Is white supremacy real?

I was wondering why Michael Fisher was spending so much time and energy debating folks on the topic of White Supremacy on this black blog that among other things proposes that perhaps David Duke is not a white supremacist but a corageous thinking American. (The cat who runs the blog has as his slogan that he is wanted for "crimes against conformity". I think there's an obvious danger in defining one's self as simply being against conforming. It tends to shape you to be a reactionary to anything that is of a common perspective.) Anyway the black folks Fisher was debating with strongly disagree with him regarding the existence of a system of white supremacy. So I asked him why he spends his time there arguing with them:
Achali: I can only conclude that you either really genuinely love these cats and want to convince these cats (the community that reads these blogs) that the fight is worth fighting and is essential to their progress and survival, or you don't really love these folks and you just have some savior complex that won't allow you to agree to disagree. Yes?

Michael Fisher: That's an interesting thought. I certainly have no love for "Denmark Vesey" [the pseudonym of the owner of the blog where this discussion was going on] because I think he is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. Nor do I believe that I will ever convince him. Nor have I the desire too. I do it because of the black people who read these blogs. Folks like DV abound throughout the black community confusing the hell out of our youth in particular. So confronting them with rational logical arguments and having folks witness the outcome of these discussions may help black people to reduce the confusion. If DV didn't exist he'd have to be invented. Plus look at what has been accomplished. DV has been talking, ranting, and raving about the Global System of White Supremacy for many weeks now. The fact that he says it is a crock of bull it ain't important at all. He brought the concept to the table. Now people have to think about it one way or the other. Once they start using logic... See?

Denmark Vesey: LOL. That's cute Mike. Nah man. I've told you and your underlings before - I don't need white people enough to consider them racists. I read a study while in school. They put a group of Rhesus Monkeys in a cage at birth, and placed the cage in the middle of the forest. The monkey's were fed periodically, and remained in the cage for a number of years. They raddled the cage, screamed and seemed to want to escape by wedging their bodies between the bars. Suddenly one day, the door of the cage was thrown open. The monkeys were free to escape into the forest to join the other monkeys. They remained where they were. For days. Not even when they were facing starvation did they venture beyond the doors of the cage. Eventually the researchers had to domesticate them. Despite all the shit the monkeys had been talking. They were more comfortable in their captivity. Mike Fisher and his crew are little Racist Monkeys, clinging to their comfort zone. They resent free black men who laugh at them, huddled in the corner of a cage, with an open door.

Then later on I ended up getting sucked in the conversation:
cnulan: No, I teach her that white supremacy seeks to divide black people based on colorism so that they can not fight the system. fauxtianity challenges Black solidarity...., pharmaceutical companies challenge Black solidarity....., The GOP challenges Black solidarity...., Michael Fisher challenges Black solidarity......,

Michael Fisher: First, Nulan, you wanna that I release your e-mails to me to the public? Beyond that, no. I challenge... "so-called 'Black Partisans' with their heads stuck in the sand, drawers down, ass up and at the ready for some good action from the good 'ole boys." cnulan said... "That white supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish" and "that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.” Pull your drawers up, Nulan. And define... (1) White (2) Supremacy (3) White Supremacy (4) Syndrome (5) Pathology (6) Dopamine (7) Dopamine Hegemony (8) dopamineric (9) Hegemony (10) Culture (11) Dominance (12) Psychology (13) Ethnic (14) Group (15) Species (16) Race (17) Racism

cnulan: Do whatever you feel necessary to shore up your ego Michael. There's no shame in my game. While you're at it, be sure you establish a comprehensive daily digital/ electronic self-checking routine. I've been told that it's hard as hell to reconstitute oneself on systems of record once these get compromised and dumped onto the undernet. Since you'll be finding out all about that, you can serve as a resource and let everybody else know firsthand what it's like. Matter of fact, it'll give you something useful to write about. Say when MF....,

Anonymous: CAT FIGHT!!! Solutions please...We need to fight the racism that exists amongst our own people before we can begin to fight the battle globally. Case and point, DV and MF, the beautiful child is watching(the light and the dark)... This is the same shit that been dividing us since we got to this country!

Michael Fisher: Say FBI, Nulan.

achali: cnulan, I could actually benefit from you defining some of those terms. your definition comes across as very very succinct. but you are essentially sounding like an apologist and calling white supremacy a "cognitive error", in other words, an accident. when historically it seems to me that you have to know exactly what and why you are doing what you are doing when you create such a thing as "whiteness" in order to separate yourself from the rest of humanity, in order to justify your oppression of them. like i said the definition seems airtight, only, how can you KNOW this? it doesn't seem like you can prove this, rather it seems to be a subjective viewpoint. where else in history has "dopaminergic culture and psychology", specifically, brought about a race based system of systematic oppression? i guess india and their caste system comes to mind, but if that is your only other example, can you explain how that is "dopaminergic culture and psychology"... or if you have another historical example i'd like to know that/those as well. thanks

cnulan: What exactly would your takeaway be Achali, given the projective leap you've already taken here? Taking MF's word for it, and without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever, you've adopted an apologetic stance of your own without consideration of the underlying evidence and arguments influencing my belief. If you want to know more about my perspective in general, then visit my blog. There's plenty enough there to inform you concerning my pov. Race bias depends for its forcefulness and durability on the exploitation of an existing instinct that has/had adaptive/selective value. It works as a culturally and psychologically persistant memeplex because it exploits a vulnerability in how humans perceive the world - THATS what the cognitive error description is about. Since I don't make any claims about the GSWS, you'll need to take that up with folks hell-bent on making that case. What I know for certain is that in the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion in the late 1600's in the Virginia colony - a new and distinctive governance tactic focused on race was devised and implemented - that tactic has persisted and proliferated across the anglosphere in various manners, forms, and fashions and with varying degrees of intensity. Bacon's Rebellion demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause. This was a great fear of the ruling class -- what would prevent the poor from uniting to fight them? This fear hastened the transition to racial slavery. As for the rest, I've spent a fair amount of time in India and would suggest to you that it's neither historically, culturally, or psychologically valid or useful to look to ancient India as a model for what has transpired over the past 340 years in the United States. There's probably more to be gleaned from the history of Muslim and British dominated India as influencers of the modern systems of oppression still very much in effect in that ancient civilization.

achali: cnulan, i'm not drinking anyone's koolaid. i'm being honest with my current view. if that resembles Fishers more than yours so be it. but that's not my point or worry. what is my point is to try and understand this. "cognitive error" does sound apologist to me, sorry. and surely you can respect that it might sound that way to many black folks who are emotionally tied to this issue. imagine the backlash in the jewish community were you to say hitler's was a "cognitive error". so please tolerate and understand that perspective regardless of if you think it a subjective or illogical one. all of that to say i think i (and others) can still take away something positive from an explanation from you of some of those terms that Fisher was asking for definition for. this statement is very hard to follow: "Race bias depends for its forcefulness and durability on the exploitation of an existing instinct that has/had adaptive/selective value. It works as a culturally and psychologically persistant memeplex because it exploits a vulnerability in how humans perceive the world" what is the "existing instinct that has/had adaptive/selective value" here? and what's a "memeplex"? i have to admit that using bacon's rebellion as a starting point or even point of reference is hard for me to understand. bacon himself was bent on attacking even friendly natives. how can we use him as an example for race solidarity? and that article you referenced mentions that even the governor was promising slaves freedom to join his cause. so do we call that black/white solidarity too? i call it black people doing what they got to do to get free. just like blacks fighting on the British side of the independence war or fighting on the side of the confederacy during the civil war -- more power to them. from DuBois "Black Reconstruction" I got that during the civil war for the most part black folks were patiently waiting to try and determine which side would win the war to decide who they were going to be "loyal" to, since both sides eventually promised freedom for many of those who would fight on their side. for the large majority it was about our self-interest in freedom not solidarity with the white, the poor, the rich, the British, the colonialists, the south, or the north. right?

cnulan: and surely you can respect that it might sound that way to many black folks who are emotionally tied to this issue. imagine the backlash in the jewish community were you to say hitler's was a "cognitive error". who's responsible for overcoming another's excessive and unproductive emotional identification Achali? Hitler was an instrument through which Krupp and other German elites exploited MASSIVE vulnerabilities in the collective German psyche. Hitler was no architect, merely an expendable exigency who served the required strategic purpose of others who'd laid plans going back to decades prior to his advent on the public scene. so please tolerate and understand that perspective regardless of if you think it a subjective or illogical one. No. you live in an open source world in which you have ready access to everything required to free your own mind - assuming your motivation is strong enough - of what possible benefit could you be if you are unable to accomplish this baseline objective by your own devices? what is the "existing instinct that has/had adaptive/selective value" here? and what's a "memeplex"? Read the papers I linked and use google. i have to admit that using bacon's rebellion as a starting point or even point of reference is hard for me to understand. Drill down a bit harder and deeper into the correlative and causal repercussions of Bacon's Rebellion - it's all there - but you have to do the work. for the large majority it was about our self-interest in freedom not solidarity with the white, the poor, the rich, the British, the colonialists, the south, or the north. right? this is not a salvatory undertaking. It's a revelatory undertaking for those endeavoring to understand and act with maximum freedom of agency. always has been, always will be.

achali: cnulan, wow. you're a pretty dismissive dude. you seem to be here less to actually impart understanding than to argue. fisher might be arguing with you at times, i'm merely trying to understand. that's the point of your theory right? to get people to understand it? even marx said "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." your philosophy is useless to me unless you can help someone like me actually understand it. otherwise i think you're destined to be forever frustrated with everyday black folk like me. i think this can lead to black folk hating their own people if we're so far in the idea clouds that we can't relate our ideas to the people for whom we claim to be trying to talk to (despite a philisophical claim to loving them). but to continue the digging: so it was Krupp and these other German elites that made a "cognitive error" in bringing about the holocaust? i guess my only point is that it'd be like you calling the holocaust a cognitive error, whoever it was made by. and i was asking for understanding there as to why someone bumping into your views on the internet might be taken aback and want to challenge you on it... so why be surprised by my view? or why think that i'm being an apologist for fisher? i also thought that if you're trying to impart understanding you might be concerned with how what you say and how you say it turns people off... or initially against you. but whatever, maybe you don't approach conversation that way or consider it that important... anyhow it's not the main point. so i'm still trying to get at what you would say is the motivation. using your theory what are you saying motivated "Krupp and other German elites"? (for example) -- their dopamine imbalances? and if so, what caused their dopamine imbalances? in your race-bias comment earlier, you're saying that race depends on exploiting an existing instinct that has selective value, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying that instinct is/was? I can see how an instinctive perception like skin color would motivate calling someone a name that symbolizes their skin color for the sake of identification/forensics like you said before. But it's the behavior that gets you "classified" as some"thing" else. And even with behavioral classifications as a universal given for humanity in the case of "acting like a baby, etc", what other points in history -- prior to africans being categorized as sub-human savages -- are there where humans classified other humans as another species along with a philosophy/religious belief that stated that man has dominion over all other species? that seems to be what's at the heart of what black/indigenous folk refer to as "whiteness". With Bacon's rebellion are you positioning this 17th century racial slave law as the origin of the relationship between the systematic and the racial? thus when the law is gone the relationship is gone? Because I see the origin at the event of Europeans (with a philosophy/religious belief that states "man" -- whatever that word might be defined as by those claiming it -- has dominion over all other species) encountering the African/indigenous who were then categorized as sub-human savages/another species. That prior philosophy/religious belief makes the encounter with humans who are categorized as "savages" due to their perceived behavior a systematic event, no? It might not be a government law but wasn't it a philosophy/religious belief that governed European life? Are you saying that that philosophy/religious belief is the result of dopamine imbalance? on bacon's rebellion again: you paint it as poor black/white solidarity that was thwarted by the elite. but the pbs article talks about how the intentions behind Bacon's rebellion were racist in the first place -- he saw the indians as savages to be destroyed. are you saying he hated the indians but liked the africans? or is it more likely that he was merely using the black savages, who were less of a threat to him than the indian savages, for his own self-interest? are you saying that the fact that there was no racial character to colonial slavery law up until this point (what year is this by the way? do you have a link to this law late 1600s law?) means that race was not a factor in slavery until the law was put on the books? i can see the law as a strategic move used to divide and conquer. but that isn't proof that the solidarity was based on race unity. because as i said, Bacon could have easily been simply being strategic himself. can you prove that poor whites didn't adhered to the same philosophical/religious "law" that elite white did?

cnulan: wow. you're a pretty dismissive dude. Entirely. I should be otherwise because........? i'm merely trying to understand. that's the point of your theory right? to get people to understand it? Achali, do you think that the "pioneer" participants in wagontrain charters "understood" what they were signing onto? Do you think that every random denizen of these estados unidos either understood or volunteered and payed into the undertaking codified as a "wagontrain charter?" You're not useful to yourself unless you want something different. Folks who have to be induced to "want" are already a lost cause...., your philosophy is useless to me unless you can help someone like me actually understand it. which presupposes that you're useful to me, right? what special thing are you capable of doing that I can't already do for myself? otherwise i think you're destined to be forever frustrated with everyday black folk like me. rotflmbao..., I have an ironclad policy of not second guessing Black folks. How I'm a get frustrated when I don't have any expectations? OTOH - I have an equally ironclad policy of preferential collaboration with Black folks. I have unbounded faith in the power of consciousness "knowing together". Why not implement that faith locally? But the thing of it is, I expect everybody privy to the undertaking to bring something organic and vital to the consciousness party. If they don't then they gotta go, gotta go, gotta go...., nothing worse than a rotting phukking duppy stinking up the consciousness party, no? so it was Krupp and these other German elites that made a "cognitive error" in bringing about the holocaust? Nope. Krupp, Daimler, et all..., exploited a cognitive error in the general German populace in order to give rise to the collective sentiment capable of supporting implementation of the holocaust. i also thought that if you're trying to impart understanding you might be concerned with how what you say and how you say it turns people off... or initially against you. but whatever, maybe you don't approach conversation that way or consider it that important... No. I genuinely don't care about that at all. You either get it, or you don't. I'm trying to figure out what you're saying that instinct is/was? still didn't read those linked papers, did you? you realize we're fast approaching being through here Achali? "Are you saying that that philosophy/religious belief is the result of dopamine imbalance?" Google dopamine hypoism, or maybe just hypoism, or read this. can you prove that poor whites didn't adhered to the same philosophical/religious "law" that elite white did? Burden of proof is not on me Achali. I haven't asserted a GSWS. I'm interested in empirically testable cognitive mechanisms by which governance is sustained. Surely you don't imagine given the population demographics of the U.S. alone, that governance of Black folks comprises the lion's share of the elite governance challenge? Do you?

Michael Fisher: Nulan..."Burden of proof is not on me Achali. I haven't asserted a GSWS. I'm interested in empirically testable cognitive mechanisms by which governance is sustained." Seems to me that Achali wasn't asserting anything about the SR/WS in his recent comments, but that he is asking about this: "That white supremacy is an extreme syndrome within the more encompassing pathology of dopamine hegemony…, at the end of the day, it’s dopaminergic culture and the dominance of dopaminergic psychology that must be overturned, or else we will all perish" and "that white racism is the result of the cognitive error of identifying ethnic groups as separate species.” It would be logical to posit that the burden of proof for these statements lie with its author. Nulan... "Drill down a bit harder and deeper into the correlative and causal repercussions of Bacon's Rebellion - it's all there - but you have to do the work." It would seem equally logical that the author of a hypothesis would present the "work" required himself rather than asking the questioner to "do the work" involved to prove the hypothesis which the author of the same advanced. Lastly, given that the focused enslavement of African people by Europeans as well as the legal structure underpinning the same (e.g. de las Casas and the Pope) predates 1676, it would be further logical to posit that Racism/White Supremacy predates 1676.

cnulan: "In a year's time we may say the same things, but you will not wait during this year in the hope that roast pigeons will fly into your mouth. You will work, and your understanding will change--you will be more 'initiated'. It is impossible to give a man anything that could become his inalienable property without work on his part. Such an initiation cannot exist, but unfortunately people often think so. There is only 'self-initiation.' One can show and direct, but not 'initiate.'"
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 28

Michael Fisher: Well, Nulan. I had been wondering where you got that Dopamine bullshyt from. The fact that you lifted that stuff verbatim from Alan Carter, white boy cult-nut extraordinaire without giving him credit is bad enough. But passing that nut-job's stuff off as your own and supposedly of any use to black folk, when in effect you ain't nothing but the token negro in a white de facto cult ain't exactly honest. Lyndon LaRouche redux.

cnulan: tsk, tsk, tsk..., The truth of the matter is that I've always linked back to reciprocality - particularly when referring your addled ass to the phenomenon of the "ghost not" with which you are specifically afflicted. Not that anything you write matters a damn MF, but if you look at the credits given under the table of contents on the site, I am the "maestro" referenced in those credits. You're such a pathetic and impotent parasite and dumbass Fisher - with nothing whatsoever to show for your "efforts in life" - it simply boggles the imagination how you even manage to live.

cnulan: While I'm on it though - maybe I get it from Dan F. Umanoff, M.D... Maybe I get it from William Pensinger who definitely introduced me to the terms "normotic illness" and the "monoculture". Maybe I get it from Fr. John Romanides whose eye-opening scholarship is even more magical than my own - and in whose writings I encountered the phenomenon again as neurobiological sickness. The fundamental and indisputable difference between you and I MF - IS THAT I GET IT! - and by that fact am consequently empowered to do something about it. Whereas you simply marinate in the rancid byproducts of your own narcissistic stupidity....,

achali: giving and teaching technology to kids is social activism now days? i agree it's helpful, i just didn't know it was social activism. i guess with the one laptop per child movement and the malaria mosquito net movement, charity and giving basic instruction now fits into the category of social activist. you don't just loan some software onto their computer, give them a manual and tell them you can't initiate their desire to learn how to use it in a functional relative manner, and then leave, do you? i have a theory that people nowadays are overusing the term social activist. so you're a pioneer who is ahead of the curve. ok. gotchu. so once black folks have done the kind of work you've done then we'll have our thinking "corrected" which will allow us to then make progress? how can you assume that i or my community does not want something different than what it has right now? i see that desire (for something different) regularly. you thinking that it's a matter of being induced to want something different is paternalistic and arrogant. i actually DO presuppose that i am useful to you. i suppose you are useful to me too! i got love for you and came across your interesting theory. and would like you to help me understand it better. but instead you send me off to read a few papers even more complex then your theory/statement/paragraph. i'll bookmark the pages and read em. maybe this weekend. maybe next monday in our weekly community study group in bedstuy, where people who are on all different levels of "consciousness" come together, to try and work towards the vision of a "collective community consciousness". because, i repeat, your PHILOSOPHY (not you my brother) is useless to me unless you can help someone like me actually understand it. it's paternalistic to sit on high and have faith in people's ability to get it on their own terms. like sitting back watching a mouse in a maze, having proud faith that he'll get thru it. what could empower our community is for folks like you to come down from on high and help break your theories down. question: do you think you're harming folks or doing a disfavor by "breaking something down?" just because you understand your theory better than those to whom it doesn't belong doesn't mean you're more intelligent than anyone. what it means is that you have some understanding that someone else may not have. and in order to impart that understanding you sometimes need to break it down, like i might do for a friend who's never gone fishing, or skiing, or hunting, etc. what, i'm supposed to give them a book on skiing and push them down the hill? could do that. i have a similar faith that they would learn eventually. i think eventually with or without your help i can better understand your theory/logic. wow, but wouldn't it be nice if you were able to actually communicate it effectively to me without passing me off to the resources that helped you form the theory in the first place. regardless of who it was, hitler, krupp, daimler, the german consciousness/culture/nation... what i'm trying to get at is what is the "cognitive error" and the "instinct" you speak of. if it's in the links, i'll get to it, so thanks, but i assumed you'd be able to define the terms you use in your own words. there is one search result when looking for ["dopamine hypoism"] and there are a bunch of obscure websites that come up when you search for ["hyposim"] guess i'll have to wait to read the paper you passed me off to instead, to understand this. on the burden of proof. i'm just asking for clarification. you're the one who used bacon's rebellion to try and make a point my man... i'm just trying to call you on the fact that it doesn't hold up as a valid example or reference. so i would think if you want to continue using that slave law as a reference point the burden of proof is on you to prove that poor whites like bacon didn't adhere to the same philosophical/religious "law" that the elite whites did. otherwise there is probable cause that he/they did. which leaves room for the equal possibility that the solidarity between the poor blacks/whites is a moot point because it was rooted in the same philosophical/religious "law" that the elites adhered to. i'm not asking you to prove a white supremacy system wrong, i'm asking you to prove that your point of reference in bacons rebellion actually holds up to further inspection. lastly, you're asking me about what now? if i think that governing Black folks is a major/large concern or "the lion's share" of the challenge of governing, in this nation, or world? so to clarify you're basically asking me do i think that white folks actually spend huge chunks of energy worrying about how to govern black folk?

cnulan: question: do you think you're harming folks or doing a disfavor by "breaking something down?" absolutely. as far as I'm concerned, you should have found these dots and connected them on your own. besides which, you're not being prompted to do anything beyond a little reading Achali. if you can't work that show by yourself, then the utility kwestin is moot, isn't it? just because you understand your theory better than those to whom it doesn't belong doesn't mean you're more intelligent than anyone. what it means is that you have some understanding that someone else may not have. two things; 1. This is an ancient and recurring description of how the human psychological and cultural world works. Many people have found it on their own, but described it in terms far less accessible than these. 2. By bringing it forward and out of the constraints of esoteric language and presentation, and, by identifying a likely psycho-physiological mechanism underlying its operation - I'VE ALREADY BROKEN IT WAAAAAAY THE PHUK DOWN!!!! and in the process made it subject to empirical testing and verification by others. That said - please go and read a little over the holidays and come at me with questions evidencing some effort on your part or don't come at me at all, aight?

achali: i ain't coming at you brother. calm down. i'll check out the readings [one | two] when i have the time. thanks for them.

Michael Fisher: Achali, don't waste your time. This Dopamine hegemony ain't nothing else but another racialist/fascist projection of a prurient LaRouche-type mind. Basically these folks stipulate that humanity is divided genetically into folks who "by "genetic luck" lack a dopamine rreceptor and thus are able to tthink creatively and clearly and are "awake" and the rest of us who are Dopamine doped-up and "asleep" and who "act stupid". It's a circular and self-reinforcing argument. It also is racist to the nth degree as even the creator of this cult, (and it is a bona fide cult with all the usual unifying verbal constructs and uses germane to such cults) Alan G. Carter had to contend with. It is easy to figure out what the inevitable ramifications of this "theory" are: the "necessary" rule of the "rational" folks over the "irrational" folks like moi and toi. Actually, come to think of it, Carter probably stole this thing from a German pulp fiction science fiction series that's been running for over 40 years since 1961 called "Perry Rhodan, the Savior Of The Universe". There's a long cycle of about a hundred or so booklets in this series that describes humanity as having succumbed to something called Aphilie in which all of humanity's emotional "dopaminic type" thinking has been eradicated. I think that cycle of booklets ran sometime in the late 1970's or early 1980s. Alan Carter, being a Brit, might have had access to that series. In any case, that stuff ain't nothing new. Like I said,waste of time.

We're a human development centered cooperative, producing in part through the generous and faithful contributions of our North Star members. Choose your membership: Annual ($36), Monthly ($3), ($5), ($10), ($15), ($30), ($70), ($200), ($500), ($1000).