn't have that chaos? You might see the same amount of armed resistance to the ongoing theft you see now.

Many of the so-called leaders of African nations are strongmen. Motivated by greed? Sure. But slavery wouldn't have occurred without the cooperation of similar greedy motives.

But that greed is in service to a white supremacy system.

And don't let me apologize for that shit that's happening in Africa. It's beyond assholic, and I am extremely dismayed and disturbed by it.

You can't really compare India to Africa. India doesn't have the same level of natural resources. What it has is a large market of consumers and cheap labor. And that market is being exploited. Because, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me, India's economy is not flourishing because Indian people are spearheading that effort. White-run multi-national corporations are responsible for that. And the Indians don't control their economy any more than African nations do.

Good post though! It's flowing!

Ding!

Dragon horse said...

UNBM: Please delete my previous post on this blog and keep this one. Thanks

odocoileus:

Just got back from Atlantic City so I didn't see this. I don't even know where to start. UCBM is trying to hold the line of reason so that this post does not slip into lunacy but deangelo is a very creative paranoid delusional type whose conspiracy theories and lack of understanding of global political-economic dynamics have no end. I mean it is ridiculous.

India's economy is crap? First off, it is growing at a fast clip.

That invalidates all the other nonsense said afterward. India's economic issues has little to do with multinationals. It has more to do with 40+ years of Indian socialism that only recently came to an end. It has to do with a caste system that discriminates against a huge portion of the population. It has to do with India's pathetic infrastructure and education (partially due to discrimination against the lower cast) that makes it uncompetitive against China in most ends of manufacturing. The elites are highly educated and can do low level software programing and support. India even has some world class tech companies, but those companies are capable of employing the average Indian who is poor and backward. they need labor intensive industry, similar to China to get those people going at the bottom, but they do not have that as I said because it is hard to start a business (due to overregulation, which is just, in the last 10 years, being recalled). In the end, it is just too expensive to ship things from India to the markets of developed nations or newly industrialized economies as compared to China. They also do not have the overseas network of co-ethnics like the Chinese do in Southeast Asia or the cultural affinity with productive neighbors that China has with S.Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, etc. There are many reasons that really make deagelo's points look silly.

As far as Africa, all of Africa has the gross GDP of Beligum. That tells you selling vegitables and natural resources is not a cash cow. This is also why the average Saudi is poor, although THE KINGDOM is rich.

If you do not control the supply chain from top to bottom you ain't makin' no money. Hell even Chinese people are buying up oil fields in Africa and making gasoline and likely selling it back to Africans. If you do not produce value added goods, strip mining your land and being a natural resource whore provides you with little value in the end.

This is why a nation with limited natural resources and a lot of labor like Vietnam is considered one of the best locations for foreign direct Investment (top 6) in the world and the economy is growing at over 7% per year and has been for since 2000 or so, despite relatively high inflation. Why? They produce things at a higher level of the value chain. Right now they are investing in tech parks and doing co-investment projects with Singapore and Japan. When I was born, Vietnam was a backward war torn crackhold in Southeast Asia with a devastated Northern half and a Southern half, bleeding the most capable people as they fled in boats. They were isolated from their neighbors after invading Cambodia, they only got limited at from the USSR, which was a joke. To make a long story short...China started economic reform as an experiment in 1979. Vietnam started it out of desperation, they were on the verge of collapses. I can hit you up with figures of FDI trends, policy changes, investor response in detail as I did my grad thesis on this. Development in any country is quite complex, it is not as simple as Deagelo's conspiracy.

He is also jumping all over the place, talking about J Edgar Hover, something 45 years ago, then talking about white global economic racism this year half way around the globe.

He praise Chavez. Reality Chavez is part of a long line of Latin American populist authoritarians that go back over 150 years. What Deangelo says is true that "whites" in Venezuela and Boliva display intense colorism (I won't say racism, because most of these whites would not be white in the U.S. as they are light Mestizos).

The thing is this in Venezuela. No one paid attention to the darker masses. The lighter elites were not. Chavez, being political estute, appeals to the masses as a savior, even claiming to be a "Indio" when he never did before and pays attention to them. He is a poor Latin man's Putin. He uses the fact that oil prices are higher and the win fall he is receiving to make up for the fact that economic productivity is down. He has done nothing to help expand the economy away from just oil. The oil industry will not employee most Venezuelans, that is not possible. He gives them some food stamps, he opens some clinics, and has done NOTHING to improve the economic condition, the actual per capita income of the poor. In fact, according to Foreign Policy Magazine a few months ago (google it) the average Venezeulan has got poorer.

He has used the power of the state to nationalize the oil industry and use that profit. What happens if oil prices slow down or Venezuela's oil supply peaks? When he runs out of "magic money"?

In Bolivia, as in Venezuela, as in South Africa the situation is tricky. I feel for the poor people, I do, but reality is this (something Mandela knew) if you alienate the wealth productive class they will take their capital and leave the nation. The poor are in no position to run anything, so productivity will fall, taxes will fall as you spend more on the poor (because it is a democracy and they will vote themselves more money from the government) but no one is around to make the money. The poor get upset and then you have a civil war, a coup; often around racial/ethnic lines. When resources are scares people fall back on those they trust most. In South Africa this could be especially dangerous. So what do you do? The thing you do is what South Africa is doing (what Venezuela has not done, what Bolivia has not done), and what Malaysia did you up the education level, create affirmative action programs for the disadvantaged majority and get them trained to be competitive and take over key position in the economy. This does not alienate and scare international investors. This does not typically scare or piss off the elite enough to create capital flight.

Chavez and Evo are not doing this? You have to ask why? I know why. It is for show. They are doing a Putin. They are rallying the people around them and using the popular mandate to consolidate their power at the same time, weakening democracy. Chavez does not give a damn about the poor in Venezuela, he wants to take power away from the whites who have it entrenched, not for the poor but for himself. He is so typical, of someone who has class envy. He wants in the club and he is using the poor as a wedge.

Basically dealgelo thinks anywhere a "non-white" person is poor it is due to a global white conspiracy. That must be it...LOL

If only reality was that simple, but whatever make you sleep well at night.

I feel quite confident I can destroy any argument that deagelo puts up on this issue.

Dragon Horse said...

I should also say that it is a common economic misconception that wealth is fixed. Meaning that there is a global or domestic economic pie and that its circumference is set. This means, if MNC (multi-national corporation) X make 100 million USD on a product then they somehow stole that wealth from some poor Africans indirectly.

The global economic system does not work like that. In the short term, it might be that an economy is somewhat stable and most of the movement is resource reallocation.

In the long term the economy does expand due to innovation, due to greater efficiency (like introducing automation, computers, etc).

It seems some folks think that everything ever produced and made by a white person in a predominately white country was stolen from someone else.

If that is so then China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, even India must be stealing a lot from whites or stealing a hell of a lot from blacks, etc.

That is not the case.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ DH... What should Nigeria be doing with its oil wealth? What should its internal investment priorities be? Electricity for all? Running water for all? Transportation infrastructure?

Am I right in assuming that these would yield economic (not just quality-of-life) benefits?

Michael Fisher said...

DH...

"The thing you do is what South Africa is doing (what Venezuela has not done, what Bolivia has not done), and what Malaysia did you up the education level, create affirmative action programs for the disadvantaged majority and get them trained to be competitive and take over key position in the economy."

DH, who owns most of South Africa and why?

Dragon Horse's entire post did nothing to refute the argument that the global economic system is an aspect of the global system of Racism/White Supremacy.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

^ fisher, absolutely.

Happy holidays to all! Taking an Xmas break.

DH, get your rap together please.

Thordaddy said...

The problem with this thread is the lack of substantiation on the part of Fisher and Starnes. Where is the real empirical evidence for these "systems" of white supremacy?

I could merely declare a system of non-white inferiority and assert a complete non-white control of the black global market. There are ample observations to back these "systems."

What we see is just a modern day hustle. We white folks are to simply believe that such a white supremacy "system" exists and that we certainly must not upset the black man that says it is so.

Dragon Horse said...

Michael falls back on conspiracy theory as usual. I am not going to even attempt to give justification to delusion. If he wants to come with objective facts that can be measured and agreed upon as a basis for discussion then I will engage him. So far he has said nothing substantive but "its the white man" he is omnipresent and omnipotent. Okay...keep thinking that.

Deagelo did not address any of it and just played cheerleader Michael...typical. Seen it 1,000X and counting on black politico blogs. (yawn).


"^ DH... What should Nigeria be doing with its oil wealth? What should its internal investment priorities be? Electricity for all? Running water for all? Transportation infrastructure?

Am I right in assuming that these would yield economic (not just quality-of-life) benefits?"


UCBM:

I think before we get to what you said (which is critical, no doubt), we need to step back and look at the foundation, because the cracks in that are the root cause. You are talking about symptoms (serious ones) of a larger disease.

Do not mistake that I think Nigeria can be some type of self-sustained economic power totally independent from what is happening in their region or in the global economic system.

My point is they are not maximizing the advantages they have.

So what can Nigeria do to point them in the right direct?

I'm not going to lie and say I'm any type of expert on African development. I'm mainly focused on and educated in Southeast and East Asian political-economic issues, but I see parallels.

What I think African nations like Nigeria can do are:

1) Off the top of my head, do anything they can to make peace with rebel factions in their countries, if any; as well as neighboring nations. This will free up monies that can be used for public works projects to improve infrastructure and education. Most African nations (including Nigeria) spend a hell of a lot on their military, not due to fear of white folks recolonizing, but fear of other black people in their neighborhood.

2) Increase the rule of law. The rule of law must be upheld, by any means necessary, even if you have to curtail other freedoms. Judges should be independent and corruption free. People have to know they need to obey the law, but they will not obey the law if it is not enforced, and enforced fairly. Basically, if the government is seen as having virtue the people will follow suit, that is some 2,000 year old Confucianism that is still true today. When the government is seen as ineffective and corrupt people will ignore it and do anything to get around it.

3) Improve banking laws and decrease government ownership in state owned enterprises. Get government out of banks. The idea of improving banking regulation is to better allocate any existing capital to entrepreneurs. Africa does have people who are bright and who want to go into business but often can not due to lack of capital and too much government red tape (left over from those leftist initial generation of independence leaders) who were typically socialist and were good at fighting for freedom but didn't know a damn thing about governing a nation in a way conducive to economic growth.

Thankfully there is a whole new generation of Africans not obsessed with 'neo-colonialism' who are about economic development and capitalism.

http://www.africanexecutive.com/

They don't talk like the old guard from the 50's and 60's...they are tired and want change. They do not want to have to go to Europe and America to work, they want to make their own nations work in Africa.

You know Lee Kuan Yew observed how the old guard operated in Africa in his book on Singapore (as at one time Ghana was wealthier than Malaysia (which Singapore was apart of) and he toured Singapore, Kenya, and Nigeria (as they were all part of the same British Empire).

His conclusions were:

a) They did not allocate resources well. Lee gave an example of how Ghana had a young minister who shown outstanding academic performance at Oxford, earning a degree in Latin and Greek classics. Lee said he was impressed but wondered, “what good is that in a country mostly agricultural?” Why not major in business, engineering, or biology? Why would the government sponsor someone to major in Greek in Africa? Good question, at that time, Singapore focused on training engineers, doctors, lawyers, and bankers. The government would not pay for folks to major in "Greek". I saw the same thing as an undergrad. About 30 Botswanans who were on scholarship to study psychology!

What? Why? They have a nation that has a 1/4 HIV infection rate with very high unemployment where most of the country is held up by diamond wealth (which they do not even process just mine)...the income inequality is one of the highest in the world (gini coefficient look it up). Do they need psychologists? Is that a priority for a developing country to spend resources on that? Remember this is at the bachelors level...not even grad school.

b) Tribalism and the resulting corruption. He remarked that he had issues dealing with Indians/Malay/Chinese in Singapore let alone 50 or 100 different tribes as in Nigeria. This makes most Africans countries states, but not nations. A nation is like Germany or Japan, where the vast majority of people can not distinguish between their nationality and their ethnicity. That is not Africa for the most part.

I think African governments need to do what Lee did in Singapore...enforce nationalism and deemphasize ethnicity/clan/tribe even by undemocratic means if necessary, at least for a generation. Countries like Nigeria and Kenya do not vote for the good of the nation, they vote by tribe even if that tribal representative is a crook, because they are loyal. In this case democracy is a joke. It is not "one man, one vote" it is one tribe one vote in hope of kickbacks for your tribe/clan. A nation can not develop like that...not easily and rarely stably, because when resources are scare corruption becomes even more likely.

Hell Chinese knew this during the Qing Dynasty and Lee knew this in Singapore which is why the government set up clan organizations that are closely monitored and regulated. Singapore still has then. China does not, as Communist broke most of that up half a century ago.

c) Lee said that most African states (unlike India, Malay, Sri Lanka) were never well trained in bureaucratic administration in the “British way”, which Lee personally admired (due to efficiency), and these nations had much larger percentages as uneducated people, even before colonization.

d) He stated that throughout the 60’s and the 70’s, at almost every Commonwealth Conference, Africans were extremely emotional over South Africa and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and only used the conferences to alienate themselves from the British, as well as promote the nonaligned movement, which was really a lot of socialist who did not want to go overboard and ally with Soviet Union outright but were anti-Western as well (citing neocolonialism). This is the same thing India did and I have already discussed where it got India, but India was at a higher state of education, industry, etc than most of Africa at independence, even if not "wealthier" they had a better foundation.

Lee said that while Singapore focused on pragmatic non-idealogical politics, free market solutions to poverty, education, and infrastructure it seems that most of the African leaders were trying to “Out African” each other and guilt trip the British, and to make it worse they were egged on by various Australia and Canada administrations (read: guilty white liberals who are no friend of black people).

I bring these things up because a lot of this has not changed significantly at the top government levels in Africa until quite recently (only took 40 years). Keep in mind most of these countries were colonized only 80-90 years or so. Before that they were not really nations anyway (most of them), they were kingdoms, if that.

I go into a lot more detail on my site concerning my theories of why Africa was colonized in the first place and why it is in the state it is today.

http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/africa-colonialism-economic-development/

4) End corruption. That also goes into #2, but I want to put special emphasis on it. I’m of the opinion that if a public official steals a certain amount of money…lets say; in the thousands of dollars USD, that public official should be executed. I am this harsh because that money could have went to feed a starving child, get the child medicine, a vaccine, etc. Instead it went to some greedy public official who was stealing from the people. That person is an enemy of the state as much as a rebel solider and should be put to death. It must be understand that these things ARE NOT acceptable and will be dealt with harshly until it becomes cultural that public servants serve the public and not just themselves, their family, their tribe, or their clan.

Another way to help end corruption is a public published accounting of all revenues and allocations to local governments so that the people know where the money is supposed to be going. This will free up more monies for public works.

Now Nigeria has done some of these things, especially in the way of corruption, and corruption on the African continent has been in decline...I have to give them some credit, but they are nowhere near where they need to be.

I posted some links here to what Nigeria has been doing.

http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/interesting-revelations-from-president-yaradua/


I also just posted on African internet access projects and the rapid (steller) rise of cell phone use on the continent...should check it out. There is hope.

Africa just needs to retire the people of Michael Fisher's generation and the older folks still in power pushing that "neo-colonialism" for all it is worth as their only legitimacy...similar to "I marched with King" here in the states with the American negro "poverty pimps" and "ghetto thought pushers".

I have hope for Africa, because I see Africa turning around. I do not see Africans of my generation who are making moves talking like deangelo or Afrocentric wannabe African, American negros who are having identity crisis and linear time problems (as they are stuck in 1969 perpetually).

The Africans I read about and know are progressive (not in the liberal sense) and about building capitalist democracies.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Fascinating. Thanks, Dragon Horse.

Dragon Horse said...

Something else. Lets say you agree with paranoid conspiracy theories of white God-hood at the global level (because that is what it amounts to).

fine.

Here is what you have to ask yourself.

Are nations in Africa maximizing the opportunities available under the current system?

Look up the Human Development Index from the UN, most African countries are South of backward junta lead Myanmar and former warn torn piss poor commi Vietnam.

My answer, to put it in the common America lower class negro street vernacular, "hell to the naw"...

UCBM brought up Nigeria. IMHO, Nigeria; Kenya; Congo; South Africa; and Ethiopia are key to African development. Now it could be that a country like Ghana or Uganda can play a Singapore like role and develop its region, but it is unlikely.

What is likely is a Switzerland scenario, because in Africa most of the resource rich nations are not landlocked, most of the resource poor ones are landlocked (they should have never been nations to begin with but that is done and won't be changing).

If Nigeria generate sustainable development at a high growth rate the resulting positive externalities are better infrastructure for countries like Niger to use to get their stuff to sea ports at a cheaper and faster rate, potential niche markets for landlocked neighbors to exploit.

This is similar to Switzerland, which is wealthier than its neighbors, but relies heavily on them for business and their infrastructure/ports and has for centuries.

This type of regional synergy based off the big country stabilizing is even more important in Africa than in Europe (were most nations are not landlocked).

Currently we can see this synergy between Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and S.Korea as they exploit (positively) China and the other Southeast Asian nations, in return the poorer nations get business (especially China), but even Vietnam is finding niche markets to specialize in to make it competitive next to China. This regional integration started with a "big country"...Japan who seeded Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. In turn those nations seeded Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and China. This is known as the 'flying geese" effect.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/1999/nr1999024.asp

I have academic papers on this if anyone wants them.

China is a good example of this, as in 1979, it did not begin to develop due primarily to Western investment, it was primarily to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singaporean, and Japanese investment. The West came later, almost a decade later in significant numbers of FDI.

Problem in Africa is that there is no nation like this. South Africa comes the closet but they are nowhere near a Singapore, let alone a Japan or South Korea in the money they can bring to another African nation.

Michael Fisher said...

Dragon Horse...

"Michael falls back on conspiracy theory as usual. I am not going to even attempt to give justification to delusion."

I spoke about one ting, namely the international monetary system, none of which DH has refuted. Nothing that DH talks about disproves my exposition of the international monetary system which is the underlying basis of and the sole determinant of any and all economic activity on the globe.

I further asked one question: Who owns most of South Africa since DH cited the country as a model. No answer.

DH's positing of assertions about what I person supposedly said and then "refusing to engage" this straw man DH set up is intellectually highly dishonest.

What you need to do DH is address the issues that I raised about the international monetary system and its rapacious nature and answer my question about South Africa.

Everything else is bullshyt.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's all controlled by White people. And that's why Jews have always been poor. Please. There are so many problems within the black community, but the blame always goes to the white man. African countries are robbed by their black leaders. Studies show that black people don't have a lot of trust of other black people. Other minority communities have much more trust of their own members than blacks do. That's the likely reason why other minorities could band together and create their own economies without needing to rely on white people to send money their way. Personally, I think black people tend to shoot themselves in the foot with an alarming regularity.

Dragon Horse said...

Michael:

I don't need to raise any issue with you, as this is not your board. As I said, I do not entertain nonsense.

You know who owns most of the land (or better yet, capital resources in SA) and why...that is no secret to anyone.

The stuff you said...jeezz where to start.

You are right that money is a social contract of shorts. We use it because it is more efficient than bartering, people figured that out, likely before people could read and write (10,000+ years ago). That is not a revelation. Yes, yes, I know we used to base money "on something" at least loosely (as in gold standard) but we no longer do. Yep...because, once again that is not efficient nor necessary.


Money is legitimized by the BIS? Prove it?

Source? Please expand on the dynamics of this.

Money can be "created" out of thin air, but that does not mean the aggregate of that currency did not decrease in value. Creating money has the overall effect of lower the power of a currency against another, which leads to inflation for holder, especially in countries heavily dependent on international trade (particularly imports). So printing money is at the touch of a computer does not in itself "create value".

So the Masseratti example you gave...if the Masseratti is worth 300K USD, and someone in Washington starts "printing money", if you buy it in Italy the value against the Euro dropped. So the Masseratti may be significantly more expensive. So that is not a benefit per se.

Money is powerful because it is a medium of exchange, that is basic economics.

The state regulates trade and banking. True. The state controls monetary policy but the state has limited control over the value of the currency when it is freely floating and managed floats or not floating currency is highly inefficient and usually results in inefficient allocation.

The fact that governments control currency and the strongest currencies are USD and the Euro (controlled by majority white nations) does not mean "global white supremacy" that is a huge freaking leap of logic.

Bank notes are no longer "IOUs" that is not the proper way to look at it. You can no longer exchange dollars for gold or silver, etc.

That system has been abolished, it is more abstract. A bank note from a central bank (i.e. currency) is a promise that this money has a value in the market that can be used to exchange goods.

In effect we the value of the currency is not "precious metal" but a percentage of the value of your nations aggregate goods produced against anthers. This is why it fluctuations according to market, because demand for dollars or lack of demand for dollars on the international market to pay for goods is how the dollar is valued.

So this is far more efficient then saying...X(USD) = Y(gold) = Z(goods)

Take out the gold and you have a cleaner equation.

As with your Chinese and Saudi examples, if no one wants to sell a building or a port they can exchange these dollars for Euros or Yen and buy some places else. The act of trading dollars (when taken in the aggregate reduces the value of the dollars against another currency) and the Chinese or Saudis raise the value of the Euros or Yens (by fractions of a percent) and use the resulting exchange to purchase abroad. This happens all the time.

No it is not a system of "tribute" like ancient Rome or China...that is hyperbole.

You also act like the U.S. is the only game in town. China buys weapons from Israel. China buys weapons from Russia. China is attempting (with French help) to get the EU arms embargo lifted to buy weapons from them. China is also trying to put itself in a position (like Japan) to create its own high tech independently if need be. Oh didn't you know that during the Cold War, most of the chips that powered those nukes we had pointed at Russia came from japan, but key elements on the boards came from South Africa (maybe you knew about the SA angle). In 1989, after Ishihara Shintaro wrote the book "Japan that can say NO" we had emergency meetings with Japan as they were scared Japan would start selling vital components only made in Japan that powered our targeting systems to the Soviets.

Once again..."printing money" does not give you the ability "own the earth" that is false.

"Thus whatever competition (if any such exists) does take place dos so within an agreed upon institutional framework."
huh? What framework stops Europe from competing with the U.S. or the Euro from appreciating against the dollar?
In fact quite recently, hasn't the EU been putting pressure on China to let the Yuan float freely, because they are really feeling the inflation pressure as the Euro has jumped leaps and bounds over the dollar, making imports far more expensive (including Chinese imports) making the EUs trade debt with China far far larger than the U.S.?
Buchanan refers to WWI and WWII as "inter-civilizations" wars meaning the West was fighting. He would likely say the same thing about WWII as it applied to Japan vs China.
Rivalry at the top spot? Hmmm...I seem to recall that Japan has been the second wealthiest nation in the world since the early 1980's. Are they white? How is it that this white conspiracy would allow these nonwhites to climb over all of Europe in wealth when looked at on an individual nation basis?
I do agree with you on your Amazon.com example, but that is not proof of a conspiracy as much as domestic racism.
Yahoo climbed to great heights too right? Wasn't a co-founder Chinese American? Is he white? Is Oprah white? Hell she got rich selling "Oprah the Product". What about the founder of BET?
There are also over 300 billionaires in China...are they white? How did they do this? We are talking about a nation with a 3K GDP/capita (PPP) here.

So lets conclude. You have described a banking system and domestic racism in the United States.

You then extrapolate from this there is a global white conspiracy to create de facto enslavement of the world? LOL

Bro it is like me looking at the back of a dollar and seeing it say "In God We Trust" and concluding the world is ruled by the Pope.

You are jumping all over with little fact to back up what you are saying.

X is true so Y MUST BE true. If Z controls X then Z controls A-Z?

Naw...try again.

Dragon Horse said...

I also would like to know who is white in Michael Fisher's world.

There are several countries in Asia that have a higher standard of living and generate far more wealth than all or the vast majority of nations in Europe.

To hear Michael talk you would think the French have the highest standard of living in the world or the Polish? Are Russians white? What about Bulgarians?

Bulgarians and Poles are in the EU are they not? They are both far poorer and backward than Hong Kong and even South Korea.

Whites control the world with military force?

EU can barely project and organize force in Afghanistan.

The only real super power in terms of military projection is the EU.

Does Michael think that an EU force could colonize China? What about Japan? LOL Even Japans self defense force is better armed than almost every EU army but France and the UK and neither of those nations could colonize Japan with the forces they have.

China have weak force projection but China has about 300 nukes, maybe 100 or so intercontinental missiles.

This means that China would not defeat the America in conflict but they could nuke every city in America over 500K people or so, effectively destroying the U.S., although America could return strike and turn China into a parking lot, reality is it is a no win situation after the "nuclear fallout".

So America controls what? America can not even take out N.Korea without paying repercussions they are unwilling to pay economically or geopolitically if business gets disrupted in Northeast Asia.

I will not argue that NATO nations are quite formidable but their ability to "lord" over the earth as they could after WWII has waned. That first move advantage has declined as other nations have caught up.

If East Asia cut off its tech factories to NATO I would love to see them create replacement parts in the middle of a war, especially the high end specialize chips. Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan could single handily cripple America in Asia buy refusing to sell to America and selling duel use technology to China (which they do not). Yes that would not be in their best interest, but my point is that America is seriously vulnerable and Europe even more so, far more than they were in 1949 or in 1850.

Michael Fisher said...

Dragon Horse...

"The fact that governments control currency and the strongest currencies are USD and the Euro (controlled by majority white nations) does not mean 'global white supremacy' that is a huge freaking leap of logic."

Aside from the basic incorrect statement that "governments control currency", this statement being highly inaccurate since neither the Federal Reserve nor the European Central Bank are government-owned and controlled entities, the fact that the two supreme currencies on the planet are created and managed by people who classify themselves as "white" signifying that the two supreme currencies two supreme currencies on the planet are created and managed by people who classify themselves as "white" (and thus supreme) is a "a huge freaking leap of logic."?

Now where is the logic is in that?

Creating money has the overall effect of lower the power of a currency against another, which leads to inflation for holder, especially in countries heavily dependent on international trade (particularly imports). So printing money is at the touch of a computer does not in itself "create value".

So the Masseratti example you gave...if the Masseratti is worth 300K USD, and someone in Washington starts "printing money", if you buy it in Italy the value against the Euro dropped. So the Masseratti may be significantly more expensive. So that is not a benefit per se.


And? How does that refute the basic principle that it is the currency "created out of thin air" (by who, DH?) with which can be bought whatever one's heart desires?

Who controls the creation of the Euro, the British Pound, the US Dollar? The Japanese? The Japanese economy would collape in a few days if what would be cut off by who? Same with any and all of the "Asian Tigers"? (The Japanese went to war over that issue once before, ya know? And got themselves bombed for it, thank you very much.

As to the BIS here
and here are some links for you...


So, who does own South Africa and why?


DH...

There are several countries in Asia that have a higher standard of living and generate far more wealth than all or the vast majority of nations in Europe.

To hear Michael talk you would think the French have the highest standard of living in the world or the Polish? Are Russians white? What about Bulgarians?

Bulgarians and Poles are in the EU are they not? They are both far poorer and backward than Hong Kong and even South Korea.


So is Prince George's County, MD or DeKalb County, GA wealthier than some county in West Virgina.

On an average global scale, however, non-white territories and non-white people are far below the standard of living than "white" territories and people. And that includes China and India.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

dh, when you correctly quote me or read the entire posts and see to where those posts are directed, I'll respond your shit. But I'm not going to nitpick and play the correction game. That shit's juvenile.

Now, because Fisher and I share the same view, and he articulated the point, doesn't mean I'm cheerleading.

Because to this point, all that verbiage has not refuted the point the global economic system suggests the existence of a global white supremacy system.

To refresh you, the call of the question was based on the following quote, "In a socio-material system dominated by white supremacists, white people are the greatest producers of money. In a socio-material world dominated by white supremacists, all non-white people are in a weak ‘economic’ condition. None of them can afford to borrow from, or lend to, the other."

If you start there, answer the question, respond to what I wrote and not what you fantasized I wrote, then we might be able to dialogue.

I mentioned you specifically early because I was interested in what you might have to say.

But I'm already allowing myself to get into devolved level of discussion.

And I ain't doing it.

I don't care about a muthafucka coming hard as long as its correct. A bunch of words don't impress me.

I'm trying to stay in the holiday spirit so I'll leave it at that.

Catch me on the next topic. I'm sure you'll something to say then.

And please stay on point and deal with my words and not what you thought you read.

Your anticipated cooperation is greatly appreciated.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

dh, in the spirit of giving, I'll give you your p's on your analysis vis a vis Nigeria.

Let's understand one another, I'm not here to discuss solutions - yet.

The theme of Stakes Be High is the existence of a global system of white supremacy. Defeating it is another subject. Cuz once I chime in with that, it'll be a whole bunch of piling on but the piling on will be based on different premises.

I'm not doing that because it contributes more to the problem than erecting a capable solution.

Believe it or not, I think most of your and Dave's rap supports the point of the existence of a global system of white supremacy.

For you though, it's the cause that you seem to be having a cognitive dissonance moment with.

Nevertheless, keep it flowing, but please don't misquote or miscontextualize me.

That's a distraction, unwittingly I assume, to boost your point.

We can go toe-to-toe, otherwise.

I just don't like wasting my time correcting your missteps.

And since you took the time to say I didn't respond to you, you must be interested in what I think. So specify, and I'll be happy to comply.

Ding!

Dragon Horse said...

Michael:

The Fed' Reserve is considered "semi-independent" , similar to the Post Office and the government does have a lot of control over currency due to monetary policy? Do you think the government can not cause inflation or deflation by spending? The Fed Chair and many of the underlings are appointed by the Executive Branch and there is oversight. This is obvious why. The Fed needs to make unpopular decision from time to time and having them directly responsible to politicians who are being pressured by a short sighted uneducated electorate about high technical financial/economic issues is dangerous. I don’t want Joe 6 Pack determining Fiscal Policy.

The fact that two major currencies are created and managed by people who are "white" only tells me that there is first mover advantage in international trade and the setting up of systems after WWII, which resulted from Western European predominance for the 400 years before at a global level. This in no way proves conspiracy or disproves what Undercover Blackman said in his opening post.

It is like arguing black players in the NBA collude to fix scores because blacks have the ball most of the time. You are assuming because people who call themselves "white" do something it automatically means that there is racial based collusion to hurt nonwhites. That is a leap of logic based on your faith in some type of global racial conspiracy theory. You have not broke down the argument to prove something.

Another analogy is to say that because X has Z they automatically must do A, B, and C with it. Huh? That's called circumstantial evidence at best.


As far as currency? You still don't get it. I went into detail to explain why it is not "made out of thin air" it has value based on something tangible, but it is an aggregate, so it is not as easy to see or define as gold or silver. As i said, to say that one can just "print money" and that has value all over the world and you can buy whatever you want is false. That is not how the market works.

Yes Japan went to war over having their oil cut off as a bribe to control their military expansion in Asia against Europeans and Americans. True. Many nations (including America) would go to hell in a few weeks if their outside fossil fuel supply was cut off. I'm sure you remember what happened in the 70's with OPEC?

That was not the point I was making. Japan is nonwhite, the Asian Tigers are nonwhite, but most of them have a higher standard of living and more wealth than most EU countries. That is indisputable. Why would a global white collusion of racist allow such a thing, when those same Tigers are investing heavily in China, boosting its clout and ability to challenge Western interests in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa? That makes little to no sense.

What makes more sense is that their is not "organized conspiracy" but you do have some racist, some ethnocentrism and due to history and geopolitics...similar interests and outlooks that make them side on some things but not on others.

Going back to living standard?

That is due to first mover advantage. These places industrialized first and are catching up.

What is interesting is the Asian Tigers and Japan industrialized and modernized at a far faster clip than any European nation in history and as time goes on, the rate of catch up increases. America took longer to industrialize than Japan in years, South Korea took less time than Japan and Taiwan less still from the start of economic development intent to modernize. This is due to the improve ability to transfer technology.

For more on that check out "The Third Wave", Toffler (1980).

So the way you should be looking at it is "is the gap in living standard between white territories and nonwhite territories closing at a faster rate as time goes on?" The answer is yes. If you look at the gap between Europe and the nonWestern world in 1900 it was enormous, several times what it is now.

We are not going to play games.

You tell me who owns South Africa and why? Since it is obvious your interpretation of reality is not a common one, it would be helpful to see where exactly you are coming from before I deal with the issue. It is like me saying the sky is blue but you are sitting thinking it is pink and red. I want to know your foundation first before I waste my time arguing delusion.

I read your wiki link on the BIS.

What I noticed was that the Board of Directors includes Chinese, Japanese, and Mexicans. I don't see any evidence of Nazi conspiracies. What I see an attempt to regulate the international financial system to stop bubbles and crashes which were very common before WWII, they happened about every 20 years or so. This is not a bad thing as stability encourages more overall trade across borders, which also leads to less speculation, because it is just not as profitable when the risk is lower.

deangelo:

you can make excuses all day long. I expect it. The point is "he has not proved" a global white supremacy so there is no reason to refute it. His logic is specious.

There is no evidence the global economic system is dominated by white supremacist or people with the goal of white racial supremacy. That has not been shown. All that has been shown is white folks have a lot of capital and manage that capital in a global capitalist system. Wow...that is SOOOO ground breaking.

It is not true that all whites are in a strong economic condition and all nonwhites are in a weak one. That is also false. That has not been proven. You seem to think of whites as some great mass of like minded people highly organized. That is false and has not been proven. That is like saying Africa is one country and everyone gets along because they are black and their are no differences between people. Now that sounds a lot like a racist statement if I ever heard one...similar to what you find on Stormwatch.

I'm not going to give more credence to nonsense that has not been proven just because you "think it is so" does not "make it so". I'm still waiting on your evidence.

As I told Michael, none of what he said is direct evidence to prove his thesis.

Michael Fisher said...

DH...

"Do you think the government can not cause inflation or deflation by spending?"

So what? So can you by using your credit card or taking out a mortgage. But, do you do you determine interest rates?

The Fed akin to the Post Office?

Lawd!

"There is no evidence the global economic system is dominated by white supremacist or people with the goal of white racial supremacy. That has not been shown. All that has been shown is white folks have a lot of capital and manage that capital in a global capitalist system."

"A lot of capital consisting of what"?

What is "a lot"?

Who was talking about Nazis?

I read your wiki link on the BIS.

As this apparently is the first time, Mr. Economics Expert, that you even heard about the BIS, I suggest you do a bit more research before you say anything to embarrass yourself.

"You seem to think of whites as some great mass of like minded people highly organized."

"It is not true that all whites are in a strong economic condition and all nonwhites are in a weak one."

And where did I makes such a ludicrous statement?

If I can not stand one thing it is intellectual dishonesty where a statement is attributed to a person and then that statement is "refuted".

Deal with what I actually stated if you are going to deal with me at all.

Get your shyt together.

As I told Michael, none of what he said is direct evidence to prove his thesis.

Even if I had not, you've already conceded that fact.

Now, who owns the majority of South Africa? People classified as "white" or people classified as "black"?

Dragon Horse said...

Michael:

This is not the first time I have heard of the BIS. I asked you for information about it because I was hoping you had something in the way of linking it to your racial conspiracy theories. Sorry but that was not what you provided, it was stuff I already knew.

Your argument seemed to be the existence of this banking institution is proof of a racial conspiracy. I do not find that adequate and I do not believe most people who are impartially looking at it would either.

The Fed akin to the Post Office, not in power or duty...you know the point I was making lets not feign ignorance.

"A lot of capital consisting of what"?

What is "a lot"?

Capital in the classic sense, land, natural resources, man made goods, people (labor).

What is defined as "a lot"?

I define a lot as far more than one would think they should have due to their percentage of global population when compared to aggregate of the global economy. For instance. America makes up less than 5% of the world population but is represented way beyond this in their share of the global economy.

I equate white supremacist to Nazis, although I know all white supremacist are not Nazis.

I never said you said this:

"It is not true that all whites are in a strong economic condition and all nonwhites are in a weak one."

Check who I was talking to.

It was deangelo, not you. Recheck the post, no dishonesty. I dealt with what he said in his last two posts, not what you said in that instance.

As far as "own South Africa"

define "ownership".

Then we can talk about who owns what and why and what that means for the future of that that country.

I also never said I was an expert on anything and I am not an economist, but I do have detailed knowledge of international development issues and more than a average working knowledge of how various international institutions work.

Michael Fisher said...

Ownership

Noun

* S: (n) ownership (the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others)
* S: (n) possession, ownership (the act of having and controlling property)
* S: (n) ownership (the state or fact of being an owner)

Dragon Horse said...

So I'm going to assume you mean the second definition and are attributing this to the ownership of land?

Why do white South Africans own most of the land?

I'm sure you have heard of colonialism, the Boer Wars, British-Boer War, Apartheid, etc. right?

To simpify all that history. The whites (French, Dutch, Brits, Germans) were strong, blacks were weak politically and technologically and they did what people often do in this situation (something that had happened for at least 10K years before then) "TOOK IT" by force of arms.

I'm sure you know this is pretty much how land was aquired in most places in the world up until WWII, it was legitimate and was commonly practiced on ALL continents.

I'm sure you don't think that the ancient (actually not so ancient) West African kingdoms did not acquire all that territory by flipping coins and doing dance competitions for it. China did not expand to the size it is today from a group of warring states along the Yellow River by passivisism. Germans didn't aquire Germany by monkism, and the current English population did not beg permission from the Celto-Romans to take over the island.

This is not to apologize for any atrocities, but to put it in historical perspective, this was common, even if unfortunate from a modern perspective.

So why do whites still own a majority of the land?

Well wasn't that the deal made with Mandela?

The ANC was being pragmatic.

Here is what they knew?

Having political control was better than no control and better than continuing to fight a battle using inferior means that could go on for some time, even if South Africa was losing some diplomatic support.

What they also knew was that natioanlizing white owned land and businesses would scare the hell out of foreign investors and stop them from aquiring FDI. Also, likely loans from the World Bank, IMF, African Development Bank.

What they also knew was, even if they nationalized these businesses and lands (much of it farms) they did not have enough educated/trained blacks to take it over and make it run efficiently.

They also knew nationalizing by force would cause the whites S.Africans to flee the country, taking their know-how and capital with them, which would likely collapse S.Africa's economy.

Obviously whites left the country, but most did not, and most rich whites did not.

Instead, they set up a system that you know of..."land for sell by willing buyer" and various affirmative action programs (similar to Malaysia did so the ethnic Malaysians could compete with the Chinese).

This was the negotiation and in my opinion the best result they could get to avoid a Zimbabwe like situation.

Hence why whites own the majority of the land in 2007...but you knew this so why don't you overlay this with your conspiracy theory already...

Michael Fisher said...

Dragon Horse...

"Hence why whites own the majority of the land in 2007"

Meaning who is in the Supreme Position?

"Why do white South Africans own most of the land?..."

Because were and continue to be in what position?

"I define a lot as far more than one would think they should have due to their percentage of global population when compared to aggregate of the global economy."

And the creators and maintainers of the US Dollar, the Euro, and the British Pound in the main classify themselves as members of what "race"?

DeAngelo Starnes said...

fisher, in all fairness, he was dealing with Neely Fuller's quote.

But dh does have a problem with quotes and context.

dh and fisher, good back and forth - even though - no surprise here, dh talks so long he ends up supporting the proposition of the existence of global white supremacy.

Take off the blinders, bruh. We could use long-winded muthafuckas like you.

Ding! And end of this round.

Dragon Horse said...

deangelo:

Are you working with an IQ over 2 digits?

Nothing I said supports Fisher's thesis.

The idea that there is a market dominant minority in South Africa does not prove a global racially based conspiracy theory where whites on a global basis collude to improve their economic position relative to non-whites or even seek to oppress nonwhite economic movement.

Michael Fisher has produced no evidence that this is taking place in 2007 and if you think his round about circumstantial evidence shows clear proof of that I have to question your intelligence.

As I said, you don't have a firm grasp of logic. That is a big leap of logic.


Here I can help you with that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fallacy

Fisher you are reaching and it is tiresome. If that is all you got that is one of the weakest arguments I have seen for a conspiracy. I'm sorry, but all you have shown is evidence of a market dominant minority who gained first mover advantage due to technological superiority over the past few hundred years that is waining.


You have not proved all "whites" work together or that all people of Western European ancestry work together to actively oppress nonwhite or nonEuropean ancestry people. You have not shown the institutions that initiate or maintain this oppression.

I have shown that the economic head start that Western Europeans have had over nonWestern Europeans has increasingly shrunk since WWII. I have shown that many Western nations live at a low standard compared to nonWestern people, that many several nonWestern nations have more economic strength than the majority of Western nations and military strength. I have refuted your weak argument that people can just "create money" and buy whatever they want. That reveals to me a weak grasp of the international monetary system.

What you have done is something "Group A are in a group because I say so. The aggregate of Group A live better than Group B, C, D. Group A founded some financial institutions to regulate those processes between all groups, but primarily at the time between subgroups inside of A. So 50 years later Group A MUST BE involved in a conspiracy against Group B, C, D."

You dismiss any aggression between members of Group A. You dismiss the fact that Group A has never and does not all work together and that your grouping is YOUR GROUPING. For example, I would doubt many Russians consider themselves part of Group A or Armenians, Georgians, etc. You dismiss the fact that at least Group C and D have been closing the gap or have closed the gap between the majority of members of group A or that many members of Group B and C own significant parts of members of Group A's nations.

The argument is full of holes and falls down under analysis, like most conspiracy theories.


I think we are done.