O/T Well it looks like White Lives don't matter.

[WanChaiMiller]

I am still waiting to find out how to abolish whiteness?

The first thing I'd do to abolish whiteness is. ..................

I cant speak for her. Ive never read her work and only seen these few quotes. Maybe that should have been a discussion on twitter rather than the outright abuse.

I can speak for myself.* I think its a really interesting question you you posed in your previous post. Its clearly not about colour but attitude.

In your comment you say there have always been wars which, by definition, means there are dominant forces. We are in an era where that is held by white Europeans. The history of White Europeans gaining that enduring dominance starts with the Dutch and British from 1650 and moves on the USA from after WW2.

Just prior to British rule, India under Ghegis Khan held a quarter of the worlds wealth. This was pre globalisation. Their influence was confined locally to the region.

The success of the Dutch and British was in essense first by the use of their army (guns against spears) and, then, globalisation of trade followed by corporate control which placed an economic stranglehold on third world countries. The longevity of influence is through corporate finance and trade, wealth that brings with it power. Its allowed Western countries to dominated global economics for centuries.

The key cities in the initial phase of white European dominance was Amsterdam and London.

Amsterdam was the first global superpower. It created what we know today as 'the Company' and 'the Stock Market".* London took over the mantle, which later, in turn, moved on to New York mid 20th century.

Trade from 1650 was done through the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and East India Company in London (they are 2 different companies). Both had private armies. Their wealth today would be worth more than Microsoft and Apple combined.

The first part of the process was to colonise regions by steal the land through force. They the apply governance (either from Amsterdam or London) and Imperial rule. This is followed by installing their own companies to prosper from its resourses (whether that be taxes, mineral wealth or cheap labour). The next key phase was to render the local inhabitants second class citizen or non citizens.

Britain turned the screw on the economies of Commonwealth Countries through legislation that restricted foreign exchange only in Pounds (it tied them in to Britain).

Up to the about 1960, around the time of Independence, the majority of non white Countries of the World (black and Asian people) lived under white European rule (not forgetting white working classes).

The mid 20th century saw mantle of the dominant superpower pass from Britain to USA. Part of the deal which secured Britain the post WW2 loan from America was to open up foreign exchange and trade in the Commonwealth to the USA (real key change of policy in the handover of power which brought immediate strength to the Dollar as a world cuurency and allowed US Corporations to keep the jack boot on the throat of 3rd world countries).

Corporate structures, foreign exchange and stock markets set up through the last 150 years were designed to suck wealth out of third countries into the West. It kept these countries and its people poor. This is not ancient history as some would like us to believe as it still endures today.

As countries gained independence they found they'd been stripped of their wealth, they were badly organised with no experience in government. They still rely on Western Companies and foreign trade for income. The majority of Black, Asian and white working class people still live as an under class, second rate citizens in their own countries, in poverty, poor housing, poor schools, poor pay, poor prospects and acting as a cheap labour force to Western Corporations who continue to suck the wealth out of these people.

Systems of oppression (if you want) endure through corporate finance and trade put in place hundreds of years ago is not long forgotten history.* Racial and class faultlines built on segregation still prevail and are yet to be resolved. These are not things of the past.

Some countries are slowly starting to emerge. India as an example, 60 years after independence and Japan (but largely under US control after WW2). Hong Kong and Singapore are enclave of Western trade.

China is the real first real threat to the Ethnic European World order and why its the modern day bogyman. Wealth is starting to filter East.

Its a long haul for a country and its people to trade up from such a low start point both economically and culturally.

Back on track. Its pretty clear youve phrased your question around sarcasim to whip up some mm support.

Her actual quote was "When I talk about abolishing whiteness, I talk about political practices and ideologies". You deliberately left the second part off which gave it context.

You asked where would you start?* If there is a will I would like to think we can start with a fairer distribute wealth which could bring about better chances for blacks, Asians and young white kids. I dont think there is a will.

[Exiletyke]

That is a truly excellent post WanChai

[ragingpup]

I cant speak for her. Ive never read her work and only seen these few quotes. Maybe that should have been a discussion on twitter rather than the outright abuse.

I can speak for myself.* I think its a really interesting question you you posed in your previous post. Its clearly not about colour but attitude.

In your comment you say there have always been wars which, by definition, means there are dominant forces. We are in an era where that is held by white Europeans. The history of White Europeans gaining that enduring dominance starts with the Dutch and British from 1650 and moves on the USA from after WW2.

Just prior to British rule, India under Ghegis Khan held a quarter of the worlds wealth. This was pre globalisation. Their influence was confined locally to the region.

The success of the Dutch and British was in essense first by the use of their army (guns against spears) and, then, globalisation of trade followed by corporate control which placed an economic stranglehold on third world countries. The longevity of influence is through corporate finance and trade, wealth that brings with it power. Its allowed Western countries to dominated global economics for centuries.

The key cities in the initial phase of white European dominance was Amsterdam and London.

Amsterdam was the first global superpower. It created what we know today as 'the Company' and 'the Stock Market".* London took over the mantle, which later, in turn, moved on to New York mid 20th century.

Trade from 1650 was done through the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and East India Company in London (they are 2 different companies). Both had private armies. Their wealth today would be worth more than Microsoft and Apple combined.

The first part of the process was to colonise regions by steal the land through force. They the apply governance (either from Amsterdam or London) and Imperial rule. This is followed by installing their own companies to prosper from its resourses (whether that be taxes, mineral wealth or cheap labour). The next key phase was to render the local inhabitants second class citizen or non citizens.

Britain turned the screw on the economies of Commonwealth Countries through legislation that restricted foreign exchange only in Pounds (it tied them in to Britain).

Up to the about 1960, around the time of Independence, the majority of non white Countries of the World (black and Asian people) lived under white European rule (not forgetting white working classes).

The mid 20th century saw mantle of the dominant superpower pass from Britain to USA. Part of the deal which secured Britain the post WW2 loan from America was to open up foreign exchange and trade in the Commonwealth to the USA (real key change of policy in the handover of power which brought immediate strength to the Dollar as a world cuurency and allowed US Corporations to keep the jack boot on the throat of 3rd world countries).

Corporate structures, foreign exchange and stock markets set up through the last 150 years were designed to suck wealth out of third countries into the West. It kept these countries and its people poor. This is not ancient history as some would like us to believe as it still endures today.

As countries gained independence they found they'd been stripped of their wealth, they were badly organised with no experience in government. They still rely on Western Companies and foreign trade for income. The majority of Black, Asian and white working class people still live as an under class, second rate citizens in their own countries, in poverty, poor housing, poor schools, poor pay, poor prospects and acting as a cheap labour force to Western Corporations who continue to suck the wealth out of these people.

Systems of oppression (if you want) endure through corporate finance and trade put in place hundreds of years ago is not long forgotten history.* Racial and class faultlines built on segregation still prevail and are yet to be resolved. These are not things of the past.

Some countries are slowly starting to emerge. India as an example, 60 years after independence and Japan (but largely under US control after WW2). Hong Kong and Singapore are enclave of Western trade.

China is the real first real threat to the Ethnic European World order and why its the modern day bogyman. Wealth is starting to filter East.

Its a long haul for a country and its people to trade up from such a low start point both economically and culturally.

Back on track. Its pretty clear youve phrased your question around sarcasim to whip up some mm support.

Her actual quote was "When I talk about abolishing whiteness, I talk about political practices and ideologies". You deliberately left the second part off which gave it context.

You asked where would you start?* If there is a will I would like to think we can start with a fairer distribute wealth which could bring about better chances for blacks, Asians and young white kids. I dont think there is a will.

Great summary Wan. Appreciate the time and effort on this. Be interesting to see if any disagree with what you've presented as that's pretty much as I see it, but always interesting to see new perspectives.

[vaterland_miller]

The name Vaterland Miller reminded me of something, if you want a break from political correctness and the Wokerati try the Black Forest, I was there a few years back and they were all smoking like chimneys and slapping barmaids on the arse, it was like going back to the 70s, not that I'm condoning such behaviour.

The Black Forest is a lovely area GF. The 70s didn't seem so good at the time but now it looks like a cultural heaven (in spite of the destruction of beautiful architecture and its replacement by ugly carbuncles and in spite of the media dominance of ****ybopper culture that, for the masses, over-shadowed all the interesting stuff that was happening in music at the time). Please condone anything you want - it is refreshing to have people say what they think instead of what they dare for fear of having their job or freedom removed by the "kind" and "caring" people who want to force their cultural changes on "evil" people like us.

[millersrus]

“Some countries are slowly starting to emerge. India as an example, 60 years after independence and Japan (but largely under US control after WW2). Hong Kong and Singapore are enclave of Western trade.

China is the real first real threat to the Ethnic European World order and why its the modern day bogyman. Wealth is starting to filter East.

Its a long haul for a country and its people to trade up from such a low start point both economically and culturally. ”

Great summary Wan. Appreciate the time and effort on this. Be interesting to see if any disagree with what you've presented as that's pretty much as I see it, but always interesting to see new perspectives.

I would disagree, to suggest the countries mentioned with many thousands of years of history are culturally at a lower level than the west. You are entitled to your opinion though.

[WanChaiMiller]

“Some countries are slowly starting to emerge. India as an example, 60 years after independence and Japan (but largely under US control after WW2). Hong Kong and Singapore are enclave of Western trade.

China is the real first real threat to the Ethnic European World order and why its the modern day bogyman. Wealth is starting to filter East.

Its a long haul for a country and its people to trade up from such a low start point both economically and culturally. ”

I would disagree, to suggest the countries mentioned with many thousands of years of history are culturally at a lower level than the west. You are entitled to your opinion though.

The countries mentioned arent (at the lower level economically and culturally) which is why I mentioned them.

[millersrus]

The countries mentioned arent (at the lower level economically and culturally) which is why I mentioned them.

Sunday morning riddle

[Shark27]

I cant speak for her. Ive never read her work and only seen these few quotes. Maybe that should have been a discussion on twitter rather than the outright abuse.

I can speak for myself.* I think its a really interesting question you you posed in your previous post. Its clearly not about colour but attitude.

In your comment you say there have always been wars which, by definition, means there are dominant forces. We are in an era where that is held by white Europeans. The history of White Europeans gaining that enduring dominance starts with the Dutch and British from 1650 and moves on the USA from after WW2.

Just prior to British rule, India under Ghegis Khan held a quarter of the worlds wealth. This was pre globalisation. Their influence was confined locally to the region.

The success of the Dutch and British was in essense first by the use of their army (guns against spears) and, then, globalisation of trade followed by corporate control which placed an economic stranglehold on third world countries. The longevity of influence is through corporate finance and trade, wealth that brings with it power. Its allowed Western countries to dominated global economics for centuries.

The key cities in the initial phase of white European dominance was Amsterdam and London.

Amsterdam was the first global superpower. It created what we know today as 'the Company' and 'the Stock Market".* London took over the mantle, which later, in turn, moved on to New York mid 20th century.

Trade from 1650 was done through the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and East India Company in London (they are 2 different companies). Both had private armies. Their wealth today would be worth more than Microsoft and Apple combined.

The first part of the process was to colonise regions by steal the land through force. They the apply governance (either from Amsterdam or London) and Imperial rule. This is followed by installing their own companies to prosper from its resourses (whether that be taxes, mineral wealth or cheap labour). The next key phase was to render the local inhabitants second class citizen or non citizens.

Britain turned the screw on the economies of Commonwealth Countries through legislation that restricted foreign exchange only in Pounds (it tied them in to Britain).

Up to the about 1960, around the time of Independence, the majority of non white Countries of the World (black and Asian people) lived under white European rule (not forgetting white working classes).

The mid 20th century saw mantle of the dominant superpower pass from Britain to USA. Part of the deal which secured Britain the post WW2 loan from America was to open up foreign exchange and trade in the Commonwealth to the USA (real key change of policy in the handover of power which brought immediate strength to the Dollar as a world cuurency and allowed US Corporations to keep the jack boot on the throat of 3rd world countries).

Corporate structures, foreign exchange and stock markets set up through the last 150 years were designed to suck wealth out of third countries into the West. It kept these countries and its people poor. This is not ancient history as some would like us to believe as it still endures today.

As countries gained independence they found they'd been stripped of their wealth, they were badly organised with no experience in government. They still rely on Western Companies and foreign trade for income. The majority of Black, Asian and white working class people still live as an under class, second rate citizens in their own countries, in poverty, poor housing, poor schools, poor pay, poor prospects and acting as a cheap labour force to Western Corporations who continue to suck the wealth out of these people.

Systems of oppression (if you want) endure through corporate finance and trade put in place hundreds of years ago is not long forgotten history.* Racial and class faultlines built on segregation still prevail and are yet to be resolved. These are not things of the past.

Some countries are slowly starting to emerge. India as an example, 60 years after independence and Japan (but largely under US control after WW2). Hong Kong and Singapore are enclave of Western trade.

China is the real first real threat to the Ethnic European World order and why its the modern day bogyman. Wealth is starting to filter East.

Its a long haul for a country and its people to trade up from such a low start point both economically and culturally.

Back on track. Its pretty clear youve phrased your question around sarcasim to whip up some mm support.

Her actual quote was "When I talk about abolishing whiteness, I talk about political practices and ideologies". You deliberately left the second part off which gave it context.

You asked where would you start?* If there is a will I would like to think we can start with a fairer distribute wealth which could bring about better chances for blacks, Asians and young white kids. I dont think there is a will.

There was no sarcasm intended in my post. My point was if the lady makes a comment, which if turned the other way round would have been classed as massively racist, then she should have some serious substance to back it up. It doesn't sound like she has. If I was on Twitter or wherever she posted it I would have asked her but I have only read about it here.

Your post outlines the history of where we are today which I don't dispute. As I have said previously. We have got to where we are. We can't change it.

You finish talking about the greater distribution of wealth. I'm assuming you are talking more closer to home on this. Vote Labour?

If I owned a company and was a multi millionaire/billionaire, I would happily make my staff the best paid in their sector. The more profits made by a company, the more I think they should pay their staff. People like Mike Ashley make me cringe when I hear stories about how they treat their staff. Phillip Green too.

I don't agree with throwing money at people with benefits payments. It gives less incentive to work and would probably do nothing for the cause that we are discussing.

How would you fairer distribute wealth? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm looking for solutions.

If we are talking on a international level then we have to rely on the corrupt leaders in African countries not using their money to build their palaces. How do we stop this without being the interfering white power?

If we do succeed with abolishing whiteness, and as you say the Chinese go from strength to strength, could the discussion in a couple of hundred years time be about abolishing 'chineseness' and 'white lives matter'?

[WanChaiMiller]

If we do succeed with abolishing whiteness, and as you say the Chinese go from strength to strength, could the discussion in a couple of hundred years time be about abolishing 'chineseness' and 'white lives matter'?

Of course.

[animallittle3]

There was no sarcasm intended in my post. My point was if the lady makes a comment, which if turned the other way round would have been classed as massively racist, then she should have some serious substance to back it up. It doesn't sound like she has. If I was on Twitter or wherever she posted it I would have asked her but I have only read about it here.

Your post outlines the history of where we are today which I don't dispute. As I have said previously. We have got to where we are. We can't change it.

You finish talking about the greater distribution of wealth. I'm assuming you are talking more closer to home on this. Vote Labour?

If I owned a company and was a multi millionaire/billionaire, I would happily make my staff the best paid in their sector. The more profits made by a company, the more I think they should pay their staff. People like Mike Ashley make me cringe when I hear stories about how they treat their staff. Phillip Green too.

I don't agree with throwing money at people with benefits payments. It gives less incentive to work and would probably do nothing for the cause that we are discussing.

How would you fairer distribute wealth? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm looking for solutions.

If we are talking on a international level then we have to rely on the corrupt leaders in African countries not using their money to build their palaces. How do we stop this without being the interfering white power?

If we do succeed with abolishing whiteness, and as you say the Chinese go from strength to strength, could the discussion in a couple of hundred years time be about abolishing 'chineseness' and 'white lives matter'?

Interesting point about tackling wealth distribution Shark .

Something the Labour leader will have to address policy wise and reclaiming the red wall .

The Tories falling in their sword won't be enough to win the next GE that I do know and policy wise we've not seen anything yet from Starmer although it's early days .

Uniting middle England and the former heartlands and wealth distribution will be a huge part of that .

The old argument of raising taxes for the wealthy and middle incomes and cutting them for the less wealthy isn't going to work at the ballot box and neither is hoping for good will from business either .

There are no quick fix election winning formula's here , you can raise the minimum wage but you also have to factor in the huge amount of small businesses that operate on very small margins .

You can take the lower paid out of taxation altogether but you are then reducing your income .

Education and training is where it's at and attracting businesses that require skills and are prepared to pay well for them which is an extremely longer game .

Attracting them to the former heartlands , I'd suggest we need another dozen Amazon facilities like you need a hole in the head .

The Tories idea of levelling up seems to consist of building infrastructure , improve roads , hospitals , schools etc which is fine but it does nothing long term for wage growth .

This was a nut New Labour couldn't or wouldn't crack , too difficult and in any case the voters haven't anywhere else to go according to Mandelson than Labour ..... well you can scrub that one now .

The Labour Party needs to take this challenge on , should take this challenge on and level up with roots and branches .

However there are no simple solutions and you have to win a GE before you can achieve anything .

Complex to say the least .