You are to vague and dont really point out what you actually disagree with. You say. *i reject him because i dont like the way he presented his argument, even though i agree* *i reject him because he is rejecting scrutiny* But scrutiny of what. What exactly about group economics are you scrutinizing? A few historical facts or the method itself. You arent leaving anything to debate because you arent disagreeing with anything
Let me tell you what I disagree with.
I just don't think we should focus our priorities on circulating money in the black community. That may be a good thing, but I think doing so at the moment would hinder us from focusing on what should be our number one priority. We should be focusing on building a culture that appreciates the value in having a good work ethic. Right now, black culture places no emphasis whatsoever in working hard, getting an education, or really anything of value. When I think of what values we have within the black community, I can't think of a single thing. If anyone disagrees with me please provide an example of what values we have.
I do like how he points out how we don't own anything in this country. But I don't like the fact that he essentially says the reason why we don't own anything is strictly due to other races playing group economics. Supposedly the reason why blacks are poor is because everyone else is smart enough to keep their money within their own community but blacks give it all away to others outside the community.
I think group economics does help other races, like Vietnamese or jews or w/e. So I'm not gonna argue against that since I do respect that fact. But what Claude Anderson does not understand is that group economics is NOT the primary cause of why other races are so successful.
Asians and Indians are successful because of their work ethic. But Claude Anderson doesn't want to admit that that's the primary reason for their success. And you know why? Because blaming the shortcomings of black america on "group economics" alleviates the burden of accountability for our degenerate culture. He doesn't want to admit black people are the problem. He blames black people only in the sense that we should have been practicing group economics like everyone else. But that's just a roundabout way of blaming it on whitey. Because if it wasn't for whitey and other races playing group economics, we'd be rich too, according to him.
as if whatever he says is axiomatic, and should be taken as such.
or in america for that matter
I didnt disagree with all of it, but thats normal. For his shtick to be taken seriously, it must contain some truths, or be at least mostly true. Thats how you get people to overlook the bullshyt.
activities.
