As I've previously mentioned, I'm still in touch with several members of the old crowd who used to post here, and who are now my FB friends. One if these is a good ol sista named Linda Chavez and below is an article by someone named Tdka Maat Kilamanjaro which she posted and which I found very compelling because it takes to task a famous black pundit, revered by many. Below is the article.

"Thomas Sowell---he is 95+ years old, he'll be dead soon, so I am making sure I analyze the mess he has made for over 65 years of slick ruling class capitalist propaganda...before he passes away. Out of Maatian respect for an elder.

He like Clarence Thomas, has done his share of dirt for the White far right wing Heritage Foundation and other far right-wing Nazi organizations that paid him. He was but a bird paid to sing, yet another Black empty wagon rattling down an empty dirt road making noise by say nothing of substance. Once you peel things back, these are elementary school lightweight hired negroes just trying to pay their bills from the very Nazi Whites systematically impoverishing Blacks since slavery. Intellectual arsonists for these parasitic Whites, starting fires and blaming the Black populations they burned up in the the flames.

Our problem as a people is our overall low level of capacity to think critically. So lightweight Black stoolpigeons like these two, Sowell and Thomas, can essentially run rings around most of our people by just talking mess with big words amplified with the Whiteman's international mass media. The moment you hear these windbag negroes of the far right wing Heritage Foundation are speaking on something or publishing something, you should automatically know the White Nazi garbage that will come out of their mouths. They are on the payroll. They are ignorant slick-talking mindless tools, effectively bought and paid for. They have zero independence of thought. If they deviate fundamentally from the Whiteman's right-wing script, their jobs and pay ends. But why fault them for being the degenerate enslavers mouth pieces they have been since these enslavers used chattel slavery to build the White capitalist system in the beginning?

Even in the progressive community of Blacks the standards are just too damn low because most opposition Blacks are trying to be capitalists to get wealthy just like the Whiteman. So they, in their usual infantile way, just straddle the fence, tap-dancing around thinking they are going unnoticed. Foolishly deluded that they are some how independent. Playing both sides. As a result, these Black miscreants serving the far right Whites should have been intellectually crushed years ago. For decades these Black propagandists for Nazi Whites have had free road to just slander our poorest for their poverty when they were systematically made impoverished by this parasitic capitalist economy these Whites created for their own benefit.

We explained this in detail in our newest research Fundamentals of Economics (2027, 900 pages). Below is a summary of the infantile right-wing rhetoric Thomas Sowell has propagated for over a half century.

ANALYSIS

The central error in the conservative economic interpretation associated with Thomas Sowell is that it treats social outcomes primarily as the cumulative result of culture, incentives, and individual behavioral patterns while systematically underestimating the historical construction of unequal material conditions. This framework often abstracts present-day economic behavior from the long development of murderous White genocidal conquest, 300+ years of enslavement, land theft and dispossession, deliberate labor stratification, imperialist colonial extraction and outright theft, 100 years of direct segregation, deindustrialization, and state-directed capital accumulation that shaped modern racial class structures. As a result, disparities are frequently interpreted as evidence of dysfunctional values or dependency rather than as the predictable outcome of historically produced differences in ownership, infrastructure, political power, education access, labor-market positioning, and wealth transmission.

A major weakness in Sowell's approach is its tendency to isolate “free market” outcomes from the state structures that created and maintained them. The modern capitalist economy in the United States was never a neutral competitive field. Northern industrialization, railroad expansion, suburbanization, banking growth, agricultural development, and university formation were all heavily subsidized through state intervention, land grants, military expansion, exclusionary labor laws, racially restrictive housing policy, and infrastructure spending. And before that genocidal chattel slavery of Blacks by these rotten Whites and their predatory economic and land stealing government.

Black populations were historically excluded from many of these state-supported wealth accumulation systems---of which Whites overwhelmingly benefited from. Therefore, arguing that contemporary inequality merely reflects differences in "decision-making" ignores the fact that entire racial populations entered the modern economy with radically unequal access to capital, land, credit, and protected labor markets. These rotten Whites monopolized wealth accumulation solely for Whites. They still do, by and large.

Sowell's childish and silly interpretation of Black unemployment particularly suffers from this narrow causal lens. The argument that welfare programs or minimum wage laws produced Black unemployment reduces a complex structural process to a simplistic incentive hypothesis. Black unemployment expanded dramatically during periods of automation, deindustrialization, union decline, suburban capital flight, urban disinvestment, discriminatory hiring, and the relocation of manufacturing overseas. Entire Black working-class urban communities had been integrated into industrial labor markets during the mid-20th century, only to be devastated when industrial capital abandoned cities in search of cheaper labor and higher profit margins. The destruction of manufacturing employment removed stable wage structures that had previously absorbed semi-skilled labor. This collapse cannot be adequately explained by welfare incentives alone because the disappearance of jobs preceded or outweighed many behavioral explanations.

Furthermore, the conservative claim that government assistance weakened Black work ethic often reverses causality, inverting logic in an essentially infantileattempt to blame the victims. Welfare expansion was itself a response to structural unemployment, low wages, urban poverty, housing segregation, and labor exclusion. Assistance programs did not create mass poverty; rather, mass poverty created pressure for social assistance. Even where dependency effects existed, they operated within an economic environment already characterized by insufficient employment opportunities, weak public investment, unequal schools, and racialized labor segmentation. The deeper issue was not merely whether aid existed, but why 10s of millions of Black and other people required aid in the wealthiest capitalist economy in history. Simply asking Sowell this question would have forced him out of his lazy childish mess.

The treatment of food stamps and social programs also tends to ignore how capitalism structurally produces surplus populations during technological change and labor restructuring. Modern economies continuously generate underemployment through mechanization/AI/robotization, productivity increases, and capital concentration---the wealth for a few increase and poverty for many increases. Social welfare systems emerged partly to stabilize consumption, sell goods that could not be sould profitably, prevent resulting unrest, and preserve market order under conditions where the labor market alone could not guarantee survival. To portray welfare recipients as the primary source of economic dysfunction ignores the far larger structural processes of speculative finance, monopolization, wage suppression, tax policy favoring capital, and declining labor bargaining power. Our dumbest negroes calling themselves conservative fall for this elementary school argument all of the time.

The critique of civil rights legislation similarly contains serious contradictions. Here the stupid Sowell argument that anti-discrimination laws interfered with voluntary exchange assumes markets naturally punish irrational discrimination. Historically, however, racial exclusion was not merely individual prejudice but an organized White predatory economic system enforced through law, violence, custom, labor unions, banks, real estate markets, insurance systems, and state institutions. Segregation persisted for generations precisely because markets often accommodated profitable discrimination rather than eliminating it. In many regions, employers, landlords, and businesses collectively benefited from maintaining a cheap and politically weak racial labor force. Without state intervention, these systems had little internal incentive to disappear.

The criticism of affirmative action also often treats competition as occurring on a historically level playing field. Yet access to wealth, educational quality, inheritance, professional networks, neighborhood safety, and political influence are cumulative and intergenerational. A society cannot legally exclude Black populations from asset accumulation for centuries and then expect “meritocratic” equality immediately after a few formal barriers are removed. Economic inequality reproduces itself materially across generations through property ownership, social capital, school funding, and access to investment. Ignoring these inherited structural inequalities leads to an overly individualistic reading of success and failure.

Another major flaw is the tendency to selectively interpret immigrant success stories as proof that systemic barriers are insignificant. These immigrants were purposely/deliberately set up in Black communities---liquor stores, gas stations, hair and weave shops, pawn shops. Tax friendly profit enterprise zones are set up for them throughout the country.

Different groups entered the United States under radically different historical conditions. Many immigrant populations arrived voluntarily, often after exclusionary immigration systems filtered for education, skills, or capital. Descendants of enslaved populations emerged from centuries of uncompensated labor, racial terror, political exclusion, educational suppression, land theft, and targeted segregation within the same national economy. These are materially distinct historical trajectories---and as slick as Sowell and others are, they know this. Comparing groups without accounting for these structural differences obscures the specific economic legacy of racial slavery and segregation.

The conservative framework also tends to underestimate the role of wealth versus income. Even when Black incomes rose substantially after the civil rights era, wealth inequality remained extreme because wealth accumulates intergenerationally through property, inheritance, business ownership, and investment access. Housing discrimination, redlining, exclusion from New Deal programs, unequal GI Bill implementation, and banking discrimination severely limited Black asset accumulation during the very decades when white middle-class wealth expanded most rapidly.

Thus, focusing narrowly on behavior or income statistics without examining wealth structures produces incomplete conclusions.

His treatment of Black business development similarly overlooks structural barriers in credit markets, procurement access, insurance, transportation, commercial zoning, and capital formation. Historically, Black businesses often operated within segregated economies lacking access to mainstream banking and investment networks. Integration alone did not automatically create equal market power because large corporations possessed economies of scale, distribution networks, advertising advantages, and access to finance that smaller Black-owned enterprises often lacked. Government assistance programs sometimes failed, but the deeper issue was that Black enterprise existed within an uneven capitalist structure shaped by concentrated capital ownership.

Finally, the broader ideological limitation of this conservative analysis is that it often treats capitalism as fundamentally neutral and self-correcting while locating dysfunction primarily in state intervention or culture. Yet modern capitalist development has repeatedly depended on coercion, imperial expansion, racial stratification, cheap labor systems, land seizure, and uneven development. Racial inequality in the United States was not external to capitalism; it was historically integrated into its labor organization, agricultural expansion, industrialization, housing markets, and financial systems.

Therefore, many of the social crises affecting Black communities—unemployment, homelessness, underfunded schools, mass incarceration, unstable housing, and concentrated poverty—cannot be fully understood as moral or behavioral failures detached from the material organization of the economy itself.

Again. Get up to speed...Sowell is now just another senile has-been tool of the lowest element of White Nazi ideological thought. Soon to be buried literally and figuratively."

End of article.

The derivation or meaning of names like "Tdka" is unknown to me. I see them around a nowadays and I'm sure they mean something. Maybe I'll ask an LLM.

35 minutes ago, aka Contrarian said:

Again. Get up to speed...Sowell is now just another senile has-been tool of the lowest element of White Nazi ideological thought. Soon to be buried literally and figuratively."

From my seat, anyone in 2026, actively working to enrich Mark Zuckerberg can't justify being so critical of a Sowell (one in a glass house... )

That is not to say that I disagree with the critique, I just don't know why any Brother is freely giving long form analysis to Facebook. We already learned this lesson.

I looked for the book, Fundamentals of Economics (2027, 900 pages), to add it to the site, but I could it. The only books by Tdka were on Amazon. Again, nevermind....

I'm glad you shared it here @aka Contrarian

@Troy Well, former AALBC contributer. Linda Chavez, was who posted the article on FB. All these articles I re-post here have been posted there by just regular people who found them interesting, like me.

One of the people who "liked" the article was another former regular here, "a woman".

And just for the record. that quote that you attributed to "aka contrarian" was not my words. That was still tdka speaking.

3 hours ago, aka Contrarian said:

And just for the record. that quote that you attributed to "aka contrarian" was not my words. That was still tdka speaking.

Yes, I know, but the software can't tell the difference.

@a_womon another blast from the past.