The Breathtaking Dishonesty of the RGI


As you know, a pet project of mine is to study the Race Grievance Industry. This is the group that whines operatically about white racism, and imagines vast, horrific oppression of black people in America. If you read their output, you’d swear that you live in a hellish, blighted land, not far removed form Nazi Germany, rather than the freest, most prosperous, most-opportunity-laden country in the history of the world.

The oppression and abuse, once real, are now however, relegated to the distant past, long replaced by an aggressive and comprehensive effort by white Americans to atone for their past wrongs and make things right. The problem: the myth that somehow vast, thoroughgoing white racism survived right alongside the transparent, open repentance by white Americans. Not only, says the myth, did white racism survive, but it thrived, and continues to grow.

Part of the reason for this disconnect is a vast propaganda complex including the media who largely buy in to the myth, Hollywood who constantly flog the myth, academia who teach the myth, and pop culture whose drones constantly warble and chirp about it in songs and raps and videos and television shows and preachy commercials.

As we’ve mentioned in these pages more than once, the facts of life are Conservative, but society’s white noise is overwhelmingly leftist.(1)

One other aspect of the vast propaganda machine that allows the Race Grievance Industry to exist is the internet. On the internet, there are countless blogs and web sites devoted to keeping the myth alive and flourishing. We’ve interacted with several of them in the past couple of years and found a closed, narrow-minded, petty, deeply racist crowd, completely unable to mount a coherent argument in support of the myth.

Here’s (BrothaWolf) one of those racist blogs. Here’s (Abagond) another. We’ve interacted with both, and been banned from both.

Our debate opponents in these interactions had one strategy in the face of arguments against the myth: at all costs avoid responding substantively to the dissent. Rather, in support of that strategy, they liberally used the following tactics: Shout down and censor the skeptic, dissemble, evade, insult, accuse, question the character, knowledge, honesty, education, motives and sanity of the dissenter.

Oh, and one more tactic: bald-faced lies. Below, I’ve reproduced a post from the above-mentioned Abagond. It’s chock full of a steaming mess of paranoia, racism, unsubstantiated conclusions and … lies.

Using the technique we pioneered in these pages, we have reproduced Abagond’s post, and included our own comments in-line, in square brackets and in red font.

* * * BEGINNING of Abagond’s Blog Post * * *


Rachel Dolezal

RDolezal

Rachel Doležal (1977- ) is the head of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington and a professor of Africana and African American studies at Eastern Washington University. [There’s a path to success and prosperity in America: a degree in Africana or African American Studies! I don’t want to denigrate completely a fluff degree like “African American Studies.” A college degree does indicate that the diploma holder is trainable. Not an insignificant trait in America today. I have a liberal arts degree (summa cum laude) and have had a long career in Information Technology. The truth must, however, be told: I lucked into the work by demonstrating an aptitude for computers while unsuccessfully searching for work related to my college education.] Most people thought she was Black – until her estranged parents in Montana outed her as White on Thursday June 11th 2015.

When a reporter asked her about it, she fled. The video went viral. As Twitter went nuts, the NAACP met to discuss.

Plenty of Black people pass as White, either full-time or part-time. But Whites passing as Black is rare. In the 1990s, Joshua Solomon tried it and could not even last a month – not because he was outed but because the loss of White privilege was unbearable. [The first unsubstantiated conclusion: Joshua Solomon’s experience proved only one thing: that Joshua Solomon “could not even last a month.” It says nothing of anyone else. Obviously, Rachel Dolezal’s experience — white girl pretending to be black, thrives and prospers — entirely disproves Abagond’s conclusion. As we’ve said many times now in these pages: you can use the words of the left against them. They automatically prove themselves wrong. Just by talking. You can spot it, if you’re alert.]

rachel-dolezal-inline-5

Her motive is unclear, so the whole thing is strange. [Her motives may not be all that unclear. Apparently by claiming falsely to be black, she was able to obtain a free education,  a full-boat scholarship to Howard University! Not bad! My daughter had to join the Army to cover her tuition at college, when all along, all she needed to do was pretend to be black! ] You do not have to be Black to join the NAACP. Just ask Joe Biden. [So, let me get this straight. Right here in the racist hellhole that is America, the two most powerful men in the world are a black man, and his Vice-President, a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Some oppression! Some racism! As I’ve often said: you don’t have to read too much to see that the left cannot make its case here, without completely disproving its case over there. You just have to be ready to spot it.] There is even someone the same rank as her in Louisiana who is White. Likewise, there are plenty of professors who teach African American studies who are White. If anything, passing as Black greatly limited the effect she could have on the broader society. Just ask Tim Wise. [Second unsubstantiated conclusion. Abagond just says that “passing as Black greatly limited the effect she could have had on the broader society.” Yet, Rachel Dolezal’s story contradicts that conclusion completely. She’s the President of a chapter of the most powerful organization in the vastly powerful Race Grievance Industry. Dolezal and Tim Wise have prospered in America. Needless to say, there are millions of other black Americans who have prospered in America as well. Do the names Barack, Lebron, Denzel mean anything to you? There’s no indication that these black Americans had to work harder than anyone else to attain the vast power and wealth they have now. Check out the names of mayors of major cities in America for the past 60 or so years.]

dolezal-parents

rachel3_t620-1Her parents showed pictures of her as a girl: straight blonde hair, blue eyes and freckles. They say she is Czech, German and Swedish with a touch of Native American, but that she has somehow been passing for Black or biracial since about 2006 or 2007. They say she is lying about way more than just her race. There is some kind of family fight going on, something about abuse. [Oops! Look out! It’s daddy’s fault! It always is. Remember, as a woman, this leftist is also a member in good standing of the Gender Grievance Industry. She’s a two-fer!]

She says she considers herself Black (she does not like the term African American) and is willing to take a DNA test to prove it. She says that the question of her race is a matter between her and the NAACP and Black people. She does not care what White people think and, in any case, she doubts they would understand any answer she would give. [Well, in response to the only question publicly posed to her so far — “Are you an African-American?” — she said: “I don’t understand your question.” Can anyone blame anyone else for not “understanding” that answer?]

The NAACP, as of Friday afternoon, is standing behind her. The head of the NAACP for Oregon, Washington and Alaska  says that she is a good leader, the best Spokane has had in years, that her race is not what matters.

She is also on a city commission that oversees the trigger-happy Spokane police. [“Trigger-happy” Spokane police? Really? What evidence permits that incendiary accusation? What indication have you ever had that the Spokane PD are “trigger-happy?” Nothing I’ve ever heard of. Yet, Abagond just tosses this off as if it were a given. It is, though, nothing more than his third unsubstantiated conclusion.] When she applied for that position she marked her race as White, Black and Native.

All this takes place in the age of Caitlyn Jenner and Raven-Symone.

Raven-Symone, a “New Black”, distances herself from Black people. That is the opposite of what Dolezal does.

Caitlyn Jenner is a woman who was once a man: Bruce Jenner, the Olympic gold medal winner. Some argue that if Jenner can choose her gender, then why can’t Dolezal choose her race? If there are transgender people, then why not transracial ones?

The huge hole in that was pointed out on Twitter by @lizzo:

“My prob w/ #Transracial: Black folk cant decide to be white when the cops raid their pool party. But a white woman can be NAACP president.” [This is glib, but irrelevant, and a false analogy. This is Abagond’s lie. Or, the lie that he passes along, that, presumably, he knows is a lie. The “pool party” was really a brawl that resulted when a bunch of kids invaded a private pool where they were not allowed. When asked to leave, the youngsters refused and a brawl broke out, resulting in the infamous video of now ex-Corporal Casebolt restraining the black girl.

About the “transracial” thing: if there are transgender people, then of course there can — easily — be transracial people. Let’s face it, it’s a whole heckuva lot tougher to pass the wackiness that a man is a woman or vice versa merely because of how he feels at the time.  

Think about it: How tough could it be to change just the color of your skin, compared with going against the physical makeup of every cell in your body, and denying that your genitals are what they are, and either adding or somehow subtracting large glands on your chest, and artificially changing the chemical/hormonal composition of your body every day for the rest of your life?

If we can believe all that, changes a man into a woman and vice versa — as Abagond does(3) — then it’d be child’s play — and seven bucks or so for this stuff — to switch races, whenever the whim — or the opportunity — presents itself.

“Opportunity,” you say? Yes, “opportunity.” A free education at a prestigious education is quite a perk. 

Having trouble getting hired, or getting approved for a loan, or getting into college because of your race? No problem! Simply “identify” as black and allow your potential employer or the bank, or the university, to get its “Affirmative Action” numbers up! Heck if it really were to become inconvenient later, just switch back! Remember, all that counts is how you feel. ]

– Abagond, 2015.


* * * END of Abagond’s Blog Post * * *

Look, Rachel Dolezal plainly has serious issues, but so does the entire Race Grievance Industry. We bear no ill will toward her, but simply make the observation that if she’s lying about a pretty fundamental part of who she is, then she’s certainly lied elsewhere. However, she’s in good company. The RGI itself is overloaded with race-mongering fraudsters, scamsters, hoaxsters, propagandists and liars, all out to make a buck by spreading racial hatred and division in America. As the NAACP clearly demonstrated by leaping to Dolezal’s defense, she fits in just fine with them.

— xPraetorius

Notes


(1) – We also demonstrated how the Conservative message is the better thought-out message. Why? Because every Conservative has to take into account both his own thinking and the vast, daily tsunami of warm leftist spittle washing over them 24/7/365. No leftist is ever forced to challenge his own ideas and beliefs in America today. The result is that the left has become intellectually lazy, and their ideas, unchallenged and unworked, have become fat, flaccid and flabby.

(2) – As mentioned before several times, we would not have resorted to this tactic if the blog owners had not  banned us from their pages. Can you imagine it? Someone puts out a blog for the whole world to see then is thoroughly nonplussed when someone disagrees with him! So, what does he do? Why, in grand leftist fashion, he censors the dissenter of course! Needless to say, if the ban were not present, we would not resort to this technique.

(3) – He asserts — as fact — that “Caitlyn Jenner is [emphasis added] a woman who was once a man.”

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “The Breathtaking Dishonesty of the RGI

  1. xPraetorius, Abagond posted a link to your blog on this subject matter, hence my presence here. Being the ‘honest’ critique of RGI you claim to be I want your opinion on the classification of Charles W. Chestnutt as a black man by white society. You claim that RGI is keeping the races apart because they benefit from it. Ok, please substantiate your claim and tell me how you would classify CW Chestnutt and why. It seems to me that the racial con game you blame on RGI started way back when blacks were declared non-human by your ancestors. Please show me why I’m all wrong in holding such belief.

  2. Great to meet you, gro jo! Thanks for stopping by!

    Per your request, I’ll address your question from the top, and walk through it point-by-point.

    You said:
    xPraetorius, Abagond posted a link to your blog on this subject matter, hence my presence here. Being the ‘honest’ critique of RGI you claim to be I want your opinion on the classification of Charles W. Chestnutt as a black man by white society.

    My response:
    First, welcome again. Second, I hadn’t heard of Charles Chesnutt (No initial ‘t’ in his last name) before you mentioned him. However, in reading the Wikipedia passage on his life, I found this passage: “His paternal grandfather was known to be a white slaveholder and, Chesnutt likely had other white ancestors. He identified as African American but noted that he was seven-eighths white.[citation needed] Given his majority-European ancestry, Chesnutt could “pass” as a white man, although he never chose to do so. In many southern states at the time of his birth, Chesnutt would have been considered legally white, if he chose to identify that way.[2] By contrast, under the one drop rule later adopted into law by the 1920s in most of the South,[Notes 1] he would have been classified as legally black because of having some known African ancestry.”

    So, it appears that Mr. Chesnutt chose to call himself black, which would mean that “white society” of the day was simply doing as he requested. It also appears that the one-drop rule worked in Mr. Chesnutt’s favor.

    Please do not misinterpret that as a defense of either the one drop rule, or how whites treated black Americans in America pre-the modern era. Whites behaved reprehensibly toward black people in America in the long ago past.

    As to how I would classify Mr. Chesnutt, that’s easy: human. (I tried to make that point about race relations on Abagond’s race-obsessed blog. The Abagondians couldn’t, and apparently still can’t, get past race.)

    Your question, gj, is a good one, but doesn’t address the debate that I had with the Abagondians. I made the point that white racism is just not a big problem in America anymore, and backed it up extensively and in great detail. I met with a vast outpouring of deflection, evasion, accusation, insult, invective and … racist hostility. Now, it’s impossible to offend me, so I persisted, and after a while, Abagond realized that neither he nor any of his acolytes had anything of any real substance to counter what I said. So, Abagond banned me, the coward.

    When they did make an effort to address the topic, the Abagondians threw things like your question at me. Your question addresses some very interesting historical times, but has nothing in it that contributes meaningfully to the thesis: White racism is not a big problem in America today.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    You claim that RGI is keeping the races apart because they benefit from it.

    My response:
    Yes, I did. I offer as evidence the following from Business Professor Dennis Kimbro: “Remember each year $1.2 trillion (emphasis added) runs through our hands without a thing to show for it. No other ethnic group tolerates such nonsense.” That’s right here: http://www.denniskimbro.com/americas-black-millionaires-food-for-thought/#.VX31iflViko.

    Do the math. Black Americans represent about 13% of the population of 300+ million people. Let’s call that 40 million souls. 1.2 trillon divided by 40 million equals $30,000 worth of goods, services and cash for every black man, woman and child every year. Let me tell you, gj, my little family of three could do very, very well with an additional $90,000 per year, every year! You tell me whether it’s worth the RGI’s while to keep that coming!

    Mr. Kimbro suggests, as do I, that if black people (1) work hard, (2) get an education, (3) get along well with others, (4) speak well, (5) present themselves more or less normally — in other words “behave as we expect all other people to behave — then there would be no more obstacles in their path to success than there are in front of anyone else. Regradless of race. Certainly, white racism would not be one of those obstacles.

    However, 1.2 trillion dollars is a whole lot of money and it keeps flowing because the RGI keeps racial hostility alive among blacks, after it’s long all but died among whites. It’s not gone entirely from whites, but what little remains has gone far, far underground, and dares not show its head.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Ok, please substantiate your claim and tell me how you would classify CW Chestnutt and why.

    My response:
    I believe I have substantiated my claims, and I’ve certainly done so at length here on my blog, and I did so on Abagond’s blog. Here, for example. In that particular very long blog post, I gave chapter and verse. Please feel free to peruse it.

    I believe I also covered how I’d “classify” Mr. Chesnutt, but it bears repeating: human.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    It seems to me that the racial con game you blame on RGI started way back when blacks were declared non-human by your ancestors. Please show me why I’m all wrong in holding such belief.

    My response:
    I’m willing to stipulate that “my ancestors” started the “racial con game,” as you term it. My contention is, though, that white Americans long ago abandoned it, and the RGI continues it. My further contention is that there is no valid reason to continue it.

    As to showing you “why you’re wrong in holding such belief.” I don’t believe you are wrong in holding such belief, so I won’t try to talk you out of it. However, if you think that white racism is a big problem in America today — the point I was debating all along — then I believe you are incorrect in that belief.

    [Edit] Sorry! I forgot to add one thing. I’m not aware of any effort on the part of white people (ie “my ancestors”) to declare black people as “non-human.” In the early 20th century there was such an effort by eugenicists to understand black people as inferior people, but people all the same. It didn’t go anywhere.

    If, however, you’re referring to the 3/5ths compromise, that came from abolitionists in an attempt to deny to white Southerners additional votes in elections. Remember, regardless of their classification, blacks couldn’t vote back then, and in the greater irony, it was Southerners trying to classify blacks as fully human, so they could get one vote for each slave they owned. The whites classifying blacks as “less than fully human,” for the purposes of elections, were actually the same whites trying to abolish slavery!

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Gro jo, thanks again for your question! I hope you’ll come back again soon. For further insight into how we think on this topic at our small, but increasingly influential think tank, please search “RGI” or “Race Grievance Industry” in the seach box. We’ve written extensively on it. However, we cover a lot of other ground here as well, in the realm of politics, culture, current events and more. Please feel free to browse among the stacks.

    Best,

    — x

  3. Thank you for your reply. You wrote: “If, however, you’re referring to the 3/5ths compromise, that came from abolitionists in an attempt to deny to white Southerners additional votes in elections. Remember, regardless of their classification, blacks couldn’t vote back then, and in the greater irony, it was Southerners trying to classify blacks as fully human, so they could get one vote for each slave they owned.” Doesn’t that show that to whites, regardless of political affiliation blacks were nothing other than bargaining chips? I’m sure that you are aware of the racial discrimination practiced against blacks in the states where they were nominally free. What was that all about,and what led to the demise of such attitudes in our more enlightened time, in your opinion?
    “Black Americans represent about 13% of the population of 300+ million people. Let’s call that 40 million souls. 1.2 trillon divided by 40 million equals $30,000 worth of goods, services and cash for every black man, woman and child every year. Let me tell you, gj, my little family of three could do very, very well with an additional $90,000 per year, every year! ” This is very funny sir, if you did the math for other Americans the fallacy of that argument would be easy for you to see. Let’s say the US economy is $16 trillion, subtracting the 1.2 trillion that goes to blacks leaves 14.8 trillion for the other 260 million Americans doing the division you did for blacks and the 1.2 trillion tells me that you and your “little family of three” are entitled to $56,923.07 worth of goods and services each. My question to you sir is why are you not satisfied with the $170,769.21 of goods and services you are getting now if your calculations are trustworthy? Thanks for the reply, but I won’t becoming back due to the fact that, for some strange reason, I find your conclusions to be based on very weak foundations.

  4. Hi, gro jo! Welcome back! Thanks for your reply. My reactions are below.

    You said:
    “If, however, you’re referring to the 3/5ths compromise, that came from abolitionists in an attempt to deny to white Southerners additional votes in elections. Remember, regardless of their classification, blacks couldn’t vote back then, and in the greater irony, it was Southerners trying to classify blacks as fully human, so they could get one vote for each slave they owned.” Doesn’t that show that to whites, regardless of political affiliation blacks were nothing other than bargaining chips? I’m sure that you are aware of the racial discrimination practiced against blacks in the states where they were nominally free. What was that all about,and what led to the demise of such attitudes in our more enlightened time, in your opinion?

    My response:
    Yes, regardless of their classification, it’s possible to say that blacks were used as bargaining chips. You can’t conclude from that, however, that it was even a bad thing. It’s the very same thing as “gerrymandering” today, in which the idea is to use race and socio-economic background to tip the scales in elections. All races find themselves used as “bargaining chips” at some point or another. That’s politics. Is that a good thing? Probably not. But it’s not necessarily a racist thing. Without it, you would have me believe that political campaigns by people of all races shouldn’t take into account what they know of how various ethnic groups act.

    Of course, I’m aware of the “racial discrimination practiced against blacks in the states where they were nominally free.” What was that all about? Lots of things, but racism was definitely one of them. I never suggested otherwise. Please try to remember: My argument was that white racism is not a big problem in America today. You’re giving me all this stuff from the past, which I’m happy to address, but which has little to tell us about conditions today. Abagond’s readers for the most part, and Abagond himself, are racists today for no convincing reason. I’ve suggested that they stop being racists.

    Why did racial discrimination stop? Easy: Some very intelligent people — black and white — pointed it out, and suggested that racism itself was stupid and evil. White people saw images of women and children being beaten, or of men being lynched, and they recoiled. The fundamental decency that undergirds any Judeo-Christian people was affronted, and white people for the most part ceased to be racist and, in fact, went the other way to become, as I’ve always been, thorough-going black-American-ophiles.

    All that had been building for centuries, though, under the strong impetus of Christian abolitionists who had been railing against racism and slavery for a very long time. The arrival of television made the near total disappearance of racism among white people inevitable.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    “Black Americans represent about 13% of the population of 300+ million people. Let’s call that 40 million souls. 1.2 trillon divided by 40 million equals $30,000 worth of goods, services and cash for every black man, woman and child every year. Let me tell you, gj, my little family of three could do very, very well with an additional $90,000 per year, every year!”

    This is very funny sir, if you did the math for other Americans the fallacy of that argument would be easy for you to see. Let’s say the US economy is $16 trillion, subtracting the 1.2 trillion that goes to blacks leaves 14.8 trillion for the other 260 million Americans doing the division you did for blacks and the 1.2 trillion tells me that you and your “little family of three” are entitled to $56,923.07 worth of goods and services each. My question to you sir is why are you not satisfied with the $170,769.21 of goods and services you are getting now if your calculations are trustworthy?

    My response:
    First of all, did you not see my quote? It came from Business Professor Dennis Kimbro who said that $1.2 trillion of the $16 trillion goes each year to black people. In no way does that mean that the rest goes to everyone else. There are millions of other things that the government spends money on — EPA, DoE, ATF, ICE, NPR, DoD, Foreign aid, railroads, space programs, mosquito reproduction studies, etc. None of that comes my way.

    In the sense that we all benefit from the work of the military, then there’s no need to decide “who gets more” of the DoD budget. In terms of actual transfer payments of money or goods and services from the government, I get not a dime. To put your argument straight, you should think of it this way: Every American benefits from tax dollars spent on education, infrastructure, defense, policing, and other basic government services roughly equally. This is the 14.8 trillion you mentioned. Kimbro said that blacks get an additional $1.2 trillion above and beyond that, or roughly $30,000 for every black man, woman and child. Yours was not a serious argument, because you didn’t bother to think it through.

    Kimbro was talking about the worth of actual goods, services and payments specifically earmarked to go to black people. There is not one thin dime earmarked to go to people such as me, or my kids.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Thanks for the reply, but I won’t be coming back due to the fact that, for some strange reason, I find your conclusions to be based on very weak foundations.

    My response:
    @gro jo… that’s just feeble, and should be beneath you. It’s the typical parting shot of the left and the RGI. The ol’ “You’re not worth my time” ploy that allows you to leave while pretending you got the better of an exchange.

    The problem: You still haven’t addressed the actual topic: White racism is just not a big problem in America today.

    I would be interested in your thoughts on that subject.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Best,

    — x

  5. Hello XP, the problem that I found with your monetary claims is that you confused Kimbro’s comment on the purchasing power of the black community with your idea that blacks are getting $1.2 trillion for just being black! Hence all the chatter about RGI and your little family needing that $90,000 that somebody, the government maybe, gives to blacks. Using your logic I showed you that it’s just as true to say that you and your little family are getting almost twice as much from this secret Santa. You correctly pointed out that deductions should be made for education, defense, social security, etc. the same deductions are in order for blacks unless you wish to argue that blacks don’t pay taxes. If you’d like to, then explain why Wesley Snipes was sent to prison for tax evasion and Joe Louis was hounded by the IRS. I found your claim that enlightened minds have made racism a thing of the past unconvincing. I’ll grant you that it’s less prevalent but as our little calculations of the money split shows, blacks are far from achieving parity. Try Dolezal’s experiment for a year and comeback and tell me how your little family fared during that time.
    Your 3/5th of a man argument was imaginative, because you left out how and why blacks ended up in the Americas in the first place. Everything flows from the fact that they were meant to be beasts of burden. Like most conservatives you find the fault in blacks but not the system that created the black community in the first place.

  6. Hello XP, Gro Jo here. I’m surprised that you haven’t tried to refute my last comment! Since you claim that RGI has managed to extort a $1.2 trillion tribute from the government I’d like you to tell me where in the federal budget of $3.9 trillion they will get a sum, that is about 31% of said budget. Hurry please, because I want my $30,000. This link on the 2015 budget should get you on the way to finding my money, lol. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

    1. HI, GJ! I just got home late from work. That’s all. Some reactions are below. I’ll take a look at your link and see whether I can find your money. 🙂

      Best,

      — x

  7. Nice to hear from you again, gj! Nice response. I want to congratulate you; you’re one of the few of any of the Abagondians (1) to try to respond substantively, and (2) to be polite about it. I understand from your response, that you and I disagree, but we can do so courteously and politely. You are one of the rare ones in Abagond’s orbit to do so, and I applaud you for it. Same as usual: reactions below.

    You said:
    Hello XP, the problem that I found with your monetary claims is that you confused Kimbro’s comment on the purchasing power of the black community with your idea that blacks are getting $1.2 trillion for just being black!

    My response:
    Gj, I never said this. I said that blacks receive that level of government services, but it’s not because they are black. It’s because they meet the qualifications for them. The largest group of recipients of government services are single white woman. It’s just that black people are way, way over-represented in the ranks of welfare recipients relative to their numbers in the population. Believe me, the single, white women mooching off the system are not spared in these pages. They, also receive government services because they meet the qualifications. The real problem is why these white women and black people are qualifying in such numbers for the handouts.

    No, blacks are not receiving the $1.2 trillion because they are black, but it can’t be ignored that they are black. Precisely why they are receiving the services and money is immaterial. However, that they are receiving it is a strong piece of evidence that the country is not racist.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Using your logic I showed you that it’s just as true to say that you and your little family are getting almost twice as much from this secret Santa. You correctly pointed out that deductions should be made for education, defense, social security, etc. the same deductions are in order for blacks unless you wish to argue that blacks don’t pay taxes.

    My response:
    You didn’t use my logic! You used something, but it was definitely not my logic. 🙂 Remember, people like me — and I myself — don’t receive one thin dime of government goods, services or money above and beyond our share of the roads we use, or the schools my kids attend (that I pay for) or things like that. Yes, those blacks who pay taxes contribute to defense, the education budget, social security, etc.

    However, the bottom half of the income ladder does not pay income taxes, and, in fact, often gets money back each year. Black folks are vastly over-represented in this portion of society, so the free money, goods and services go vastly disproportionately to black folks, as mentioned above.

    You and I, however, probably will agree that everyone pays taxes in that we all cover the taxes that the grocery stores, and the pharmacies, the hardware stores, and all businesses pay. I take a back seat to no one in supporting a vast reduction in the thousands of ridiculous taxes that we end up paying. Those taxes are worse because so completely dishonest. Lawmakers call them “business taxes,” but you and I pay them. Every single dime, and it’s got to stop.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    If you’d like to, then explain why Wesley Snipes was sent to prison for tax evasion and Joe Louis was hounded by the IRS.

    My response:
    The reason Wesley Snipes went to jail is that he evaded his taxes. I don’t know the story of Joe Louis’ tax struggles, but I’ll read up on it. However, if it turns out that it was race-based prosecution of some sort, that only buttresses my point that white racism is just not a big problem in America today.

    However, Wesley Snipes’ story supports my claims: a black man who became a very, very popular action hero actor, and who became very wealthy. That kind of thing shouldn’t be able to happen in a racist country.

    I’d ask you a question about that: are you implying that Wesley Snipes and other black folks should be exempt from paying taxes just because they’re black?

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I found your claim that enlightened minds have made racism a thing of the past unconvincing.

    My response:
    Okay, I’ll bite. Can you present some convincing evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that white hostility toward black Americans is holding them back? Or harming them? Or causing them injury? Today? There was a lot of such evidence in the past, but in the past, oh, six decades, there has been only a torrent of evidence in support of my contention. I gave gobs and gobs and gobs of such evidence in support of my point in the Abagond post from which he banned me, the coward.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I’ll grant you that it’s less prevalent but as our little calculations of the money split shows, blacks are far from achieving parity.

    My response:
    Good point! One little problem: the reason blacks have not achieved parity is not because of white racism. I would certainly be open to contradictory evidence. Abagondians were never open to providing such evidence. Convincing evidence that would stand up to the merest of scrutiny. Look, there’s just nothing holding back anyone of any race in America today. There are too many wildly successful black people who did nothing more than follow, roughly, what I outlined: (1) get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) get along well with others, (5) present oneself roughly normally. These are the basics that we all expect of everyone, regardless of race or any other characteristic.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Try Dolezal’s experiment for a year and comeback and tell me how your little family fared during that time.

    My response:
    This is irrelevant. Dolezal’s “experiment” was really an exercise in lying. It was no experiment, but a long, sad deception, likely springing from some serious issues involving mental illness. I have no desire to spend my time deceiving others. There’s more than enough deception around, lots of it on Abagond’s blog. Again, though, her experience suports my point. Kind of loser of a white woman, does what she can to “turn black,” and prospers. However, people should just be themselves.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Your 3/5th of a man argument was imaginative, because you left out how and why blacks ended up in the Americas in the first place. Everything flows from the fact that they were meant to be beasts of burden. Like most conservatives you find the fault in blacks but not the system that created the black community in the first place.

    My response:
    My “3/5ths of a man” explanation is history. You can look it up.

    You probably don’t want to bring up how black people arrived in America, because they were sold by other black people to white slavers. No one comes out of that part of slavery looking good.

    Almost no conservatives, myself included, blame black Americans for anything in general. You need to hang around more Conservatives, because they do blame someone, but not black people. Conservatives blame leftist policies that in the past 60 years have annihilated the black family, once one of the most cohesive family units in America. Conservatives, most decidedly, do not blame black people for the condition of black Americans today. If misery loves company, the white family is quickly disintegrating as well, and catching up with the grievously wounded black family. You can thank white and black liberals for that. It’s the main reason why there are so many pathologies in “the black community,” and it’s the main reason for the increase in the same pathologies among white Americans as well.

    I do find some fault in black people. They are the most racist group in America today, while white Americans are probably the least prejudiced group on the planet today. I blame the Race Grievance Industry for fostering and stoking this racial hatred in black people, by an avalanche of lies and propaganda about white people. The behavior of easy, breezy, glib racists like Abagond is reprehensible, because it fosters baseless hostility in others.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Best,

    — xPraetorius

  8. Hi XP, I see you’ve yet to identify where in the $3.9 trillion budget the $1.2 trillion is supposed to come from, too bad, I was counting on that dough to pay for a big order of fried chicken and watermelons. 🙂
    I’m surprised to learn that you’ll have to “…take a look at your link and see whether I can find your money. :)”. Really, how odd, I felt sure you’d have this information at the tip of your tongue and fingers in light of the fact that you claim expertise on the subject!
    I see that you are adamant in clinging to your highly imaginative claim that 31% of the federal budget goes to blacks, no doubt due to the good work done by RGI on their behalf. That’s the only interpretation of your following statement I can come up with: ” No, blacks are not receiving the $1.2 trillion because they are black, but it can’t be ignored that they are black. Precisely why they are receiving the services and money is immaterial. However, that they are receiving it is a strong piece of evidence that the country is not racist.” I demand you substantiate your claim with facts, because your Kimbro quote says nothing of the sort. While you’re at it, how come this $30,000 annual subvention is never mentioned in countless articles about Floyd Mayweather’s $240-$300 million pay day for beating Pacquiao, and his wealth in general. This is just the kind of stuff that the media loves to put out there to demonize rich and famous black people they don’t like. How can you seriously claim that the precise reason for blacks receiving 31% of the federal budget is immaterial? Your whole article is based on the premise that RGI is extorting that money from good decent and hardworking white folks, like you, to give to undeserving blacks without enough sense to practice the common bourgeois civilities incumbent on the rest. I get that impression from reading the following comment from you. “Look, there’s just nothing holding back anyone of any race in America today. There are too many wildly successful black people who did nothing more than follow, roughly, what I outlined: (1) get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) get along well with others, (5) present oneself roughly normally. These are the basics that we all expect of everyone, regardless of race or any other characteristic.” Very funny, you must not follow boxing, because the richest and most successful boxer followed none of your nostrums and made out like a bandit, the same goes for a bunch of hip hop/rap stars.
    What I find truly shocking about your claims is your stupidity for not acting on them if they are in fact true. Why, with 30 million blacks each entitled to $30,000 worth of goods and services you were unable and unwilling to act as their guide to receive that money, with you claiming a 10% fee for your services is beyond me? Just servicing 334 such clients a year would provide you with an annual income of over a million dollars. Think of the improvement in your little family’s well being that would entail! Don’t you think that little Becky deserves that pony she dreams of? With an income of $1,002,000/year you can make her dream come true! Let me guess, you’re an ascetic who took a vow of poverty.
    I’ll be back to read your reply, farewell.

  9. One more thing, for future reference, and to avoid confusion, I’m no more an Abagondian than I am an XPraetorian. I am and will always be a Gro Jo-ist.

  10. Welcome back, GJ! Most of your reply was really silly, and I’m going to gloss over those parts. Don’t take that as a hostile response from me, I welcome all posts, even the silly. However, I don’t feel the need to respond to the silly parts

    However, you’re laboring under several misconceptions that should be cleared up, and that should point you to making better responses in the future.

    You said:
    Hi XP, I see you’ve yet to identify where in the $3.9 trillion budget the $1.2 trillion is supposed to come from, too bad, I was counting on that dough to pay for a big order of fried chicken and watermelons. 🙂

    My response:
    This is your first misconception. Kimbro’s figure obviously refers to sources not limited to the federal budget. There are such things as state services, charities, commerce and other ways for money, goods and services to change hands. Neither Kimbro nor I implied that the only source of the freebies was the Federal government. To your credit, you made the point that I hadn’t been specific enough, that I had referred to the free stuff as “government goods, services and money,” but I’d expected that you would not require me to spell everything out. If you’re denying that $1.2 trillion of the GDP is not re-routed to black people, I’d be interested in your sources. I mean that sincerely. If I’m in the wrong, I’m much happier to get rid of my misconception. I did, after all, source my contention. 🙂

    As regards the “watermelon and KFC” thing, do try to consider the fact that you, as a black person, can get away with that, while I can’t… even if I were just kidding around. The point: Far from acting in a racist way toward black Americans, this country treats black people with almost aggressive deference, politeness and courtesy.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I’m surprised to learn that you’ll have to “…take a look at your link and see whether I can find your money. :)”. Really, how odd, I felt sure you’d have this information at the tip of your tongue and fingers in light of the fact that you claim expertise on the subject!

    My response:
    Silly and snarky. No response needed.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I see that you are adamant in clinging to your highly imaginative claim that 31% of the federal budget goes to blacks,

    My response:
    As mentioned above, I never made any claim that black Americans receive 31% of the Federal budget.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    no doubt due to the good work done by RGI on their behalf. That’s the only interpretation of your following statement I can come up with: “No, blacks are not receiving the $1.2 trillion because they are black, but it can’t be ignored that they are black. Precisely why they are receiving the services and money is immaterial. However, that they are receiving it is a strong piece of evidence that the country is not racist.”

    I demand you substantiate your claim with facts, because your Kimbro quote says nothing of the sort. While you’re at it, how come this $30,000 annual subvention is never mentioned in countless articles about Floyd Mayweather’s $240-$300 million pay day for beating Pacquiao, and his wealth in general.

    My response:
    First of all, let’s keep the “demands” out of it, okay? If you respectfully request that I give you facts, then I’d be delighted. You can refer to the post on Abagond’s blog called “Notes on xPraetorius.”

    Here’s a brief excerpt:

    “I mean, I came at it with • my “five points,” and • the abolitionist movement not just appearing — like magic, if you will — out of nowhere and • the $17 trillion and • my hypothetical button pushes and • the fact of recourse for real discrimination and • the avoidance behaviors here [My note: At Abagond’s blog] and • the insults from here • and the long, long list of editing reasons and • Christianity and • huge numbers of prominent and wealthy black people all around the country and • facts: whites turned over power and wealth nearly without firing a shot and • a black President and images, thought exercises, analogies, metaphors and similes and on and on and on and on and on and • last, but not least: I never gave up on you.”

    What more facts do you need?

    As regards Floyd Mayweather? I’m not sure I see the relevance of your question. He stands in support of my contention: a black man should not be able to become fabulously wealthy in America if it were a racist country. You never mention whether you actually disagree with the $30,000 figure. Do you deny that black people are disproportionately recipients of free government goods and services?

    However, to be frank, I don’t pay much attention to boxing. To your last question, though, needless to say, the fabulously wealthy Mayweather doesn’t get any free goods and services from any government agencies. Fabulously wealthy people don’t get free government goods and services.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    This is just the kind of stuff that the media loves to put out there to demonize rich and famous black people they don’t like.

    My response:
    The media, far from “demonizing” rich and famous black people, slobber all over them. The only rich and famous black people the media don’t love are black Republicans and Conservatives like Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    How can you seriously claim that the precise reason for blacks receiving 31% of the federal budget is immaterial?

    My response:
    Good point! To solve the problem, you do have to identify the causes. I did that in a previous post. You are right, however, the cause for blacks’ being disproportionately state services recipients is important, and I thank you for pointing that out and setting me straight.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Your whole article is based on the premise that RGI is extorting that money from good decent and hardworking white folks, like you, to give to undeserving blacks without enough sense to practice the common bourgeois civilities incumbent on the rest.

    My response:
    “Extorting” is a harsh word, but it is accurate. I never said “from good decent and hardworking wite folks.” I did say, “good, decent and hardworking people.” I’ve never made a distinction in this regard based on race, and you can look that up. You’re Abagonding out on me, accusing me of saying things that I never said, and putting words in my mouth that have never been there. You should avoid such silliness.

    Your phrase “blacks without enough sense to practice the common bourgeois civilities incumbent on the rest” is patent silliness. Do you really deny my five points about getting an education, working hard, etc? Do you really want to claim that those are only “bourgeois civilities,” and not important indications that a person is serious?

    And my piece was not an article, but an essay, or an opinion piece, or a column. 🙂

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    (quoting me)I get that impression from reading the following comment from you. “Look, there’s just nothing holding back anyone of any race in America today. There are too many wildly successful black people who did nothing more than follow, roughly, what I outlined: (1) get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) get along well with others, (5) present oneself roughly normally. These are the basics that we all expect of everyone, regardless of race or any other characteristic.” (end of quote)

    Very funny, you must not follow boxing, because the richest and most successful boxer followed none of your nostrums and made out like a bandit, the same goes for a bunch of hip hop/rap stars.

    My response:
    You are correct, I don’t follow boxing. However, if you are telling me that there are a passel of black people out in America who don’t work hard, and yet become fabulously wealthy, then I think you’re making my case for me — that white racism is not a big problem in America today — better than I can.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:

    What I find truly shocking about your claims is your stupidity for not acting on them if they are in fact true. Why, with 30 million blacks each entitled to $30,000 worth of goods and services you were unable and unwilling to act as their guide to receive that money, with you claiming a 10% fee for your services is beyond me? Just servicing 334 such clients a year would provide you with an annual income of over a million dollars. Think of the improvement in your little family’s well being that would entail! Don’t you think that little Becky deserves that pony she dreams of? With an income of $1,002,000/year you can make her dream come true! Let me guess, you’re an ascetic who took a vow of poverty.

    I’ll be back to read your reply, farewell.

    My response:
    I see your point here — that if there were so much money going to black people, someone ought to take advantage of that — but it’s a silly point, and an icorrect one, and I think you know it. I made my case, and sourced it. Now, I’ll repeat my question to you: Are you denying that black people are disproportionately recipients of government goods and services? If so, on what do you base that conclusion?

    And you still haven’t offered any supporting evidence or argumentation to counter my assertion that white racism is not a big problem in America today.

    GJ, yours was kind of a clever reply, with a bit of snark — and I appreciate well-done snark. Yours was not particularly well-done, but I applaud the effort. However, you didn’t address my questions. I addressed yours, in some depth, and with substance. You should feel honor-bound to respond to my efforts. Also, if you are persuaded differently from me, then you should feel honor-bound to give me solid argumentation to support your opposing positions. As you can see, if you respond politely and courteously to me, you will get only politeness and courtesy right back.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Best,

    — x

  11. Hello XP, Thanks for your non-response to my question on where the $1.2 trillion comes from. You don’t know where that money came from but you are adamant that it was given to them for doing nothing. I see you studiously avoided stating which part of the $3.9 trillion budget will go to blacks. You say that the $1.2 trillion might not be all from said budget, but you don’t propose the percentage that’s from the budget, why not? Are you an expert on the subject or not? I’m forced to the conclusion that you are talking loud and saying nothing. I told you where the $1.2 trillion comes from, mostly the sweat of blacks doing what everybody else does, work, pay taxes, etc. it was incumbent upon you to show they got that money from the extortion of RGI. You have failed miserably to do that because you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s pretty pathetic for you to distort Kimbro’s statement that the purchasing power of the black community is $1.2 trillion means that they are getting that money free from the obligation to work. I’ve wasted my time reading your ignorant nonsense. I’ve tested your intelligence and honesty to my satisfaction and found both wanting. Goodbye.

    1. Lol! Wel, well, well! I see I’ve overestimated you, GJ! You are an Abagondian! A full Abagondian in good standing! They’re prone to these fits of pique when bested in an exchange, and they end up proving incapable of debate. Incapable of debate means incapable of real analysis, mean incapable of critical thinking, of … learning. It means that all their beliefs are suspect — right down to “who’s the best second baseman in the American League” — are suspect, as being nothing more than received from someone else, without any critical inspection. Dustin Pedroia, by the way, but I’m willing to be persuaded differently. 🙂

      As before: some reactions

      You said:
      Hello XP, Thanks for your non-response to my question on where the $1.2 trillion comes from.

      My response:
      Actually, I responded in some depth. You apparently don’t read well. Or comprehend well. Or both. I mentioned Federal government, state governments, charities, and all manner of ways in which money changes hands. However, if you wanted something more simple than that, then: it comes from taxpayers. You seem fixated on the $1.2 trillion figure, GJ. Your beef is with Mr. Kimbro, not with me. I’d suggest to you, though, that his credentials are the credentials that people such as Abagond accept as valid.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      I see you studiously avoided stating which part of the $3.9 trillion budget will go to blacks. You say that the $1.2 trillion might not be all from said budget, but you don’t propose the percentage that’s from the budget, why not?

      My response:
      I see you studiously avoided mentioning why the percentage is relevant. That there is a line item in the federal budget encompassing many billions of dollars, and that there is that same line item in all state budgets and that a disproportionate share of that line item goes to black Americans is beyond dispute. Note I also indicated that the major part of it goes to white Americans as well — single women. The share of that line item simply goes to black Americans in vast disproportion to their numbers in the population. Do you deny that? Any of that? I’m assuming you don’t. It’s all fairly common knowledge. No particular expertise required to know it.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      Are you an expert on the subject or not?

      My response:
      Yes. Obviously. Though, I suspect that in your current state of temper, you’d scrabble around for a definition of “expert” that would exclude me, so the real response is: Yes, as far as any objective standards are concerned, and … No as far as what you believe of me.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      I’m forced to the conclusion that you are talking loud and saying nothing. I told you where the $1.2 trillion comes from, mostly the sweat of blacks doing what everybody else does, work, pay taxes, etc.

      My response:
      First of all, as you can plainly tell, I’m “talking” in quite measured, dignified, quiet tones. It is rather you who have decided to throw a fit of temper.

      You are wrong if you are trying to insist that recipients of state goods and services pay the taxes that pay for those goods and services. They do not. That’s also fairly common knowledge.

      It’s simple: the top 50% of American taxpayers (roughly) pay for the free stuff that goes to the bottom half of all taxpayers. And they pay for all state goods and services as well.

      Black Americans are under-represented in the top half of all taxpayers, and over-represented in the bottom half. This is also fairly common knowledge. No particular expertise required to know it.

      Therefore of the $1.2 trillion that Mr. Kimbro cites, a disproportionately large share comes from white American taxpayers, while a disproportionately small share comes from black American taxpayers. And a disproportionately large share goes to black Americans.

      Again, this is all relative to the representation within the population of the groups in question. I trust that you are not disputing any of that either. That is, as well, fairly common knowledge. No particular expertise required in order to know it.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      It was incumbent upon you to show they got that money from the extortion of RGI. You have failed miserably to do that because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      My response:
      It was most definitely not incumbent on me to show one iota of a hint of detail about the $1.2 trillion. I used it as a data point, among many others, supporting my assertion that white racism is not a big problem in America today; an assertion to which I’ve quite politely asked you to respond, and which you have so far avoided with a fog of fixation on Mr. Kimbro’s figure.

      I can’t have “failed miserably” as something that was not mine to do, and therefore didn’t do. Now you’re just being childish, and silly, and petulant, and you’re huffing and chuffing, all puffed up with faux outrage, and you’re being all … Abagondian! 🙂

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      It’s pretty pathetic for you to distort Kimbro’s statement that the purchasing power of the black community is $1.2 trillion means that they are getting that money free from the obligation to work.

      My response:
      At no point did either Mr. Kimbor or I say that the purchasing power of the black community is $1.2 trillion. Do try to stop drawing absurd conclusions, would you? If I hand you five bucks one day, that doesn’t mean that your purchasing power is five bucks. It means that your purchasing power is what it was before, plus five bucks. Duh!

      And, yes, today state goods and services are doled out, without a requirement that the recipients work for them. This is, also, pretty common knowledge. No special expertise required in order to know it.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      I’ve wasted my time reading your ignorant nonsense. I’ve tested your intelligence and honesty to my satisfaction and found both wanting. Goodbye.

      My response:
      How thoroughly Abagondian of you! Are you sure you’re not Abagond himself? He’s famous for going off on wild, unrelated tangents, demanding that interlocutors tell him great detail about perfectly irrelevant side items, then saying, “See? See? He’s no expert! He can’t even tell me chapter and verse about ‘X’!” When we’d been talking about ‘Y’ all along.

      My favorite example of that is the “racism doesn’t exist” strawman. When I posited my thesis: “White racism is not a big problem in America anymore,” to a man (because the women pretty much stayed out of it) the Abagondian Amen Chorus said, “Oh, yeah? Prove racism doesn’t exist.” In vain did I, or my colleague, who interacted with Brotha Cryin’ Wolf, repeat, time and time and time again, that in no way were we trying to say that white racism didn’t exist, but rather that it was simply not a big problem in America today. I know I said it many dozens of times, and then many dozens of times again in subsequent exchanges elsewhere.

      In that time-honored obfuscatory tradition, you GJ, then glommed onto the $1.2 trillion figure of Mr. Kimbro’s and its irrelevant proportion within the federal budget — from which it doesn’t come entirely anyway! — and wouldn’t let go of the strawman until, thoroughly routed, you threw a fit of pique, picked up your ball and ran home to momma. You’re no Gro-Jo-ist, Gro-jo. I’d expect much, much more from a Gro-Jo-ist. You’re nothing but an Abagondian, and a Gro-Jo-ist wannabe.

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      You said:
      Goodbye.

      My response:
      Goodbye.

      Enjoy your little Amen Chorus in Abagondland, where dear leader Abagond holds sway, and there will be no disagreement with what the dear leader says. Or else! 🙂

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      Best,

      — x

  12. Eventually they all do, Mike. It’s because they’re armed with large caliber rhetorical weapons, with no ammunition in ’em. The RGI always end up running away, tail between legs, hollering the time-honored “You’re not worth my time” parting shot over their shoulders.

    Best,

    — x

  13. HAHAHAHA, I just had to come back to read the ‘response’. Thanks for the laughs guys keep it up. Say, why don’t you call this routine for what it is: Dumb and Dumber? Mikey, since XP has failed to back up his claim why don’t you jump in and help him? XP, why oh why are you depriving little Becky of her pony? Why are you not making a cool $1002000 a year by taking a 10% cut from the $30000 you claim blacks get from various sources? Are you too lazy and dumb to handle a mere 334 clients a year? You claimed and still do that $1.2 trillion comes to black people from the federal budget and other sources, as a self-styled ‘expert’ you should know the percentage of your rich white taxes that go to these blacks. It behooves you to do the same for States, and private charities and whatever else you can identify to shed light on a subject dear to your heart. If you are too lazy or stupid to do so then, my dear XP, you are no expert but a con artist. Before I get into race talk with you I want to know that you can back up your claims. You failed to show that blacks got their purchasing power by means different than anybody else. It was news to you that the $1.2T was the 7.5% share of GDP attributable to blacks and given the 2015 budget you couldn’t make heads or tails out of it, much less identify the parts that benefited blacks and the percent that they get as opposed to the rest which includes you! I’ll be checking in from time to time because I get a certain amount of sadistic pleasure at your discomfiture.
    You said:
    “At no point did either Mr. Kimbor or I say that the purchasing power of the black community is $1.2 trillion.” Wow, now you can’t even get the man’s name right. It’s Kimbro not Kimbor! You’re right you didn’t say that, Kimbro and I and the rest of the world said so, you said it’s welfare!
    ” Do the math. Black Americans represent about 13% of the population of 300+ million people. Let’s call that 40 million souls. 1.2 trillon(sic) divided by 40 million equals $30,000 worth of goods, services and cash for every black man, woman and child every year. Let me tell you, gj, my little family of three could do very, very well with an additional $90,000 per year, every year! You tell me whether it’s worth the RGI’s while to keep that coming! ” Your little family would benefit even more if you had a brain because doing the same ‘math’ you did I showed you that it is getting a cool $170,769.21 but being the greedy type you want $260,769.21 by robbing black people.

    1. You spotted some cogent articulation in all that, eh? 🙂

      I finally figured out what he was trying to say, and he did get the $1.2 trillion thing right. Oh, well.

      However, there have been trillions transferred from the haves to the have-nots, over the past few decades, and that represents pretty solid evidence of America’s good will, if questionable judgment, toward the poor — disproportionately black Americans — of America.

      Best,

      — x

      1. At the end of the day, redistribution of wealth does not work. What works is a hand up… and until all of us stop finding power in being victims, those hands up will continue to be refused.

        1. Exactly right. The focus must always be on opportunity. The only way to ensure that opportunity is maximized for all people is to get the government out of the way, in other words (1) to minimize regulation to the extent possible, (2) to keep taxes low, (3) to guard against government overreach of all kinds.

          However, opportunity represents also the chance of failure. There is no guarantee of success inherent in the meaning of the word “opportunity.” The temptation to soften the blow of failure is the temptation to which the government must not be permitted succumb. There are institutions that will do that in the society at large: charitable institutions, churches, synagogues, etc. And these institutions had a stunning record of success at assisting the truly needy in their time(s) of need — before, that is, they were regulated and taxed out of meaningful existence.

          Our Constitution is a wonderful document — likely the greatest constitution in history, and a work of jaw-dropping genius — but it appears so far to have been inadequate to the task of limiting government, when that was one of its absolute core raisons d’être.

          One thing it was meant to squash outright was the redistributive impulse on the part of those in power, and it has utterly failed to do so. Or we, the guardians of the Constitution’s integrity have failed to do so.

          The reason is simple, and the founders knew this quite well. Start redistributing others’ wealth to any class of recipients, and you not only turn those recipients into dependents, but worse, you restructure your economy around the existence of a permanent class of takers. Those takers, devoid of legitimate skills to survive in a changing economy, cannot now be deprived of their free stuff without risk to their very survival.

          Even worse, this recipient class is a self-perpetuating, self-expanding class. Its members have few useful skills to pass on to their children, and Americans — to their vast credit — are unwilling to see children experience privation. Hence, the redistributive society is its own self-perpetuating, self-growing mechanism.

          Eventually, as we’re seeing here, this recipient class’s take achieves a critical mass where, as Lady Thatcher once said, you “run out of other people’s money.”

          At that point, there are still no incentives in place for the recipient class to limit its numbers, so it continues to grow, while the ability to fund it in the producer class diminishes.

          That particular dynamic can’t continue long without serious societal dislocation. It’s at that point also that you see the charges of “meanness” and “greed” and “cruelty,” and “you want children to starve!” come out.

          We’re there now, at a time of increasing demands from the growing recipient class and diminishing desire and ability to fund it by the producer class. It’s just a question of what the outcome of the serious societal dislocation will look like.

          Best,

          — x

  14. I was preparing a reply full of delightful snark, because I can pull it off as few can. However, I have to admit that with further research you are correct about the $1.2 trillion figure. It does represent black Americans’ purchasing power.

    I’m glad you called me on it, and I’m glad that you were obnoxious enough to force me to go and do the research necessary to learn the true nature of the figure, and I apologize if I directed snark at you because of that figure.

    A couple of quick notes in my defense. I did point out that the $1.2 trillion figure was just one data point among many that support my basic premise — white racism is not a big problem in America anymore — which you still haven’t addressed by the way.

    The $1.2 trillion figure still fills that bill now — even better than before. Just about every feature I found talking about it boasts of how important and dynamic and vast is the contribution of black Americans to the economy. Okay. I’ll bite. Can you tell me how that could be possible in a racist America?

    Also, you really shouldn’t have wasted your time castigating me on typos. Your word usage, from time to time, lacks, ummmm… skill. We all have our weaknesses. Mine was a moment of carelessness in not researching that $1.2 trillion figure further, Yours was in obsessing on the figure, just one data point among many, to the exclusion of all the others and of the point itself.

    The point that black Americans are over-represented — relative to their numbers in the population — among recipients of state-delivered goods, services and money remains true.

    Also, the name-calling should stop. It’s silly and infantile, and you started it, and you should stop it. I’m neither lazy, nor dumb, as this exchange should amply prove, and you should be man enough (1) to admit it, and (2) to apologize for your intemperance.

    You said you “get sadistic pleasure” at my discomfiture. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but nothing you’ve said — even proving me wrong about the $1,2 trillion — has caused me the slightest discomfort. To the contrary, I’m thrilled to divest myself of a data point that was in my head and that was incorrect. It’s from being wrong and being able to challenge one’s beliefs that one constantly improves all the data points in one’s head. You, and the rest of the Abagondians, should try it some time.

    Finally your very last line is interesting. How do you support the conclusion that America is robbing from black Americans? I could see support for that position long, long ago, but not for a very long time.

    Contrary to your statement, I’ll repeat for, what, the fourth time? the fact that above and beyond the common resources that we all share — the roads, bridges, schools, etc — I don’t receive a thin dime of government goods or services.

    We come down to a few concluding things for this post:
    1. My basic premise remains unchallenged. The premise that white racism is not a big problem in America today. I’m concluding that you concede it to me. It’s the only point I care about anyway.
    2. I conceded one point that you fixated on. You were right, and I was wrong about the $1.2 trillion figure and its nature. I admit it again, and in public.
    3. You ignored all my other points, so I’m figuring you concede them to me.

    Best,

    — x

  15. My dear XP, I’m glad that you’ve come to your senses and admitted something that should have been obvious to anybody with common sense, anyway, that’s behind us now. I concede nothing to you. I’m all about self improvement so I would appreciate your most severe criticism of my word usage that you indicate to be lacking. ” Also, you really shouldn’t have wasted your time castigating me on typos. Your word usage, from time to time, lacks, ummmm… skill.” Go ahead, be brutal. I had no desire to call you names but when you failed to see the implications of your claim it made me angry and I tore into your claim with relish. Sorry, I don’t do apologies. The whole point of a vigorous debate is to tear down the other guy’s arguments and do a victory jig over the rubble, so claiming to be sorry for doing so is disingenuous. I give and take criticism without apologies.
    Moving right along, “1. My basic premise remains unchallenged. The premise that white racism is not a big problem in America today. I’m concluding that you concede it to me. It’s the only point I care about anyway.” Rather than try to argue you out of this claim I’ll just point you to this morning’s news headline and ask you how it squares with your “thorough-going black-American-ophiles” claim? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/18/us-usa-shooting-south-carolina-idUSKBN0OY06A20150618. Do you remember Jeffrey Dahmer? This incident, recounted in his Wikipedia page says a lot about white attitudes to nonwhites: “On the afternoon of May 26, 1991, Dahmer encountered a 14-year-old named Konerak Sinthasomphone on Wisconsin Avenue; he approached the youth with an offer of money to accompany him to his apartment to pose for Polaroid pictures. According to Dahmer, Sinthasomphone—the younger brother of the boy whom he had molested in 1988—was initially reluctant to the proposal, before changing his mind and accompanying Dahmer to his apartment, where the youth posed for two pictures in his underwear before being drugged into unconsciousness and fellated. On this occasion, Dahmer drilled a single hole into Sinthasomphone’s skull, through which he injected muriatic acid into the frontal lobe.[119]”

    Prior to his falling unconscious, Sinthasomphone was led into Dahmer’s bedroom, where the nude body of 31-year-old Tony Hughes, whom Dahmer had killed three days earlier, lay naked on the floor.[120] According to Dahmer, he “believed he [Sinthasomphone] saw this body,” yet did not react to seeing the bloated corpse—likely because of the effects of the sleeping pills he had ingested and the muriatic acid Dahmer had injected into his skull. Sinthasomphone soon became unconscious, whereupon Dahmer drank several beers while lying alongside Sinthasomphone before leaving his apartment to drink at a bar, then purchase more alcohol.[121]

    In the early morning hours of May 27, Dahmer returned towards his apartment to discover Sinthasomphone sitting naked on the corner of 25th and State, talking in Laotian, with three hysterical young women standing near him.[122] Dahmer approached the trio and explained to the women that Sinthasomphone (whom he referred to by an alias) was his lover and attempted to lead him to his apartment by the arm. The three women dissuaded Dahmer, explaining they had phoned 911.[123] Upon the arrival of two officers named John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish, Dahmer’s demeanor relaxed: he informed the officers that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend; that he had drunk too much following a quarrel and that he frequently behaved in this manner when intoxicated. The three women were exasperated and when one of the trio attempted to indicate to one of the officers that Sinthasomphone was bleeding from his buttocks and that he had seemingly struggled against Dahmer’s attempts to walk him to his apartment, the officer harshly informed her to “butt out,”[124] “shut the hell up”[125] and to not interfere, adding the incident was “domestic.”[126] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer.
    I could go on in that vein, but why bother? The only thing that I conceded to you was that things aren’t as dire as say when this picture was taken. History is cyclical so I can’t agree that the “good old days” won’t make a come back, The Jews never thought that after 19th century emancipation Hitler would show up. [Editor’s note: I have edited out a disturbing photo in conformity with a rule of mine: the content should be viewable by my 12-year old son and his friends. I take this step reluctantly, as I have not put this into the guidelines for submitting content to our blog. I apologize for that, and will update the guidelines. Meanwhile, I have put the link to the photo below. To use the link, copy and paste it into your browser, and remove the extraneous spaces in the front of the link]
    “h t t p : / / abhmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/7-Beitler-photo-best.jpg”
    Note the sexual pleasure the couple derive from this scene.

  16. Welcome back, Gj! As before, reactions below:

    You said:
    My dear XP, I’m glad that you’ve come to your senses and admitted something that should have been obvious to anybody with common sense, anyway, that’s behind us now.

    My response:
    One nuance. I didn’t come to my senses, because I had never left them. Here’s the requested critique of your style. You could simply have said that I had mistaken the actual nature of the $1.2 trillion, and that would have been the end of it when I did the research. Instead, you insisted on playing the silly game of asking what percentage of the budget it was and all that. You talked all around it when you could simply have been direct. Stay away from the silly games. Yes, it is behind us now, but it’s now a stronger argument for my point than when I was misusing it.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Go ahead, be brutal. I had no desire to call you names but when you failed to see the implications of your claim it made me angry and I tore into your claim with relish.

    My response:
    Okay, since I was wrong about the nature of the $1.2 trillion, I had that coming. Though your anger was childish. Why would you get angry about a blog conversation?

    The implications of my claim were that my core point was supported. As it turns out it’s better supported now by the $1.2 trillion representing black American purchasing power. One thing you have to realize: your disagreement with my core point has no evidence to back it up (You will support my point for me — twice! — further on in the post.)

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Sorry, I don’t do apologies.

    My response:
    Huh? 🙂 Apologizing for not “doing apologies?”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    The whole point of a vigorous debate is to tear down the other guy’s arguments and do a victory jig over the rubble, so claiming to be sorry for doing so is disingenuous. I give and take criticism without apologies.

    My response:
    That’s just immature. If you make a mistake that causes confusion or wastes other people’s time, you should always apologize. It’s an extremely valuable people skill, especially in debate. If, as you did, you engage in insult and name-calling, then you should be man enough to apologize. If, as you did, you became angry for no legitimate reason, you should be man enough to apologize.

    Let’s put this in perspective: as I said numerous times, the $1.2 trillion figure was only one point of many in support of my core point, which you still haven’t addressed. Though you take a half-hearted stab at addressing it below. Your “jig” is in response to a minor skirmish involving a few rhetorical troops, while your armies run in disarray from my forces. All my other points sit unscathed in, safety and security, free from attack. 🙂

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Moving right along, (quoting me) “1. My basic premise remains unchallenged. The premise that white racism is not a big problem in America today. I’m concluding that you concede it to me. It’s the only point I care about anyway.” Rather than try to argue you out of this claim I’ll just point you to this morning’s news headline and ask you how it squares with your “thorough-going black-American-ophiles” (end of quote) claim?

    My response:
    Okay. Moving right along. 🙂 This morning’s headlines prove my point. It’s too early to talk in depth about it, but one thing is clear. All people, white or black, are shocked and thrown. If this kind of thing were commonplace, then the shooting would be just another story among many such others. That it is so rare proves my point better than most arguments, both theoretical and concrete. By comparison: an incident such as this one in Asia, the Middle East, or Africa, would provoke only yawns.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    [Editor’s note: Gro jo then did a long copy-paste from Wikipedia about Jeffrey Dahmer, suggesting that the acts of one white man, Dahmer, whom everyone recognizes as a psychotic, somehow means that all white people view Laotians or other “non-whites” the same way.]

    My response:
    This is the trap into which all the Abagondians fell — sorry, into which they jumped eagerly — this idea that the single anecdote can tell something about all other people similar to the ones in the anecdote. So, bottom line: The Dahmer story says absolutely nothing about how white people view non-white people. It is information into how one Jeffrey Dahmer viewed one particular non-white person. But that’s it. If I’m not mistaken, Dahmer killed without regard for race.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I could go on in that vein, but why bother?

    My response:
    Correct. Such anecdotes are worthless for learning more about society itself.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    The only thing that I conceded to you was that things aren’t as dire as say when this picture was taken.

    My response:
    And your only “evidence” was that “you weren’t persuaded.” Though, you did try to use an anecdote as evidence. It was not.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    History is cyclical so I can’t agree that the “good old days” won’t make a come back, The Jews never thought that after 19th century emancipation Hitler would show up.

    My response:
    Your next piece of evidence that white racism is not a big problem today is that no one can guarantee that it won’t be a problem sometime in the future? Sorry, that’s just not a valid argument.

    Regarding Hitler, he made absolutely no bones about his intentions. There were countless opportunities to stop Hitler, if people had been paying attention. Furthermore, people aggressively ignored or marginalized the people who were paying attention. Well, in America, people are paying hyper-attention to things, and there’s no one at all, whom anyone takes seriously, calling for anything “Hitleresque” as it pertains to race relations. Except, that is, for the RGI, many of whose members often pine openly for the extermination of white people. I’ve documented it extensively in these pages.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Regarding the photograph: “Note the sexual pleasure the couple derive from this scene”

    My response:
    I didn’t see anything sexual in the expressions of the people in the photo. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. That strikes me as a really bizarre observation.

    Your photo proves my point also. It is another trap into which the Abagondians leaped eagerly: suggesting that the crimes and abuses of nearly a century ago prove that America of today is rife with racism. Your concession that things “aren’t as dire as then” is a masterpiece of understatement. It’s like saying Shaquille O’Neal isn’t short. The kind of scene depicted in the photo is unthinkable today, and has been unthinkable for almost a century. White racism is not a problem in America today.

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    To the others reading this thread: please take a look at how the left argues, and how they argue against themselves if you are alert to what they’re really saying. This guy “gro jo” is trying to debunk the core premise that white racism is not a big problem in America today by talking about anything but white racism today.

    Best,

    — x

  17. My dear XP, let’s start with a bit of word definition, shall we? The word for today is: frot·tage
    frôˈtäZH/
    noun
    noun: frottage

    1.
    Art
    the technique or process of taking a rubbing from an uneven surface to form the basis of a work of art.
    a work of art produced by taking a rubbing from an uneven surface.
    plural noun: frottages
    2.
    the practice of touching or rubbing against the clothed body of another person in a crowd as a means of obtaining sexual gratification.

    Origin
    1930s: French, ‘rubbing, friction.
    We can both agree that the couple I mentioned in my previous comment weren’t at the scene of the lynching because they were artists interested in still life painting, so the definition of frottage that I alluded to was the second one. You can’t deny that the look on the face of the girl is that of someone experiencing sexual ecstasy. Her lips parted, and the fact that she has her right thumb locked in his hand, that grin on his face, they are having sex in public alright!
    You wrote: “I didn’t see anything sexual in the expressions of the people in the photo. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. That strikes me as a really bizarre observation.” Being the naif you are I believe you.
    You wrote: “Your photo proves my point also. It is another trap into which the Abagondians leaped eagerly: suggesting that the crimes and abuses of nearly a century ago prove that America of today is rife with racism.” Correct, the murder of nine people yesterday does prove the point that things have changed but nostalgists like you and Storm Roof would like to turn back the clock to how things were.
    You wrote: “Regarding Hitler, he made absolutely no bones about his intentions. There were countless opportunities to stop Hitler, if people had been paying attention. Furthermore, people aggressively ignored or marginalized the people who were paying attention. Well, in America, people are paying hyper-attention to things, and there’s no one at all, whom anyone takes seriously, calling for anything “Hitleresque” as it pertains to race relations. Except, that is, for the RGI, many of whose members often pine openly for the extermination of white people. I’ve documented it extensively in these pages.” You’ve made no bones about taking the $30,000 attributed to Black American individuals as their share of GDP because your little family could use their money that they worked for. The only way you would be able to take it from them is by the methods Hitler used. Your comment shows how ignorant you are. In 1923 Hitler was cooling his heels in a jail cell by 1933 he was Chancellor of Germany. The party of Lincoln became the refuge for every white supremacist after Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Southern_strategy. Things have only gotten worse since. Stop calling me an Abagondian, I’ve had my disagreements with that gentleman and the only difference I see between the two of you is that Abagond is much better educated than you are. When he wrote that silly post on some white dude claiming a territory between Sudan and Egypt I told him I found his post weak but given his extensive knowledge I actually learned some new things from reading it, the same can’t be said for you.
    You wrote: “The Dahmer story says absolutely nothing about how white people view non-white people. It is information into how one Jeffrey Dahmer viewed one particular non-white person. But that’s it. If I’m not mistaken, Dahmer killed without regard for race.” Trust you to get the gist of my overly long quote wrong. I wasn’t interested in Dahmer per se but in the reaction of the two cops, John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish when they told the women to “butt out” and helped Dahmer murder the 14 year old kid. As much fun as it has been debunking your lies, I’m finding you an extremely unworthy opponent, so unless you or one of your minions come up with better material than you’ve displayed so far I won’t be making anymore comments.
    Best,
    Gro Jo

  18. More juvenile, petty temper tantrums, Gj? More silly games? More blizzards and blizzards of words from which you require us to extract the lone snowflake or two of meaning? More insults, silly accusations, pointless and desperate scrabbling around for something substantive to support your argument, and then you pick up your ball and go home to momma… again! How completely Abagondian of you!

    What a pity. As before, some reactions below.

    Oh, and you still haven’t figured out how to make paragraphs (Hint: try the “Enter key.” Generally two taps’ll get you a shiny, brand new paragraph! Try it!)

    You said:
    My dear XP, let’s start with a bit of word definition, shall we? The word for today is: frot·tage [Silly games again, Gj. Why don’t you try to be direct and stop with this amateurish snarkiness and silliness. This entire “frottage” section can be called “trying way too hard.”]
    frô’täZH/

    noun

    noun: frottage

    1.
    Art
    the technique or process of taking a rubbing from an uneven surface to form the basis of a work of art.
    a work of art produced by taking a rubbing from an uneven surface.
    plural noun: frottages

    2.
    the practice of touching or rubbing against the clothed body of another person in a crowd as a means of obtaining sexual gratification.

    Origin

    1930s: French, ‘rubbing, friction.
    We can both agree that the couple I mentioned in my previous comment weren’t at the scene of the lynching because they were artists interested in still life painting, [Agreed, duh!] so the definition of frottage that I alluded to was the second one. You can’t deny that the look on the face of the girl is that of someone experiencing sexual ecstasy. [I can say the truth: anyone who pretends to know what someone else is thinking or feeling with only the information in the photograph in question is fooling himself. No matter. Even if I were to stipulate to their “sexual arousal,” it is still a photograph from nearly a century ago, with little to tell us about white racism today. You know, the actual topic?] Her lips parted, and the fact that she has her right thumb locked in his hand, that grin on his face, they are having sex in public alright! [Or not. This is another trap the Abagondians all jumped willingly into: pretending to be able to read others’ minds. It’s bizarre. Gj does it here below, by calling me things he couldn’t possibly know about me without some mystical magical mind-reading power. Now, to give Gj his due (though he doesn’t deserve it): The scene depicted is gruesome, and the crowd of white onlookers are participating in a despicable, evil act. Might there be some who experience some form of sexual arousal in that context? It’s unimaginable. Impossible? I don’t know. Nor does Gj.]

    My response:
    Uhhhhhhh…Yeah. Still didn’t see it. I think you’re seeing things you want to see. You’re starting to sound a bit pervy, Gj… might want to let the sex thing drop.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    You wrote: (Gj quotes me) “I didn’t see anything sexual in the expressions of the people in the photo. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. That strikes me as a really bizarre observation.”(end of quote) Being the naif you are I believe you.

    My response:
    Gj, Gj, Gj… indulging again in mystical, magical mind-reading? You, of course, could have no idea whatsoever about the level of my naïveté from a few blog post exchanges. That you think you can displays a level of superficiality in your analysis that calls into question everything you write. I’m figuring you need to engage in such cheap name-calling, because you’re out of ammunition. And practically without firing a shot! Next thing you know, you’ll be calling me a liar! All the Abagondians did.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    You wrote: “Your photo proves my point also. It is another trap into which the Abagondians leaped eagerly: suggesting that the crimes and abuses of nearly a century ago prove that America of today is rife with racism.” Correct, the murder of nine people yesterday does prove the point that things have changed but nostalgists like you and Storm Roof would like to turn back the clock to how things were.

    My response:
    Oops! Whoa! Now, Gj, you know what I want, and that I think like the South Carolina murderer! Ooooohhhhh! You do have magical powers! How can you read minds like that?!? What’s your secret?!? And, if you can read minds, why aren’t you selling your services to the government for millions of dollars reading terrorists’ minds and exposing their nefarious plots? You’d make a fortune!

    🙂

    Pray tell, what was it that you found, while knocking about in my mind, that indicates that I want to turn back the clock to, apparently, the time of the photograph? Be specific, please, because your charge is specific.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    You’ve made no bones about taking the $30,000 attributed to Black American individuals as their share of GDP because your little family could use their money that they worked for. The only way you would be able to take it from them is by the methods Hitler used.

    My response:
    This is incoherent. I don’t take a dime from anyone except my employer. However, the last sentence is nonsensical on the face of it. The government takes money the same way Hitler did: taxation. Are you trying to pretend that Hitler didn’t impose taxation on the German people?

    And for, what, the sixth time now? above and beyond the common resources that we all use — the roads, schools, highways, etc., I don’t get one thin dime more than what I earn from my work. Never have.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Your comment shows how ignorant you are. [Oh? How’s that? Reading my mind again? Without that super power, you’d have no way, of course, of knowing how ignorant I am. You may indicate that you think that what I’ve written is incorrect, but how would anyone know? You haven’t addressed any of it!] In 1923 Hitler was cooling his heels in a jail cell [I’m looking for where I said that Hitler telegraphed his intentions in 1923. Oh, that’s right. I didn’t. However, when he wrote Mein Kampf, and when he made speech after speech after speech, he made no bones about his intentions. He re-armed Germany right out in the open, and he dared anyone to stop him. They could have, and they didn’t. That is the history. Apparently you didn’t know that. And you call me ignorant?!?] by 1933 he was Chancellor of Germany.

    My response:
    Yes, by 1933, he was Chancellor of Germany. The rest of your paragraph is silly and … ignorant.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    The party of Lincoln became the refuge for every white supremacist after Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Southern_strategy. Things have only gotten worse since.

    My response:
    Oh? Some evidence, please? Something concrete. None of this “just sayin'” stuff, ’cause that’s all you do is just say things. You’re invited to provide some concrete or credible evidence. I proved (pretty conclusively too!) that any residual white racism left in America is nearly exclusively in the American left. It’s an easy, breezy condescension that says that, yes, they love black people, but without the Dems and the left, they’re just not good enough to keep up.

    Oh, I have some evidence for you. Let’s see: KKK? Offshoot of the Democrat Party. Segregation? A product of the Southern Democrat Party. Oppostion to Civil Rights legislation? Overwhelmingly from the Democrat Party (we proved it in these pages here. And here.) Jim Crow? Laws enacted by Southern Democrat politicians. Which party is the party of white trash today? Not the Republican Party, that’s for sure! Heck, you leftists and RGI’ers are always whining about how the Republicans are “the party of the rich,” and how they’re “country club Republicans.” Oops!

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    Stop calling me an Abagondian, I’ve had my disagreements with that gentleman and the only difference I see between the two of you is that Abagond is much better educated than you are. When he wrote that silly post on some white dude claiming a territory between Sudan and Egypt I told him I found his post weak but given his extensive knowledge I actually learned some new things from reading it, the same can’t be said for you.

    My response:
    Wow! Again! The only way Gj could possibly have to know the relative education levels of Abagond and me is if he’s with the NSA and has the inside poop, or if he … can read minds! Gj, if you do have these magical powers, why, oh why aren’t you putting these super powers to use in the service of good around the world?!?

    Okay. I’ll stop calling you an Abagondian. However, your resemblance to that bleating herd of blind followers is remarkable.

    Okay, you choose not to learn from me. That’s okay. You’ve already said that you never apologize, and that for you a debate like ours is not an opportunity for learning, but rather a chance to stomp someone’s arguments into rubble and dance a jig on them (rough quote). I wouldn’t expect someone with that admitted state-of-mind to be ready, willing or able to learn.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    You wrote: (here Gj quotes me) “The Dahmer story says absolutely nothing about how white people view non-white people. It is information into how one Jeffrey Dahmer viewed one particular non-white person. But that’s it. If I’m not mistaken, Dahmer killed without regard for race.”(end of quote)

    Trust you to get the gist of my overly long quote wrong. I wasn’t interested in Dahmer per se but in the reaction of the two cops, John Balcerzak and Joseph Gabrish when they told the women to “butt out” and helped Dahmer murder the 14 year old kid. As much fun as it has been debunking your lies,

    My response:
    Lol! You post hundreds of words about Jeffrey Dahmer, and a few about the two policemen, and upbraid me for thinking your post was about Jeffrey Dahmer! You post something in which your meaning is opaque, and then you get all huffy when someone doesn’t get your meaning! Trust someone who increasingly resembles an Abagondian to do that kind of silliness!

    Next time, why don’t you simply say what you’re trying to say? Stop playing the silly games, and then learn how to use paragraphs! Sheesh!

    Then, to boot, you call me a liar! Wow! A lie is a deliberate intent to mislead by saying or writing an untruth. The only way to know someone is deliberately telling an untruth is to be able — mystically and magically — to read minds.

    Look, as a favor to you, let’s stipulate to your entire argument about the Dahmer stuff. Okay, it’s still nothing more than an anecdote. An anecdote whose focus changes from one participant to another is still … nothing more than an anecdote.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You said:
    I’m finding you an extremely unworthy opponent, so unless you or one of your minions come up with better material than you’ve displayed so far I won’t be making anymore comments.

    My response:
    Waaaahhh! I’m taking my ball and running home to momma! Again!

    You’ll be back, Gj.

    However, if you’re not, let’s summarize the exchange so far:


    1. The basic premise: “White racism is not a big problem in America today” remains unchallenged, so it has carried the day. Easily. If you want to to interpret that as “a jig,” you’re free to. However, I have an iron-clad “no gloating” policy.

    2. The sum total of your argument so far is: [a] some irrelevant anecdotes, [b] a long-dated and irrelevant photograph, [c] an assertion that “you are unconvinced” of my point-of-view, [d] a bizarre side-trip into speculating about sexual fantasies.
    3. You pointedly ignored my facts, opinions, statements, questions to you; instead providing only a bunch of things that were and are simply not extensible to the society at large. Example: the shooting in South Carolina.

    You’ll be back.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Best,

    — x

    P.S.: This post was a bit snarky, I admit. However, I think I matched, at least roughly, the snark-level with the post to which I’m replying. Gj, if you ratchet it back down — when you come back, that is 🙂 — then I’ll ratchet it back down as well. You started the snarkiness and the insults; you should be man enough to end it. At least I didn’t pretend I could tell when Gj was lying.

  19. I guess that gro jo just chickened out. Bottom line: he attacked everything but what I said, which remained unscathed, because no one ever even took a shot at it!

    Best,

    — x

  20. Xp, I’m back, did you miss me? “I guess that gro jo just chickened out. Bottom line: he attacked everything but what I said, which remained unscathed, because no one ever even took a shot at it! Best,— x”. I guess you did.
    I can’t say the same for you. I’ve come to trouble you with data once again, here goes:
    “As Durr and Hill’s (2006) study on the generosity of welfare by race notes:
    “To determine if the negative association between single-mother families and AFDC generosity is dependent on race, I incorporate the percentage of the population that is black into the model.. Doing so significantly improves our models in 1980 and 1990, as states with relatively large black populations have less generous AFDC payments… states with a larger percentage of black single-mother families have less generous welfare spending, while states with a larger proportion of white single-mother families offer more generous welfare spending.. These findings suggest that black and white families are granted uneven support by AFDC, or more specifically that the racial component of single parents in a state influences that state’s generosity.”-Marlese Durr and Shirley Hill (2006) Race, Work, and Family in the Lives of African Americans. 125-129″”
    “Christopher Howard’s 2007 book- The Welfare State Nobody Knows: Debunking Myths about U.S. Social Policy, lays out this “hidden welfare state” quite well.
    According to Howard: the hidden welfare state provides goods and services directly comparable to those provided in the visible welfare state of direct spending. Similar to public assistance and social insurance programs of the visible welfare state, there are tax expenditures for corporations, military contractors, Wall Street, income security, health, employment and training, housing, education, and social services. The United States government spends as much, or more, on social services and on employment training through the tax code as it does through direct spending. But these programs which primarily benefit white Americans, including fire-breathing right wingers, do not receive the same critical scrutiny programs benefiting poorer Americans do, and that would include many blacks. Seeing a picture here? If its the poor getting a piece of the action, high dudgeon and harsh scrutiny is the order of the day. But when its the more privileged “haves” getting paid, the picture is a lot softer. Now add the racial angle on top of that.” See, it’s not just blacks and white women getting welfare!
    “As Thomas Sowell said way back in his 1975’s Race and Economics book – the system is rigged to show massive institutional favoritism to the haves- meaning for all intents and purposes, whites.”
    “”The percentage of African-American population had a negative effect on the average monthly grant. Therefore those states with higher African-American populations, especially the South, had lower monthly grant amounts.. Grant amounts for African- Americans in the South were significantly lower that those for whites, ranging from 7.3 percent less in Washington. D.C. to 37.6 percent less in South Carolina.”
    –Deborah Ward. 2009. The White Welfare State, p 77. 121″
    ” “The median household income for whites was $67,175 in 2011, as reported in the Census Bureau’s March 2012 Current Population Survey. For blacks, it was $39,760; for Asians, $68,521; and Hispanics $40,007… Since the 1960s the difference in black and white incomes grew from about $19,000 in 1967 to roughly $27,000 in 2011.. The median black household income in 2011 was 59% of median white household income. This represents a modest increase from 1967, when median black income was 55% of white income. Since then, black income has ranged from 54% of white incomes to 65% (in 2000, during a period of economic growth and low unemployment). The racial income gap has increased somewhat since 2007,”
    — Chapter 3 Demographic & Economic Data, by Race- Pew Research Center 2013.”
    “In some locales where whites are the primary beneficiaries, welfare payments are more generous.
    Data again. It seems that in some locales, both historically, and currently, where white people are a larger proportion of welfare recipients, whites receive more generous welfare payments, compared to those locales where blacks are a majority. Every jurisdiction? No, but data going back to the 1930s shows a persistent trend in some places. Quote:
    “Hostility to blacks is obviously more serious than hostility to Hispanics, and extends to the under-provision of such public goods as sewers and police in counties with high average incomes in the black population.. the percentage of blacks who are poor is positively associated with the number of welfare recipients and negatively associated with the average payment (indicating lower per recipient payments to blacks than to other groups.”
    –Roger D. Masters Why Welfare States Rise- and Fall.. in K. Salter (ed) Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism: 2013. 273-275″
    “…levels of black employment in government (a “massive” 12% State and local- 20% federal -from an ethnic group almost 14% of the population…the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900.” (Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97). Note: that’s ONE-THIRD of all Irish, but notice how the right wing race narrative only bashes blacks for such “massive” over-representation. White people are portrayed as these virtuous, self-reliant souls – no public tax dollars for us.. . Right… Can you smell the hypocrisy? I knew you could.”
    “I mean if race is unimportant, how come they seldom mention the extensive feeding of white people from the welfare troughs, or public tax rolls?”
    “Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect welfare at about the same rate and get more generous welfare…Detailed books such as Martin Gilens’ Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media and the politics of anti-poverty Policy, 2009, lay out the case fairly well.”
    I’ll be back in a few days to read what you make of the information I quoted above.
    Best,

    — G

  21. You said:
    Xp, I’m back, did you miss me?

    My Response:
    Sure, I missed you, but I knew you’d be back. There was no way you were going to allow me to “crow” without trying to retort. That’s why I “crowed” as I did. 🙂 It was a gro jo call. You know, like a duck call?

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:
    I can’t say the same for you. I’ve come to trouble you with data once again,

    My Response:
    What does “I can’t say the same for you” mean? That you didn’t miss me? Awwwwww, was that nice? Let’s set this particular record straight: If you’ve actually come with data, it’ll be for the first time, and not “again.” The most important question: is it data relevant to the point? Reminder: the point is: “White racism is not a big problem in America today.” So, now, let’s take a look at your “data,” shall we?

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Well, well, well… first of all, what to make of that massive, murky miasma of miscellany you sent me?

    First and foremost, the thing you miss completely: Even if I were to stipulate to everything you typed, or copied and pasted, above, it’s kind of important to note that there is no White Grievance Industry, unless you want to count Feminism, which was largely the province of spoiled, rich white women in the ’60’s.

    I absolutely admit that. 🙂 Nothing comes in for more withering scorn in these pages than feminism. Back to the point: Trust me: no one in these pages is trying to argue for more freebies for white people of any kind. If I had my policy wish, it would be that welfare had never been started at all. It has immeasurably harmed all people, not merely the recipients.

    Your long post did have some interesting points, though. Here’s one:

    But these programs which primarily benefit white Americans, including fire-breathing right wingers, do not receive the same critical scrutiny programs benefiting poorer Americans do, and that would include many blacks.

    That was your quote, and the “fire-breathing right wingers” nonsense shows it to be mere opinion. Let’s face it: right-wingers breathe a whole heckuva lot less fire than leftists. Yes, that’s my opinion, but you and I both know it to be true. Go ahead, measure it. I have. However, the presence of obvious opinion taints that entire section. It brings it into the realm of just saying things, a constant failing of the left.

    But, also, there you are, getting into the weeds of how the freebies are doled out again. There’s just no point to that. For every tit you bring up, I can find a tat, and vice-versa, and we can go on like that forever, never getting to anything dispositive. I do find your use of materials interesting. Durr and Hill — the ones you led with (Seriously?!?) — are particularly sketchy. I address the silliness of trying to play duelling studies below. Suffice it to say, it’s pointless.

    You quoted Profs Durr and Hill, as follows:

    “As Durr and Hill’s (2006) study on the generosity of welfare by race notes:
    “To determine if the negative association between single-mother families and AFDC generosity is dependent on race, I incorporate the percentage of the population that is black into the model.. Doing so significantly improves our models in 1980 and 1990, as states with relatively large black populations have less generous AFDC payments… states with a larger percentage of black single-mother families have less generous welfare spending, while states with a larger proportion of white single-mother families offer more generous welfare spending.. These findings suggest that black and white families are granted uneven support by AFDC, or more specifically that the racial component of single parents in a state influences that state’s generosity.” – Marlese Durr and Shirley Hill (2006) Race, Work, and Family in the Lives of African Americans. 125-129″

    My Response:
    Any research on Dr. Durr, for example, all seems to indicate that she’s a member in good standing of the RGI itself. To quote the RGI, whose honesty I called into question in the original post, is not to use a credible source. Don’t forget, there’s a reason for which, in America, Grievance is an industry — like computers, manufacturing, or the like: there’s lots of money in it. Members of the RGI are often dependent for their very livelihoods on “proving” the existence, intractability, ubiquity and sometimes, crucially, the invisibility of white racism.

    Furthermore, no one is tougher on single mothers — of any race — and the damage they do to their children, and thereby to the country, than we. You can read our posts on feminism going back years. One thing you have to do, though, gro jo, is avoid studies and things. For every study, book, treatise, article, media feature you can find, I can find any number of counterbalancing studies, books, treatises, etc.

    Oh, and what’s with the typo of two periods in the quote? Were there no editors? Were there no peer reviewers? The RGI is notorious for just saying things. Assuming it’s a copy-paste from the work itself, that particular typo puts the work distinctly into, to use the President’s colorful locution, the “Junior Varsity.”

    Interestingly, students of Dr. Durr’s were particularly harsh in their assessments of her. Here are a couple of quotes:
    “Dr.Durr is the worst teacher i’ve ever had. she never showed up to class, even changed the time of our final the night before on a whim because she didn’t want to come in early. be expected to work hard, read a lot, and be put on the spot. She expects a lot, yet never shows to class herself. still got an A, but if you can avoid her, do so.”

    And:
    Was 5-20 min. late to each class & never held class for the full time, stating she did not care. [Editor’s note: She didn’t care?!?Really?!?] Does not return emails or keep posted office hours. Got off topic during lecture often. Class content was really Sex Ed., but was advertised as Sociology of HIV/AIDS. Generally treated students as children. Did not understand basic Sociology terms.

    Apparently, there is an impression that Dr. Durr is less than serious. In fairness, there were students who spoke highly of her as well. Her overall rating by students was “Poor.”

    I willingly open myself up to the charge of quoting mere students who may or may not have an agenda as regards Prof. Durr. However, I did it to show that I, too, can quote people — all sorts of people — to “prove” my points. Give me something that contradicts my big points. Go ahead. I dare you.

    Oh, and it’s equally important to note that no one has an agenda more than members of the RGI.

    You’ll note that your quote above refers to Durr’s and Hill’s “model.” Such “models” are notoriously unreliable, because so easy to manipulate to support a preconceived notion. Add an element here? Delete an element there? And all of a sudden the “model” is behaving “correctly.”

    Note also, that even if your findings are absolutely correct since black people are over-represented among the poor, those states with more black people will probably be poorer states, and less able to provide generous freebies. Note also, that states with more black people probably have more Democrat governors, the primary predictor of a state in a bad economic condition. Another point: the economic condition of a given state at the time of the study is a crucial piece of information that, apparently, the professors did not address.

    Furthermore, Democrats, and all leftists, are notoriously less generous than rightists. There are no credible studies that contradict that. It’s like climate science — it’s “settled science” 🙂

    Your sources apparently don’t conclude that in those supposedly less generous states, they dole out freebies more generously to whites than to blacks; simply less generously to blacks as compared to all blacks in America. Doesn’t tell us anything.

    The levels of AFDC given to whites, in supposedly less generous states, is not given. If those states are less generous with freebies to everybody then the racial component is disproven, and something else is at play.

    It’s important to note, though, that real generosity would consist actually of getting rid of welfare altogether, since it is poison. Real poison.

    Bottom line: your paragraph from Durr and Hill tells us precisely nothing as regards the actual topic at hand. Other bottom line: Context is everything. Durr’s and Hill’s contention that “black and white families are granted uneven support by AFDC” is absolutely unsupported by the paragraph. Do they support it in their book? I don’t know. I haven’t read it.

    I noticed that you didn’t try to refute my higher-level point that black people are over-represented in the ranks of welfare recipients themselves. I also did say, somewhere, that we’d never get anywhere trying to get into the trillions of details of race relations, and that it was best to keep it high-level and on things that we can all agree on. We do, I believe agree on that point. I also did mention that white single women are the largest single demographic of welfare recipients. Not all that surprising, though, since whites outnumber blacks by a factor of nearly 5 to 1.

    High-level things we can all agree on:

        • There’s just no mass movement of black or brown people to get out of this supposedly racist hellhole of a country.

        • There is a mass movement — many in fact — of non-white people trying to get in.

        • Black people complain about racism and oppression in America freely and loudly and without fear of repercussion. I see it all the time. This would not be possible in a racist or oppressive society. At least not in a society that is distinctly trying to single out black people for abuse. The very existence of massive outcry against so-called racism indicates strongly that that very “racism” is likely mostly illusory.

        • Whites have, I contend, been divesting themselves of prejudice of any kind for a very long time.

    I point to the the “gay marriage” thing, as well as to the RGI, Feminism, and any other grievance group, all of whom are shaking their heads at the rapidity with which they’ve obtained practically every demand they ever made. White people, straight people, white American men in particular, didn’t have to grant any of that! Who was going to prevent them from stopping it all in its tracks if they so chose?

    Another point:

        • Whites have transferred trillions of dollars to black Americans. That they have also done so with white Americans is to be expected. Especially in a racist country. That we’re even having this debate indicates first that there is a debate to be had and that, therefore, second: that you concede that whites have transferred trillions of dollars away from whites and to blacks. Again, just not possible in a racist country. Period.

    Yet it all happened practically without a single shot being fired!

    I’m afraid this particular quote of yours more solidly supports my over all contention, demonstrating as it does, that there continues to be plenty of freedom to criticize America openly, publicly and loudly. By anyone of any possible description. I suggest that you try to find some indication that my last assertion is not true. If you can’t credibly counter that assertion, that means, simply, you’ve proved my assertion that it’s all just not possible in a racist or oppressive country.

    Oh, our little back-and-forth here proves my point as well.

    I do demand credible refutations for what you and I both know. As should anyone.

    If for example, there were a mass movement of non-whites trying to get out, or there were not millions of non-white people trying to get in… those things would be prominent issues, and we would have a real debate. Surely you do understand that, gro jo.

    Gro jo, you quoted, the great Thomas Sowell, saying, “the system is rigged to show massive institutional favoritism to the haves- meaning for all intents and purposes, whites.”

    This is absolutely correct, and corresponds to the real white racism that is out there in America. We have covered that extensively in these pages. Search, for example, for “racism left-wing” or variations on that in this blog. The American left-wing is very much racist. However, is it a big problem for black Americans? No. Not, at least, any more than it is for all Americans. That particular racism — the only white racism measurable in America in any meaningful way — is a serious problem in America today. The cure: vote for Conservatives. Real Conservatives.

    I hear you, I hear you, I hear you! What I’m saying is unfalsifiable. No: The truth is unfalsifiable. You won’t find any mass movement of non-whites trying to leave America — you and I both know that; you will find a mass movement of non-whites trying to get in — you and I both know that; you will find hundreds of thousands of wildly successful black Americans — you and I both know that; you won’t find any black Americans who cower in terror at the thought of dissenting in America — you and I both know that … and on and on and on and on and on… None of these things that we both agree on are even remotely possible in a country that has any meaningful animus against black people.

    Finally, no one, whatsoever made even the slightest meaningful stab at trying to contradict my five points: (1) If you get an education, (2) work hard, (3) get along well with others, (4) speak English well, and (5) present yourself more or less normally, you can succeed in America. More to the point, you will have no more obstacles in your path than any one else has.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Gro jo, you’re a bright dude — or dudette (probably a dude) — but you still haven’t addressed my actual points. To your credit, though, you have tried. The ridiculous Abagondians, and Abagond himself, never even gave it a serious try.

    I say that with some respect, but with respect born of the fact that the Abagondians set such a ridiculously low bar.

    Best,

     

    — x

  22. Nice job Xp, love the way you skipped this part: “…levels of black employment in government (a “massive” 12% State and local- 20% federal -from an ethnic group almost 14% of the population…the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900.” (Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97). Note: that’s ONE-THIRD of all Irish, but notice how the right wing race narrative only bashes blacks for such “massive” over-representation. White people are portrayed as these virtuous, self-reliant souls – no public tax dollars for us.. . Right… Can you smell the hypocrisy? I knew you could.”
    And that part: “I mean if race is unimportant, how come they seldom mention the extensive feeding of white people from the welfare troughs, or public tax rolls?”
    “Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect welfare at about the same rate and get more generous welfare…Detailed books such as Martin Gilens’ Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media and the politics of anti-poverty Policy, 2009, lay out the case fairly well.”
    You get an “A” in sophistry. WHITES GET WELFARE AT ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS BLACKS.
    “Let’s set this particular record straight: If you’ve actually come with data, it’ll be for the first time, and not “again.”” Really Xp? Here I thought you were beginning to be honest, did you forget that I showed you that your claim of $1.2 Trillion a year going to black people was a figment (pigment maybe?) of your imagination?

  23. You said:
    Nice job Xp, love the way you skipped this part: “…levels of black employment in government (a “massive” 12% State and local- 20% federal -from an ethnic group almost 14% of the population…the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900.” (Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97). Note: that’s ONE-THIRD of all Irish, but notice how the right wing race narrative only bashes blacks for such “massive” over-representation. White people are portrayed as these virtuous, self-reliant souls – no public tax dollars for us.. . Right… Can you smell the hypocrisy? I knew you could.”

    My Response:
    It’s easy to pick this apart, gj, for all the inaccuracies and errors in it.
       First: Your employment figures section is incoherent. If you are trying to suggest that the nation discriminated against the Irish less than against black people in the dim, distant past you and I probably will agree. I’m not going to be a participant in the Oppression Olympics, though.

    And, again, you prove my point. Remember the point that you are steadfastly avoiding: “White racism is not a big problem in America today.”

    You fell into the same silly morass that all the Abagondians fell into: trying to say that abuses of past centuries prove racism today. They don’t.

    They’re interesting historically, and they give context, but they only make my point more forcefully for me, as they help to highlight the massive, colossal difference between those long ago times and … today. (You, know: the point?)

       Second: There is no “right-wing race narrative bashing blacks,” therefore there can be no hypocrisy. So I can’t smell it. Can you smell your own paranoia, Gj? 🙂
       Third: In no way are “whites portrayed as virtuous, self-reliant souls, with “no public dollars for us.” Nowhere in America is that a narrative being advanced by anyone whom anyone else takes seriously. Still smelling the paranoia, Gj? Yet another of the malodorous morasses into which all the Abagondians fell: they just said things. They didn’t back them up. Ever. Just like you in this half-hearted attempt at a post, Gj.

    Go ahead, Gj, I dare you to give me the teentsiest-weentsiest scintilla of a hint of evidence that that there is some kind of big, bad, ol’ “right-wing narrative” out there that is as you describe. Where’s it coming from? The New York Times? The network news? The Washington Post? ABC? NBC? CBS? NPR? CNN? MSNBC? The LA Times? Academia? Hollywood? Pop Culture? Again, all you did was say things, and they were ridiculous on their face. Oh, there’s a “narrative,” alright, but it ain’t right wing. (Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pointing to “FOX News” or “Rush Limbaugh,” or “the internet.”)

    Look, you have moments of being possibly a serious interlocutor, but when you spout transparent nonsense, you lose credibility.

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You said:
    And that part: “I mean if race is unimportant, how come they seldom mention the extensive feeding of white people from the welfare troughs, or public tax rolls?”

    My Response:
    Do you mean where I’ve mentioned, what, six times now? that I know that the largest group of welfare recipients is whites? Is that what you mean by my “seldom mentioning” something? 🙂

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You said:
    “Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect welfare at about the same rate and get more generous welfare…Detailed books such as Martin Gilens’ Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media and the politics of anti-poverty Policy, 2009, lay out the case fairly well.”

    My Response:
    Again, let’s not play duelling books and studies. I can find many books and studies that all support my point. However, the “whites collect welfare at about the same rate and get more generous welfare” thing makes no sense. If you are talking about total numbers, then that proves my point about welfare: blacks are disproportionately represented, per capita, on the welfare rolls. If you are saying that there are per capita as many whites on welfare as there are black people — eg nearly five times as many in raw numbers — then you overwhelmingly prove my point. There is no movement afoot anywhere in the galaxy that is concerned with alleviating white poverty. Yet, there you are indicating that, in raw numbers, it’s a much bigger problem than black poverty!

    Furthermore, if you’re saying that whites are that enmired in poverty, then you really prove my point that white racism is not a big problem in America today, rather it’s white poverty. And, if your white poverty information is true then, obviously, there can be no escaping the fact that there must be much more discrimination directed at whites than at blacks.

    Which is it?

    Face it: welfare in all its manifestations is a piece of evidence to support my position that white racism is not a big problem in America today.

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You said:
    “Let’s set this particular record straight: If you’ve actually come with data, it’ll be for the first time, and not “again.”” Really Xp? Here I thought you were beginning to be honest, did you forget that I showed you that your claim of $1.2 Trillion a year going to black people was a figment (pigment maybe?) of your imagination?

    My Response:
    First a correction: My use of the 1.2 trillion dollar figure was an error, not a “figment of my imagination.”

    Second: The 1.2 trillion figured ended up being an even stronger support for my position after I was disabused of my first erroneous notion. It stands in strong support of my conclusion. In no way, in a country awash in racism against black people, could they have had the opportunity for such achievement.

    However, yes, I’ll concede that it would be the second time you had come with data. 🙂 That it was data to make my case for me is what you need to concede.

    There is a simple truth that you need to face here, Gj: the arguments — theoretical, statistical and historical are all on my side. You keep coming up with stuff from the dim, dark past, and saying, “See?!? See?!? I toldja so!” And…nope. The argument is about today. Then you show me the proper understanding of the $1.2 trillion figure, and I use it to knock your argument over; then you bring up a bunch of studies that all would be easily countered with studies of my own. However, one particular study is from someone who seems to be a member in good standing of the Race Grievance Industry itself — the very group that stands in the dock here today!

    Then you studiously ignore completely the lack of any efforts by anyone to leave this racist hellhole, you ignore the hundreds of thousands of prosperous black Americans whose success simply would not be possible in a racist country. Then you ignore completely the obvious fact that in this so-called racist dystopia, black people are completely free to complain about it all they want, as loud as they want, wherever they want, and whenever they want, completely without fear of reprisal. Also, not possible in a racist country. Then, you studiously ignore the name of the most powerful man in the world, and his Vice-President who, you helpfully pointed out, is a member of the NAACP, the most powerful race-mongering organization in the country. You completely ignore how it could possibly be that the Civil Rights Organizations and the NAACP’s of the country could achieve nearly their entire agenda in the space of a tad more than a generation.

    None of that would be even remotely possible if this country were even close to how you describe it.

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You said:
    You get an “A” in sophistry. WHITES GET WELFARE AT ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS BLACKS.

    My Response:
    And you get an “A” in helping me make my point. There’s just nothing you can do with welfare that doesn’t make my position stronger.

    I know, I know, I know… you’re going to say that you can prove that when they give welfare in various states, they give more of it to whites than to blacks, and on and on and on and on, and I told you that I’m not going to get into playing duelling studies and books. I can find all sorts of them to back me up, and you can find all sorts that you think back you up. But you have never, ever, not even once, even tried to refute my many points that you must refute if you are to support your argument. You can read the points in the previous post.

    Remember, you should ask yourself: if this is such a terrible, racist hellhole, well then why… I’ll let you fill in all the blanks. (Hint: or you can read them in the previous post. 🙂 )

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You said:
    “Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect welfare at about the same rate and get more generous welfare…Detailed books such as Martin Gilens’ Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media and the politics of anti-poverty Policy, 2009, lay out the case fairly well.”

    My Response:
    Lastly: this makes no sense. Are you trying to assert here that whites who don’t qualify for welfare are getting it, and then are getting more of it? That strikes me as a tough case to make, even by Martin Gilens. If whites are getting “more generous welfare,” then that means they are probably poorer. Makes my case stronger, as demonstrated above. The clause, “Despite much more wealth than blacks,” means nothing. Presumably, they mean whites as a whole? Who disputes that? But are poor whites somehow “richer” than poor blacks? Nope. The definition of poverty is based on numbers. Where you are in those numbers is where you are. Period. If you qualify for x, then the government (the taxpayers) gives you x. It’s all based on a formula.

    If you’re going to bring data, don’t bring nonsensical data.

    Next: why don’t you try to take a stab at arguing against my points, instead of constantly inserting dated, or irrelevant, or off-topic stuff. More to the point, why don’t you argue your point instead of mine. I’m fine without the help, thanks.

    Oh, and — can you please use some freakin’ paragraphs?!? Hit the Enter key twice! 🙂

    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    Best,

    — x

  24. Looks as though Gro jo gave up, and actually did take his ball and go home to momma. Oh, well. It was just about time. He hadn’t contributed anything (1) on the actual topic, (2) he hadn’t addressed my central assertion, and (3) he was doing most of the evasive tactics on which the left and the Race Grievance Industry are dependent.

    At the same time, he managed to keep it relatively civil. I take my hat off to him for that, and I mean that sincerely.

    He did, I must note, not stoop to calling me a racist, though much to his discredit, he did call me a liar.

    That last accusation is a dead giveaway that the accuser is not arguing from informed belief, but rather from pure emotion. Whether someone is lying in a blog post is simply not knowable. To pretend that one knows the unknowable is, of course, ridiculous on its face, and almost always represents what the accuser hopes will be a diversion from the topic. Why? Because the accuser is having a hard time making his case.

    Still, Gro jo was a step or two or three up from the general run-of-the-mill, racist, ignorant blowhards on Abagond’s and BrothaWolf’s blogs.

    Best,

    — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s