Nov. 13, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:40
3893 Can My Children Be Friends With White People? - Rebutted!
The New York Times recently published an opinion article by Ekow N. Yankah titled "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" which featured a level of racism that would make the average Ku Klux Klan member blush. Stefan Molyneux breaks down the article and offers a word on this onslaught of recent anti-white mainstream media propaganda.Article: https://web.archive.org/web/20171113035026/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html?mtrref=web.archive.orgYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Yeah, it can be kind of painful to see things for what they are, but it is important to see things for what they are.
New York Times just put out an article called, Can My Children Be Friends With White People?
Mmm! That is some tasty race-baiting NYT, and I don't know if we've hit peak New York Times or not yet, or peak racism yet, but looks like we're getting close to the summit as it stands.
First of all, of course, can you imagine?
A white person saying, can my children be friends with black people or Jewish people or, I mean, Hindus.
I mean, the double standard, of course, is becoming boringly predictable and ridiculous.
And the article goes a little something like this.
First of all, it starts with what has become kind of like a leftist cliche, which is...
Well, my son saw Donald Trump on the television and screamed like it was something coming through another portal dimension on Stranger Things.
I had to comfort him extensively.
The writer says, my older son, wrestling with a four-year-old's happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend.
My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and...
But even a child's joy is not immune to this ominous political period.
This summer's images of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia prompted an array of questions.
Well, um, I guess one of my first questions is, why is your child seeing images of violence from Charlottesville, Virginia?
He's four!
That's not a G-rated news story, for God's sakes.
Um... That's my first question.
I'm just being straight up with you.
Well, I've got a lot more questions to come, but that's my first one.
The writer says, in explaining, I guess, some questions about Charlottesville, some people hate others because they are different, I offer lamely.
A childish but distinct panic enters his voice, but I'm not different.
Okay, people don't hate other people because they're different.
Hey, you know who's different? Kobe Bryant.
You know who else is different? A quarterback in the NFL. You know who else is different?
Cher, Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, people with significant performing abilities.
Very, very different. They're not hated.
Hate people because they're different?
No. So this, I don't know how to explain how evil white people are to my four-year-old child.
Not an argument. He goes on to say, I will teach them suspicion and I will teach them distrust.
Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.
Distrust, caution, suspicion.
I must teach them to be afraid of white people.
Now... It is kind of a one-sided conversation.
And, you know, I'm invited, and perhaps fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
I am invited, like everyone, to have an honest conversation about race.
So, I'm going to have an honest conversation about race.
Because, of course, everybody asks...
Minorities in particular, oh, what's it like?
What's it like? What's it like? I don't know that a lot of people ask, like a lot of people ask white people, what is it like?
Frankly, it's not a lot of fun.
It's not a huge amount of fun being blamed for every conceivable social ill because whiteness.
While at the same time being lectured to about how racism is just so terrible.
White people are the worst people in the world.
But racism is really, really bad.
You understand? There's lack of reciprocity.
You know, it's kind of like how when there was a migrant crisis, Saudi Arabia leapt into action and committed an enormous amount of money to build 200 mosques in Germany.
Now, if you are Christians in Europe, good luck trying to get 200 Christian churches built in Saudi Arabia.
See? Kind of like a one-way street going on there.
So this idea...
That it's really, really important to be terrified of white people and that's just the conversation that you have to have?
I don't know. I'm kind of a big fan of facts.
Big fan of facts.
And everybody knows that blacks commit an unbelievable, if not downright ungodly, amount of crime.
Now, of course, the argument is, well, it's just...
Racial bias in arrests and they're targeted and so on.
No. No.
The overwhelming evidence is that that is not the case.
See, if blacks arrested more, let's say 25% more in a certain area, well, you interview the victims and you find out what was the race of who was attacking them or raping them or whatever, right?
Assaulting them. And if...
The victims report the same proportion of blacks or whites or Hispanics as are being arrested by the cops.
Well, then it's accurate.
And witness and victim surveys say, yeah, police arrest violent criminals fairly close, very close in proportion to the rates at which various races commit violent crimes.
Because there are massive differences in crime rates.
So Asians, and in particular Orientals, very, very low in terms of criminality.
Higher than that are whites.
Higher than that are Hispanics.
And way higher than that in general are blacks.
And this is pretty much the same for just about all categories of crime, and it's not concentrated in any particular age group and so on.
Just to get a sense, this is numbers from 2013.
A black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder.
Twelve times more likely.
Blacks twelve times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
Twelve. Twelve.
2013, there were about 660,000 interracial violent crimes just involving blacks and whites.
And of the 660,000 violent crimes between blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85% of the time.
So, just to boil it down to you, this means, give or take, a black person was about 27 times more likely to attack a white person than a white person was to attack a black person.
With regards to Hispanic or Mestizo, about eight times more likely to attack a white person than a white person attacking a Hispanic.
Now remember, the arrest ratios track very closely to crime victimization surveys and witness reports and so on.
Look at 2014. A black is 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder.
Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely.
Now, if you look at this crime called shooting, this is firing a bullet that hits someone, a black is almost 100 times more likely than a white to be arrested.
Hispanic, 23.6 times more likely.
When it comes to rape, well, black on white rape is quite considerable.
White on black rape, virtually non-existent.
And so the idea that, you know, it's really, really important to teach You're black kids that white people are enormously overwhelmingly dangerous.
Well, let's just say there's a certain amount of pushback from the data on that hypothesis.
So, that is kind of important to understand.
The writer says, So,
since the 1960s, about $22 trillion has been poured into solving the problem of poverty, which was in fact being solved by the free market largely before the 1960s, which we'll get to in a sec.
About $22 trillion poured into solving the problem of poverty.
I think that may be considered, however perhaps misguided, an attempt to solve the problem.
Just a possibility.
Now, The desire to wield power over others.
Well, I don't know.
Let's say that you're out there and you basically make the statement that unless whites vote for Democrats, they're racist, that you can't be friends with them.
Would that be, say, the desire to wield power over others by applying one of the worst labels in American history, the label of racist, against people who don't agree with you politically?
Is that potentially, just possibly, An example of trying to wield power over others.
I think it could be.
It could be the case.
So, the writer goes on to say, History has provided little reason for people of colour to trust white people in this way.
And these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities.
America is...
No, we'll get into that. So this racial minorities thing, Jews are a minority in America and Orientals, East Asians, Hindus are all minorities, but they all do better than white people for the most part.
And so I'm not sure what racial minorities means.
The East Asians like Chinese and Japanese and Koreans and so on make substantially more than white people in this supposedly white-dominated patriarchal Privileged, white privileged society.
So I don't know what it means by racial minorities.
It's the great invisible Orientals.
It's the great invisible Asians in this.
So the value of racial minorities, such as East Asians, is higher than white people in the supposedly white privileged society.
So... I don't know what that means, other than...
Well, we'll get to that.
So he goes on to say, America is transfixed on the opioid epidemic among white Americans, who often get hooked after being over-prescribed painkillers, while studies show that doctors under-prescribe pain medication for African Americans.
But when black lives were struck by addiction, we cordoned off minority communities with the police and threw away an entire generation of black and Hispanic men.
So I think what he's referring to here is in the 90s.
There was the crack epidemic, and this started in the 80s.
There was a significant increase in the sentencing and incarceration of people involved in the drug trade in particular.
And this, interestingly enough, was first begged for by people within black communities in America who societies were crumbling and crime was Running rampant, so they ran to the state to ask for help.
And as it turns out, Bill Clinton, a Democrat who was voted for overwhelmingly by the black community, on to separate presidential bids.
Bill Clinton was the president who presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president throughout any portion of American history.
Bill Clinton supported this 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine.
So that meant that if you were caught with an ounce of crack, it was considered to be equivalent to 100 ounces of cocaine.
And this, of course, was disproportionate.
Well, it was not disproportionate to the crimes being committed, but it did significantly affect poor blacks.
Bringing the Republicans, bringing Donald Trump into a law that was, to some degree, begged for by black communities and enforced by a president who was enormously popular in the black community.
Don't worry, white people.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh. Don't worry, white people.
It's still your fault.
It's still your fault.
Because... And guilt?
Getting to hit that white guilt button yet?
I'm getting any resources from you?
I don't know. So, here goes on to say, likewise, despite centuries of exclusion and robust evidence of continuing racism, minority underemployment is often couched in the language of bad choices and personal responsibility.
When systemic joblessness strikes swaths of white America, we get an entire presidential campaign centered on globalization's impact on the white working class.
Well, first of all, in any racial group, in any gender group, some people are not working because they're lazy.
And they make bad choices.
However, I will certainly say this, that...
Globalization's impact on the white working class?
Come on, man. I mean, how far from empirical data do you have to be?
Let me just give you the four and one on this.
Okay. Massive third world immigration is extremely destructive on low-wage workers.
Of which there are a lot of blacks, you know, for reasons of, to some degree, historical injustices, to some degree because of culture, and to some degree because of the bell curve, right?
There's sort of different IQs in various groups in society.
But when you have massive waves of third-world immigration crashing into America, it drives down the wages for the most vulnerable in society now.
Which party is responsible for switching, for turning immigration back on the tsunami?
Immigration was fairly non-existent from the 1920s until the mid-1960s.
Then Ted Kennedy, hint, Democrat who actually killed a girl.
He opened up the floodgates to third world immigration.
That was a Democrat. And it was a Democrat policy who has been fighting massive third world immigration, who has been trying to construct a border along the southern border.
Well, it's the Republicans.
So, the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and Democrats overwhelmingly import workers that directly compete with blacks and drive down their wages, I think you've got a lot To thank for the Republicans for trying to control some of this endless amnesty waves and so on.
So again, some basic facts.
Anyone with half a brain has been trying to help and save the black working class from third world immigration.
But unfortunately, blacks and of course other groups continue to vote for Democrats who continue to import more people from the third world, thus driving down the wages of blacks, which makes welfare more attractive and destroys the black community.
In many, many cases.
He goes on to say, even the nerve of some rich or visible African Americans to protest that America in its laws and its police has rarely been just to all has been met with the howls of a president who cannot tolerate that the lucky and the uppity do not stay in their place.
Well, you know, in...
One of the few methodologies of closing the black-white achievement gap has been to use charter schools, has been to use schools where the parents have more control over things.
So that has been an almost exclusively right-wing or Republican goal.
The left-wing, of course, is so dependent on union dues from public sector workers and teachers in particular that they will almost never countenance.
They will directly be violent against people who try to get This kind of stuff overturned and have local communities have more control over their schools.
So the idea that the left is some sort of friend of the inner cities and you see these Waiting for Superman movies where people are like hysterically lining up and trying to Get their kids into semi-private schools and out of the hellhole of government schools and the idea that the left is against these kinds of schools that can really help black kids and poor blacks and is vigorously defending these brain-destroying propaganda mills and violent centers of the government schools.
I mean, come on. Come on.
This is crazy. Like, this is general thesis.
It is a thesis that goes something like this.
All gaps between Orientals and blacks are due to racism.
All gaps between Jews and blacks are due to racism.
All gaps between whites and blacks are due to racism.
Now, of course, it's always white racism.
Of course, right? But that's the thesis.
It's just racism. Now that thesis has certainly been central to government planning for, well, longer than I've been alive.
So well north of half a century.
And compared to what was happening before the government started pumping $22 trillion into the poor, and a lot of it went, of course, to black communities, there was the free market that had a significant amount of opportunity to deal with the problem of black poverty.
Now, the free market, between 1940 and 1960, black poverty had been cut nearly in half.
Nearly in half! So you want to go back to a time where black poverty was being reduced, where more and more and more, in fact, the most blacks in American history were vaulting up into the middle class.
And when black families were relatively stable, and when black communities were relatively prosperous and productive, and when there was hope and a future and a possibility for the black community, you'd want to go back.
Now, you have to go back before the welfare state.
You kind of have to go back between the 1940s and the early to mid-1960s.
You get black poverty cut nearly in half In merely 20 years.
If you go back just a little bit further, but then we go back a little further on the end date, 1936 to 1959, in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled.
Doubled. I mean, if you care about blacks and their opportunities, then you have to really oppose...
The unions, a lot of times, and all of these barrier to entries, like a third of Americans now need government permission to get it to have a job or have a profession, because the unions and all of these, you know, you got an apprentice for seven years and all of this stuff was, you know, a lot of it was designed to keep blacks from outcompeting whites in terms of accepting lower pay and thus increasing the demand for blacks and increasing their pay.
Then, of course, in the 1960s, you get the welfare state.
And the welfare state specifically penalized women who had husbands.
So now it's gotten to the point, and it was very quickly after the welfare state came into play, that if you're a woman on welfare and you get married to a man who has a low-paying job, I mean, you lose thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars worth of benefits.
It's taxed at more than 100%.
You get a couple of bucks of extra pay, and you lose thousands of dollars in benefits.
That's worse than being taxed at 100%.
That's being taxed at hundreds or thousands of percent.
And so the two things that you need to do to get out of poverty, well, I guess there are three things.
I mean, the first is finish high school.
The second is get and keep a job for at least a year.
And the third is don't have kids out of wedlock.
So, but basically marriage and work, the incentives were both destroyed under the welfare state because a woman was penalized for marriage and a man was penalized for working.
And what does this mean?
Well, this means that in the black community since the mid-1960s, there's been a tripling of out-of-wedlock births.
See, in 1940, Black families only had, there was only 15% illegitimacy in black families, right?
Only 15% of children being born out of wedlock.
Now, it's 75%.
Back then, 15%.
Now, that's really, really important.
Because we all know, if you're raised in a single mother household, it's an environmental toxin, frankly.
Right? All boobs, no penis, environmental toxin when it comes to being raised.
In general, there are some exceptions.
But much higher chances of criminality, of promiscuity, of STDs, of drunkenness, of criminality, and of being abused.
Not to mention the fact that of all of the ethnic groups in America, blacks hit their children the most.
And aggressively.
So, and I had a communication from a black guy who was telling me that his family...
It used to sit him in a warm bath to soften up his skin for the whooping.
The whole time he's sitting there, he knows what's coming.
So, given that we've gone, in, what, less than 80 years, from 15% illegitimacy in black families to 75% almost illegitimacy, are people going to say that there was less racism around in 1940?
There was more, I would assume, according to the theory.
In 1950, only 9% of black families were headed by single moms.
In 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women were.
So those numbers have gotten much, much worse.
It's almost like that.
$22 trillion might have been Just a little bit misspent in terms of incentives or maybe the saying about Lyndon Johnson the democrat who was behind the welfare state when he said or is supposed to have said that he's going to get those blacks voting democrat for 200 years well maybe it was a The reliable voting base is getting away into the middle class.
Let's go trap them with the soft, sticky undertow of the welfare state and keep them dependent on us.
The writer goes on to say, As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible.
When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line.
Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside.
I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal, betrayal.
Now, what is conspicuously absent here is any policy analysis, data, or arguments.
This is almost pure, distilled, semi-brain-rotting sophistry.
There's no arguments here at all.
Just general fear, petulance, despair, anger, resentment, manipulation.
There's no facts, no data here.
This is important to understand.
It's important to understand.
What's the purpose? If you have an argument and you don't bring any facts or reason or evidence to bear, it's because you have a goal which you don't want to.
Discuss openly. Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides, but for people of color, the stakes are different.
Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth.
Only white people can cordon Off Mr.
Trump's political meaning. Ignore the unpleasantness from a position of safety.
His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans.
You can't trust these people, I guess.
What he means is you can't trust white people.
You can't trust white people.
Can't be friends with them.
It's fatal, violent, sinister, disastrous to be friends with white people.
Can't trust white people. You know, this kind of, I mean, let's just call it what it is, this kind of virulent racism is unfortunately going to summon more racism in return.
Of course, right? Because if you're so fundamentally focused on your own in-group preference, and trust me, I don't think this guy is representative of black people as a whole.
I don't know what proportion of black people he claims to speak for, or even how many would accept that he is speaking for them.
So he's got an in-group preference here, which is pretty much along the left, and he's using the traditional communist trick of inciting racism and race conflict in order to expand the size and power of the state.
See, Trump is trying to shrink the size and power of the state, and those people who want to grow it and who wish to cripple the free market so that they can grow the state even more use racial fault lines to divide people, to set them against each other, and to attempt to get white people.
See, white people in general want smaller government.
White men, in particular, and women who are married to them, want smaller government.
And blacks and Hispanics and third-world immigrants and so on, they want bigger government.
Overwhelmingly. And so this whole question of, well, is it just racism?
Well, you know, if you want a smaller government, you are going to be naturally opposed to all groups who want bigger government.
And if all of those groups who want bigger government happen to be composed of particular ethnic compositions in general and on average, well, that's the way it plays.
You know, I mean, if groups act the same, then judging them differently is prejudiced.
If groups as a whole, again, not around individuals, but if groups as a whole act vastly differently, then we're in a different situation.
Then we're in a different situation.
So he goes on to say, it is not Mr.
Trump himself who has done this.
Were it not for our reverence for money, Mr.
Trump would be easily recognized as the simple-minded, vulgar, bigoted, blowhard he is.
Not arguments. Now, there's something that really bothers this guy about Trump.
I would assume it's because Trump, again, wants to shrink the state, and when job opportunities open up, Then some, you know, hardworking minorities or majorities, whoever, are going to start getting on that upward, you know, sprint-up escalator mobility to the middle class, and then those who are left behind may be viewed as more problematic in terms of their choices, behaviors, and culture, and ethics, and hard-workiness, or whatever, so any number of things.
So he's trying to portray this general negative view of Trump, but there's no...
There's no actual criticism of policy here.
There's no actual criticism of, well, Trump does this, and I don't like this, and Trump does that, and I don't like that.
I mean, even to the absurd point where he says, well, white people are getting addicted because they're being over-prescribed pain-killing medications.
And blacks aren't being over-prescribed pain-killing medications that lead to depilitating and often fatal drugs.
Addictions. What, you want to be over-prescribed like white people so you can have more addictions?
Those people are ODing a lot more than us.
It's racist. Good Lord.
Anyway, so he goes on to say, It is certainly not the neo-Nazis marching on Charlottesville we have seen their tide before.
Rather, what has truly broken my heart are the ranks of Mr.
Trump's many allies and apologists.
See, see now, here's the thing.
If you support Trump, you are a racist, I think, according to this guy.
With no analysis of policy or anything like that.
I mean, if he's got concerns about the war on drugs, and Lord knows any sane person does, what does Trump have to do with that?
I mean, the big expansion of the war on drugs was under Bill Clinton.
And when Bill Clinton's wife was running for office, still supported by an overwhelming majority of blacks.
So, he goes on to say, for African Americans, racists become a proxy, not just for politics, but also for decency.
White faces are swept together, ominous anxiety behind every chance encounter at the airport or smiling white cashier.
If they are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me.
I'm scared of murderous white people.
Trump voters? I'm just scared of white people because they like Trump?
And this is somehow not just like your crazy paranoid experience, but this is what?
You're speaking for all people of color?
Like all people of color think that white people who may be Trump voters Not to be trusted, are to be scared of.
You must be paranoid of them.
They might try and kill you. They might support violence against you.
This is so far from a rational, fact-based, reason- and evidence-based discourse that, I mean, you're kind of making the case for racists for them.
You don't want to do that.
He goes on to say, Well, of course her brother and father are not seen as a white woman because they're men.
He goes on to say, among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children's godparents variety, many are white.
But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the president's travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.
Yeah, so if you support his radical political agenda, then he won't put you in the category of people, of whites, who are his enemies or people not to be trusted.
It's kind of like a verbal abuse shakedown.
Support my politics!
Or you're a bad white person who's a racist.
It's not an argument.
Better get those charter schools in a minute.
Quick! He goes on to say, There is hope, though, implicitly without meaning to.
Mr. Trump asks us if this is the best we can do.
It falls to us to do better.
We cannot agree on our politics, but we can declare that we stand beside one another against cheap attacks and devaluation.
That we live together and not simply beside one another in the coming years when my boys ask again their questions about who can be their best friend.
I pray for a more hopeful answer.
Again, not one single policy analysis, not one single piece of data or anything like that.
It's just... Feels and manipulation and sinister portrayals of white people.
And I mean, this is...
I mean, this is KKK stuff, as far as I'm concerned.
As far as toxic levels of racism.
It's horrendous. Horrendous.
You know, because we have this thesis.
As I mentioned before, we have this thesis.
It goes back, I don't know, you could argue, a couple of hundred years.
200 years or so. Since the abolitionists first began.
White. Largely European.
Christian, men, and some women, but men as a whole, began to advocate for the end of slavery.
End of slavery.
An institution that had lasted as long as human beings had lasted tens and tens and tens of thousands of years.
About 200 years ago, people, or white people generally, white males, said, let's not do this.
And untold, untold, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, We're burnt at the altar of war in order to end worldwide the practice of slavery.
Massive amounts of blood and treasure were spent to end the worldwide practice of slavery.
I mean, Islam, the Muslims, were far more embedded for far longer in the slave trade.
And there are reports that upwards of 100 million blacks from Africa were killed by the Muslims in the slave trade.
And the Muslims didn't ride out to end it and the blacks didn't ride out from Africa to end it.
It was white Christian males from Europe and North America who worked very hard to end the slave trade.
So naturally, which is the only group that is now blamed for slavery?
There is no good deed in this world that goes unpunished.
So this thesis is that there are these different groups who have different outcomes in society, and the sole explanation is racism.
Now that thesis has been chugging along its way for a couple of hundred years, and has really intensified over the last 50.
And this article is one of the outcomes of that.
You know, for me, if you've been working at something for, say, a half century, and it's kind of getting worse, it may be time to re-evaluate the hypothesis.
Just possibly. If you go back even further and say, well, about 200 years, people have been working to equalize outcomes based on the theory that inequality results from racism.
Always and only and forever.
Well, a couple hundred years, how are we doing?
How are race relations?
If we put it deep in the rear view, it doesn't seem to have happened.
So I guess my question is, when do we start re-evaluating this question about whether the only reason for disparate outcomes for various groups in society is because of bigotry?
The only reason.
Well, I think it's high time.
I really think it's high time.
200 years we've been working on this hypothesis, 50 years, 60 years in terms of state power directly, redistributionist state power involving massive infusions of cash into poor black communities, including government schools, including $100 billion funding in the Head Start program specifically designed to reduce the black-white achievement gap.
We've got set-asides, we've got federal loan guarantees, direct federal support for black-owned businesses, minority businesses.
We've got affirmative action of just about every kind to the point where there are some universities in America that intentionally and statistically and openly suppress Asian scores and increase black scores to get the right numbers.
This has been the hypothesis that this is going to solve all these problems.
The war on inequality of outcome has been going on for 50 years or 60 years or 200 years and has burned countless trillions of dollars.
And this is the result.
Is it crazy to think that we might want to re-examine the hypothesis?
Is it insane to think that?
Do we just keep doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes, magically and madly?
There are examples.
This 20-year period in particular, from 1940 to 1960, and probably a few years into the 60s, when there was no welfare state fundamentally, when there were no crashing waves of third-world immigration, the black communities did spectacularly well relative to where they were, and even relative to whites. As I point out, wages in some sectors more than doubled.
There's an example. Of something that actually worked.
Not state power, not coercive redistribution, not nagging, not guilting, not sophistry.
What actually helped blacks was what actually helps everyone except sophists.
