Prometheus 6

of course you're right P6.., it simply wouldn't be possible to make up shit like this; being able to showcase unselfconscious convert-or-die expressions of white-identity solipsism is priceless...,

http://www.niggerati.net/node/279

I basically agree with your observation in that post P6, which is why I don't post on, or even generally read Niggerati Net. I have no wish to be the white guy in the room which precludes some kinds of discussion; it's convenient that there are two rooms.  One iconified by a black man reading a newspaper.  The other iconified by the name "Niggerati".  I suspected that wasn't an accident.

We're always going to disagree, and that's ok.  When all the arguments are laid out, and repeated twice,  that's the time to move on.  "closure" is an unreasonable goal.

It's not true though that we don't come closer, that our positions in the curved space are fixed either absolutely or relative to one another.  Most movement is to come closer, usually in imperceptably small increments, but actually observable when a topic is revisited six months later.

I'm compelled by observations of fact and derivations from such observations cnulan. 

As civilized people, we're tempted to bound the space of acceptable conclusions before examining the facts. Sometimes this prevents understanding reality, because reality is not constrained by civilization.

This generally does not imply however that we should be less civilized in our behavior.  It does mean that we should accept that uncivilized space exists, and that we should wary of applying a civilized solution in such uncivilized space, because in uncivilized space, civilization really is a weakness.

As civilized people, we should first lead by example.

Only when forced, we should defend ourselves with the intent to be effective in suppressing the threat rather than the intent to expand civilization.  When the threat is suppressed, we should revert to leading by example.

As civilized people,

ROTFLMBAO!!!!!!!!!!

Our foreign and economic policies are one and the same.

Nevermind what I'm saying. Is it true?

I don't know, but I did give your suggestion a go. Here's where I ended up.

Foreign policy:interventionist, but not  imperialistic.

Economic policy: not really a policy, but the summary term is capitalism. Lots of players, some beyond control (e.g. Bill Gates).  We have a monetary policy, which controls the money supply.  We have the IMF, which gives loans with strings to third world countries.  But most importantly, the west has capitalism, which is the real accomplishment of the past 500 years, and generated wealth beyond imagination for ordinary people in capitalist socieities.

Places which rejected basic capitalism have fallen far behind, places which include most Islamic countries. 

So what to make of a claim that foreign policy is one and the same as economic policy?

It's easy to observe that the successes of capitalism are far more destabilizing than simply noting that they don't much live like us.  Increasingly, the disparity is becoming apparent to the people living external to capitalism, and they're demanding a life beyond peasantry. 

We can observe that "rejecting capitalism" takes various forms, very much including tolerance of government corruption in the marketplace. 

Is the inevitable exportation of capitalism our basic foreign policy?  Perhaps. In such an analysis, I can concur.