Just as I thought, xPrae is still harping on the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) myth. Abagond and I are still on his mind as the “foot soldiers” of this made-up complex. [That's true.] xPrae is a right winger in the truest sense of the word, believing that all black people should join the conservative side and abandon the Democratic party’s ways, [also true] as if we’re democrats to begin with. [Unintentionally revealing? The small "d" democrat? I've often said in these pages that the state of mind of the RGI is eerily similar to that of the racist white eugenicists of the early 20th Century. Those charlatans were also, it should be noted, a major source of inspiration for the Nazis and other totalitarians of the 20th century.] To him, the left just gives us “free stuff“, and we should stop whining and bitching about white racism which is not a “big problem”, according to him. [a crude summation, but roughly accurate.]
As a side note, I said that he believes it’s a non-issue or insignificant, but it’s whatever. xPrae may say how he didn’t mention the “free stuff” comment, but a commenter did. [That is not true. I did mention the "free stuff." (here -- it's the second bullet(2)) I made the self-evident point that if black people did not want the "free stuff" no one was forcing them to take it. They were perfectly within their rights simply not to take it. Yet, there is no indication that there was ever a widespread movement to reject the white man's largesse. A simple truth: if a group takes trillions of dollars worth of "free stuff "offered to them, it shouldn't be all that controversial to say that the group wanted the free stuff offered to them.] Yet, he did cosign on it. And as for us wanting “revenge“, he needs to show me where I or Abagond ever said that. Otherwise, he is completely out of his mind. [An interesting point. I referred BCW to the post about "Yurugu" (here) in which the commenter, one "diaryofanegress," fantasized quite openly about the violent extermination of all white people. BCW's response was: "...they’ll likely blame it on blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else. lol " Ignoring the weirdness of BCW's suggestion that after white people are exterminated, they will "blame it on blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else," it should not be controversial to suggest that this genocidal fantasizing arises from a desire for revenge. "Diaryof" voiced the fantasy; BCW endorsed it. For my part, I never would have allowed someone else's genocidal fantasies to appear uncountered on my pages. Ever. BCW not only allowed it, he seconded it. I should note also that the above is only one example; the desire that all white people suffer a violent death, as redress for past or imagined ongoing depredations, is quite common on the part of the RGI. You might retort, "Oh, it's just the usual heated hyperbole that crops up when the hot-button topic of race is under the microscope." I'd respond to you, "Imagine if a white person were to fantasize openly about the violent elimination of all black people -- regardless of how heated the argument or topic is."]
What the hell is this “free stuff” xPrae is talking about? [All the vast panoply of government service, programs and initiatives whose standard operating procedure is to take from some to give to others. ] I banned him from being a first-class [misogynistic epithet deleted] However, he would probably say that I banned him for being white. [I do say it, and it's true. BCW banned my presence because I'm white and because I disagree with him. The RGI maintains strict ideological conformity; no actual dissent allowed.] I guess his contemptous, self-important, know-more-than-you, typical, white male paternalistic attitude had nothing to do with it. [Another interesting point. The RGI came at me with the vilest vitriol imaginable. According to Brotha Cryin' Wolf, I was supposed to respond only with sweetness and light. I settled for second best: withering condescension. BCW tries here to make the perfectly ridiculous point that if only I had made my dissent sweetly and gently, he wouldn't have banned me. There is no sweet way to say: "What you just wrote is so crashingly idiotic that you should be ashamed for having allowed it out from the swamp to see the light of day." As for the charge of directing withering fire at the content of BCW's posts, I plead guilty. But if your posts are fully buttressed by sparkling logic and irrefutable facts, then you should have no fear of disagreement by anyone.] For some reason, conservatives don’t want to look at themselves in the mirror for their own faults, [Another interesting point -- setting aside BCW's ridiculous mind-reading for a bit, here's another simple truth: Being a Conservative, I'm quite well-versed in how I, and others, became Conservatives. As I've remarked many times in these pages before (here, for example), "society's white noise is liberal." Therefore, read this well, the default state of mind for kids growing up in America today is to be a liberal. And, during my youth I was a good liberal. More than socialized medicine, I believed in truly free healthcare (ie that doctors should just give it away out of a sense common decency), free food, books and housing. Yep. That was me. It's precisely because I was willing to "look in the mirror," and to keep thinking, and observing, and reading and challenging my views, that I was able to recognize the numbskullery of my thoughts, and that I became a Conservative. BCW's accusation here is likely simple projection. As transparently dumb as many of BCW's positions are, they are, indeed, unshakable. I had to shake my positions in order to get to where I am today. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't easy admitting that I had been wrong! But it was worth it, and, really, all part of growing up.] before accusing others of their own. But I digress. He won’t be telling me what he means directly. [It was surely not for lack of trying! :) BCW and the rest of the RGI are the kid on the playground who calls your mother ugly, then immediately starts yelling "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA...!" at the top of his lungs so as to shout down any response from you.]
I can only assume that this “free stuff” xPrae writes is referring to the welfare system. Right wingers associate welfare with ‘free stuff’ whenever they mention black people. Although they won’t admit it, like xPrae, they latch on to the age old notion that black people are lazy and shiftless. [Nope. Right-wingers do not do this. However, I did mention another simple truth: If you offer a population a wide array of free stuff, a certain percentage of that population will take you up on the offer. As time goes on, the rest of that population will look at the freeloaders and wonder what the point is of their working their backsides off. This would have happened if the race roles had been reversed, and the "free stuff" had been offered to white people by relatively more prosperous black people. People are, still, people.] Plus, they believe that it’s a Democratic plan to give black people “free stuff”. Ergo, welfare and the left keep black folks from pulling up their bootstraps. [I don't simply believe it; it's a matter of record. We showed President Lyndon Johnson saying it (here). Plus, that's exactly how it's played out in the past decades. It's hard to deny that Democrats have this plan when all they do is double down on what has demonstrably kept giving black people "free stuff" and certainly is keeping "black folks from pulling" themselves up by the bootstraps. Again, this should not be controversial.]
On the other hand, Republicans abolished slavery, [Yep. They did. And they were the prime moving force behind the abolition of the Jim Crow Laws and segregation as well.] and “made the case for the removal of obstacles.” [Again, BCW failed to read what I wrote. I made exactly the opposite point. I said that Republicans removed the obstacles, then failed to make the case that that was the more important thing to do, not doling out "free stuff."] So, we should thank massa and become a part of his house. [Nope. I never said this or even remotely hinted at it. More of the same tiresome mind-reading of which BCW and the rest of the RGI are constantly, monotonously, brainlessly guilty. However, I did suggest that the RGI abandon all their vast array of excuses for failure and take advantage of the opportunity in America -- before, that is, Obama eliminates it all. :) By the way, BCW's "massa" is the leadership of the Race Grievance Industry... the ones making a fortune off BCS's whining.] Some already did, by the way.
A panel of black conservatives
[The above is a picture that sends terror throughout the American left. Holy mackerel!!! Black people who actually think for themselves! We certainly can't have that! I hear you already: "What a racist thing to say! Blacks are not a monolith!" Maybe not, but they are a monolith in the voting booth. At that point, I am perfectly correct to say that all blacks think alike; that all blacks do the same thing; that all blacks march in lock-goose-step to the orders of the Race Grievance Industry and its political wing the Democrat Party. Nor should my assertion be even in the slightest controversial.]
We need to understand what welfare is and what it’s not. xPrae thinks it’s just out to give “free stuff”. First off, “free stuff” can mean anything. Most conservatives, and some liberals think it can means cars, clothes, jewelry, iphones, etc. Welfare was never established as some government genie granting you your wishes. [At least that what the left said. Leftists lie. A lot.] It’s history shows that it was created to assist poor families while training them to work and earn money. [That has always been one of its stated purposes. That the programs never actually instituted any relevant or effective training is part of the problem, and ought to be a major scandal. You can blame the somnolent, or irresponsible -- or complicit -- national media for that little oversight.]
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program started in 1935. It was created by the Social Security Act and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the New Deal to financially assist low and no income families. Why should there be such a program in the first place? Oh yeah! The Great Depression. [Yes, the Great Depression... aka: a government program to make a permanent Democrat voter constituency. Historians are now largely in agreement: FDR's programs "to assist the needy" prolonged the Great Depression, and had the side-effect of making a certain level of poverty permanent. It's the same principle I mentioned above: If you offer "free stuff" to a population, a certain non-zero percentage of that population will take you up on the offer. Furthermore, of those who take you up on the offer, a certain non-zero percentage will not take the opportunity, during the time of the "free stuff," to improve their skills, shore up their finances, and make themselves more marketable and independent.]
Then came its replacement, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, created under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 under President Bill Clinton. As its name implies, it provides temporary assistance while helping to get them off assistance by helping them gain permanent employment within a two-year period. So, that being the case, it’s objective is not to let people live the lap of luxury forever. It doesn’t give hand outs, but a leg to stand on. And according to data, it helped significantly, especially among single mothers, gain employment and poverty dropped rapidly during the 1990′s. [Here BCW neatly makes our point for us. This was the welfare reform much heralded by Republicans and forced on a reluctant Bill Clinton by the Newt Gingrich-led (R-Georgia) House of Representatives and the Bob Dole-led (R-Kansas) Senate. How exactly did it reform welfare? By cutting it off after a certain period of time! What was the effect of telling millions of welfare-recipients that their money would run out in a few months? They scrambled and found work. This was the most beneficial welfare "program" -- ie, the elimination of the welfare program, if you will -- in the history of the country! That is, of course, precisely why Obama got rid of the "temporary" nature of it, thereby eliminating the most truly pro-black legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]
Welfare programs only provide so much according to the family in need. The U.S. Welfare System’s website provides the following info:
- A basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
- Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300. [Even if we stipulate to this (we don't), that would mean some $1,400 per month of savings for my family of three. That would cover my family's food entirely and most of my housing. It would mean that I could retire and go work part-time at Home Depot for the remainder of my housing, as well as gas and fun money. ]
So, again, I have to ask, what does xPrae mean when he mentions “free stuff”? Food stamps don’t buy anything BUT FOOD! And how on Earth can you buy cars and iphones with income such as this? Seriously! [This is, of course, more fiction on the part of BCW. Laundering welfare payouts and food stamps for cash -- and from there for the purchase of other than food -- has long been a well-known type of welfare fraud. It's only recently that some safeguards ("Credit card"-style payments, for example) have been put in place to make it a tiny bit more difficult to convert government handouts to cash. Really though, this had the effect only of transferring some complicity for the fraud to the retailer as well as the benefits recipient.]
And while we’re talking about blacks and welfare, maybe xPrae should understand that most people who are on welfare are white. Yet, he seems to link it directly towards blacks whenever he goes on a rant about the imaginary RGI. [It's sad that I'd have to bat back this tiresome canard, but it does show the ignorance of the RGI. Look, it's common knowledge that poor whites consume more welfare than blacks. However, per capita, any black person is more than seven times more likely to be a recipient of government services -- of "free stuff" -- than any white person. While poverty is a problem for white people -- it's a freakin' problem for all poor people, for cryin' out loud! -- it's a massive problem for black people, and most particularly for inner-city black people. Sorry. It's simply true. More to the point, the cities have been under the exclusive control of the Democrat Party, and frequently of black people, for decades. Read this well: It's entirely possible that if you have done only one thing: prevent the Democrats from controlling the cities, you would have eliminated black poverty without spending a dime.]
Pie chart showing welfare stats by race
[This entirely unattributed chart does not in any way show "welfare stats" by race. Since BCW doesn't tell where he obtained this chart -- or even whether he made it himself -- I can't know what is is intended to show. However, it does roughly approximate (very roughly) the ethnic composition of the United States. If you were to show a meaningful measure of the use of taxpayer-funded goods and services by ethnicity, ie the per capita statistics, you would need to use a bar chart. A pie chart can show only one instance of 100%, divided into smaller pieces. "Per Capita" means "per hundred," so you would need to use bars to show, for example, (1) the percentage of white recipients of welfare, (2) the percentage of black recipients of welfare, (3) the percentage of Hispanic recipients of welfare, etc. Such a bar chart would feature a black bar more than seven times as tall as that for whites.]
xPrae believes black folks should join Republicans because it was Republicans, particularly and presumably Lincoln, a Republican President, who freed the slaves. It’s a soundbite if I ever heard one. But is it true?
Historians pointed out that Lincoln was not too crazy about freeing the slaves. It is evidenced in a letter dated August 22, 1862 to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” [This letter indicates only that, to Lincoln, emancipation was certainly very important, just not as important as keeping the Union together. History has proven that state-of-mind to be quite reasonable: slavery was a doomed institution. It would have disappeared well before the arrival of the 20th Century. It's likely that Lincoln and most others in high office in the country knew this. It's well-known that Lincoln was a firm abolitionist. A more pointed question would be to ask: did more than half a million fine young men have to die to get rid of slavery, when it was going to disappear in the next 30 years anyway? My opinion: nope.]
Many seem to think that the Emancipation Proclamation officially freed the slaves. But many have argued that it was a piece of paper just for show, because it only freed slaves where the federal government was powerless.It didn’t free slaves in loyal slave states or in the Confederacy under Union control. In the end, Lincoln, didn’t free any slave. And there is no record of any Republican besides Lincoln that stepped up. [To the contrary, there is no record of any Democrat having stepped up to do anything to assist black people in America, until the 1960's at which point, they were also the stiffest resistance to pro-black initiatives in America. Furthermore, when they did "step up" it was to institute policies and promulgate laws that were designed to "give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." It's hard to argue with the results! Ninety to ninety-five percent Democrat voting rates suggest that President Johnson successfully bought blacks' votes for the foreseeable future. What BCW fails to recognize is that since FDR came into office all the way back in 1933, the country has been trending Democrat ever since. The Republicans, and the Republican principle of smaller, less intrusive government, have held a smaller and smaller share of the general perception of what exactly constitutes "The American Dream."
Back to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation(3). BCW is sort of correct. As with most things in history, the reality is more complex than what is taught in overview classes in high school and college. BCW is correct when he says that the Proclamation had no effect in Confederate-held lands, but that is not the point. The Proclamation did serve notice that the abolition of slavery was now an additional goal of the war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation put the American government on record in official policy as being opposed to the institution of slavery itself. Whether the Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing the slaves is perfectly irrelevant; it was a fatal wound to the institution of slavery itself. Even if the Confederacy had won the war, cleaving the United States in two, slavery as an institution in the South would not have survived the next 30 years. In the North, int eh slave states that had remained in the Union, it would not have survived a single year after the end of the war.
And, yes, all that was done by a Republican, by a founding father, in fact, of the Republican Party, the party formed primarily to serve as the political wing of the American abolitionist movement.]
There is no doubt that the Democrats haven’t been too kind to blacks, especially in the South. But Republicans haven’t seen so civil with us either, especially in modern times. xPrae is unsurprisingly selective about this reality about a party he supports. I wonder why? (sarcasm) [Oh, how's that? If BCW is trying to say that Republicans have opposed all the infantilizing and humiliating policies and laws promulgated by the Democrats to keep blacks poor, dependent and voting for Democrats, then how is that being "uncivil" to black people? Liberal Republicans -- you know, the "Country-Club Republicans? -- are indeed guilty of the same racism of which the American left and its political wing, the Democrat Party, are guilty: the very same condescending, look-down-their-noses, Rockefeller Republicans who absolutely are Republicans In Name Only, or RINO's. Yes, these Republicans have, through the years, supported and gone along with all the putrid policies the Democrats have proposed to keep blacks poor and dependent.]
Republicans, believing they’re fighting a losing battle in the South, brought forth a doctrine of black stereotypes ["doctrine of black stereotypes" means nothing.] and covert anti-black racism [in other, more accurate words, "imaginary racism"] to advance their political agenda in order to sucker white voters over and over again to vote against their self-interests. [Hogwash. This illiterate muck of a sentence is mostly meaningless, but we can interpret that BCW means that we Republicans and Conservatives have "played the race card." That is, manifestly, hogwash. ] (We’ve come to know it as the Southern Strategy. [Here, BCW links to a piece in "The Nation," a hard-left, non-credible publication, long known to twist facts to support preconceived notions. Lee Atwater, legendary Republican operative, did indeed play hardball politics, but was never in any way a racist. He made the case that if Republcans were to win elections, they had to take off the gloves and play in the mud like the legendary race-baiting Democrats. The Nation essay alleges that Atwater counseled Republicans to play on the racial fears of white southerners. However, the piece really concedes completely that Democrats routinely play on the fears of all black people. Atwater, and others, most notably black Republicans, did, indeed propose strategies to counter this slander on the part of the Democrats and the RGI. These strategies were not all about "playing nice" with Democrats and the Race Grievance Industry.]) But as usual, xPrae is doesn’t want to realize that he brought the hype, because the right knows there are a lot of slow-ass [Here, BCW links, again in "The Nation," to a long-debunked 2012 study, the authors of which twisted themselves into knots to come to pre-conceived findings that Conservatives and Republicans are less intelligent, lazier and more racist than non-Conservatives. However, in reading further, one found that the authors of the study concluded that you were stupid or racist only if you were to disagree with their conclusions. Heck, anyone can come up with such a study instantly! And they did. And BCW fell swallowed it like the race addict he is.], angry white people who can’t think for themselves, let alone think rationally. [This is particularly rich, coming from a dude whose only response to disagreement from white people is "You're a racist!" and, "You're a liar!" and "Shut up -- you're banned!" So rational, there, BCW, ever so rational... :) ]
Lee Atwater, the man who spoke on what the Southern Strategy was all about
Currently, Republicans are doing everything they can to set up the obstacles they supposedly tried to lift. In states like North Carolina, they’re trying to undermine voting rights [Suffice it to say, that for BCW if you suggest that we should adhere to the idea of one-person-one-vote, and that dead people shouldn't vote, then you are trying to "undermine voting rights." The counter to BCE's link in the leftist Slate.com, is this link. BCW's idea of "voting rights" is that leftists should be able to vote as often as they want.], social programs (“free stuff”), the Racial Justice Act and public education, under the leadership of its governor Pat McCrory. [I don't know enough about the so-called "Racial Justice Act" to talk about it. Nor, I suspect, does BCW. However, it's practically a patriotic duty of all Americans to undermine "public education" whenever possible! ]
Now, movements, known as Moral Mondays, are devised to fight against the GOP’s push to turn back the clock of progress. And it’s it’s spreading into other Southern states like Georgia and Tennessee. Why? [The so-called "Moral Mondays movement" is not spreading in any significant way. However, in answer to BCW's question as to "why there are such movements," that's easy: because Republicans and Conservatives are challenging the idea of large, intrusive government everywhere. This will irritate leftists of all stripes, and since the left is much better organized than the right, they will get people in the streets. ]
Because Republicans are trying their damnest to make sure certain people, particularly blacks, no longer have a say in programs they fought so hard to obtain for the goal of obtaining power in government, which is strange considering how Republicans believe in small government. [BCW makes no correlation between getting government out of all our lives and potential harm to blacks. He does, however, prove again my "free stuff" point from above. In the statement above, he tells of "programs they fought so hard to obtain for the goal of obtaining power in government." Free stuff.] And yet, they’re trying to take it over from top to bottom. [Whatever that means. I gather BCW's saying that the Democrats are not trying to take power from top to bottom? If he truly believes this then he's more ignorant than I thought.] This is why they employ scare tactics and dog whistle politics to convince the masses to join their cliche [Join our cliche? Whuuh?] even though they will be treated like two-bit pledges instead of actual members. [Again, whuuh?] So, again, why should blacks, or anyone, support such a party only out for the rich and privileged? [Finally! I guess we can expect BCW to leave the Democrats -- you know the party of rich and privileged Wall Street and of Big Business? Saaaaayyyy...How's Wall street doing these days? How about GM, and Microsoft? How're hard-leftists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet doing in this time (now) when Democrats control nearly 70% of the American Government and have for more than five years? Yep. Under Obama, the very richest are richer than they have ever been. And getting richer. Why? They're big Democrat supporters. While rich Republican supporters actually have the leader of the Senate of the United States of America targeting them regularly.]
xPrae will no doubt throw a hissy fit over this article. He will question how is any of the above racist. But in the end, he and his non-thinking, so-called “think tank” will simply go by faith that he’s still right. [BCW's out of gas. Now he's just saying things.] This time, I’ve provide sound arguments [He's provided "arguments," -- freakin' finally! -- just not sound ones.] against his RGI and “free stuff” rhetoric. But xPrae is not interested in the links provided. He will likely act moronic and denounce the info, should he lurk around here, copy and paste this whole article and spend his time taking it apart. [hee hee hee] I don’t care. You can’t argue with what is fact. And he will try.
If xPrae was as intelligent as he portrays himself to be, he would know that the right kisses asses so that the wealthy can have “free stuff” while they get some dough in return. [Oh? How's that? Prove it.] But it’s not like he has proven to be down to Earth to begin with, a mental illness many conservatives are afflicted with. [They can't help themselves, the RGI. They have to call those who disagree with them crazy.]
UPDATE: I knew it. I called it. xPrae won’t let him being banned from my blog stop him from trying to comment and start up the usual, predictable talk down:
xPrae, you know good and well you’re banned from here. [So I gather, you coward. :) ] Plus, you know you’re not looking for a conversation, even if you say that’s what you want. [If that's what I said I want, then who are you to presume I don't want it? You've never given me one yet, even to test the premise that I might want one. That's pretty dumb!] And none of us are interested in learning from you. [You could have stopped this last sentence at the word "learning." :) ] You are STILL banned from here, or do you think you’re too important for boundaries set by simple minded negroes like me? [Yuh. I'm "too important for boundaries set by simple minded Negroes like you." Do you even read what you write? Do you ever realize how stupid you sound?] Yes, I used your articles to prove a point or two, and you’re so happy obliging while showcasing your racist, right wing insanity. [You used my essays (<-- the proper word), but you didn't prove anything. More to the point, you used them to buttress arguments that I've made. And I appreciate it.] So, return to your side of the blogosphere, whine about how I’m being unfair while purposely ignoring your futile attempt to demean and insult opposing views, and continue living in your conservative whitewashed fantasy. [You're not being unfair. You're being a moron. I offered you an opportunity for growth, learning and greater maturity; a chance to move beyond your published idiocy and to grow a little. You declined the offer. ]