Posted on March 18, 2022

Free Money! But Not for You, Whitey

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 18, 2022

You just pay for it.

This video is available on BitChute, Brighteon, Rumble, Gab TV, 3Speak, UGETube, and Odysee.

I’m going to let Nicole introduce this video. [0:00 – 0:14]

You do nothing, but every month you get free money to spend on anything you like. Do you qualify?

If you live in Birmingham, Alabama, you just missed the deadline. “Thousands apply for free monthly guaranteed income for single mothers in Birmingham.”

So you have to be a single mother or, as the fine print explains, a female-identifying head of household. Birmingham is 72 percent black, so my suspicion is that, as the racist photo in the article implies, the money is going to blacks. One hundred ten ladies will be chosen from among 8,000 applicants to get $375 a month for a year.

This is a pilot program. There is going to be a control group, and at the end of the year, there will be scientific analysis to show how much good was done. The money is from foundations, and the idea is that if private money worked wonders, your tax dollars will do the same.

Nicole in the video explains that there are more than 50 cities offering free money. Most of them claim to be pilot programs. Do we need 50 pilot programs?

The granddaddy pilot program is already finished. It was called SEED, which stands for Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which is trumpeted as a smashing success and is the inspiration for dozens of similar programs.

SEED started in February 2019 and gave 125 poor Stocktonians $500 a month for two years. It has a website full of stories from people who tell you how much they enjoyed the money.

SEED also put out a 25-page progress report after the first year, but it makes only one, factual statistical claim.

At the start of the first year, 28 percent of the SEED handout group had full-time jobs, but one year later, 40 percent did – a 12 percent gain. At the start, 32 percent of the control group had full-time jobs, and at the end of the year, 37 percent did. Just a 5 percent gain. An increase of 12 percent as opposed to an increase of 5 percent. The media have cited this repeatedly as proof that free money programs give people the financial leeway to look for jobs.

But I have questions. It has been already more than a year since the end of the second year of SEED, but no report. Why not? And why is the only reported outcome the number of people with full-time jobs? I’d like to know how many arrests. Admissions to drug clinics. Illegitimate births. Evictions. Foreclosures. SEED is silent.

Free-money programs have been tried before. From 1974 to 1979, the Canadian government tried to eliminate poverty in the town of Dauphin, Manitoba — population 8,000, 80 percent white — by writing checks to all the poor people.

After five years, the checks stopped coming, and poor people went back to living as they had. As this HuffPost article written more than 40 years later puts it: “A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty and Nearly Everyone Forgot About it.”

That’s because there wasn’t much to remember.

I tried to find scholarly analysis of programs like this, but there is not much out there. I finally found: “The results of Finland’s basic income experiment are in. Is it working?”

A test group got the equivalent of $600 a month and the control group got nothing. But here, too, the results aren’t in terms of actual outcomes, but about how people felt, for heaven’s sake. For example, here is a graph for a sense of financial wellbeing.

Handout group blue; control group red. The handout group says it felt better off – but not by much. Again, as in SEED in Stockton, the idea was that giving poor people money would encourage them to get jobs, but the free money had no such effect at all. I’m not sure why giving people money is supposed to make them get jobs, but that’s the theory.

Now, I will make a prediction. Even if these pilot programs are complete failures, it won’t make a bit of difference. When people are determined to give money away, they don’t care about data.

Take Head Start. As its Wikipedia page explains, it’s supposed to give “comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and families.”

It’s supposed to give poor, non-white children the pre-school boost they need to be at the white, middle-class level when they start school. That’s been the theory for nearly 60 years. Here is First Lady Ladybird Johnson dishing out head starts in 1966.

Well, Head Start is a bust. Sometimes there is a slight benefit while children are in it, but that doesn’t last. Ten years ago, there was a huge, meta-meta analysis of all studies, and it gave rise to headlines like this: “Head Start Earns an F: No Lasting Impact for Children by First Grade.”

By first grade, Head Start might was well never have happened. Doesn’t matter. This year’s budget for Head Start is up $135 million from last year to $11 billion.

Here is a brand-new study in Developmental Psychology on the effects of a large-scale, state-supported pre-K program.

The 3,000 children who went to pre-K got worse test scores in grade school than the ones who didn’t go, and they had more discipline problems. Is anyone listening? No. Democrats are still pushing universal preschool, which would cost $109 billion more over the next 10 years.

And that’s why all this jabber about “pilot programs” and “control groups” is rubbish. They’re just excuses to give money to preferred group. Sometimes, there’s no hiding it: “Georgia guaranteed income program to provide hundreds of low-income black women up to $850 monthly.”

If you’re white you can’t even apply. And this headline, “Oakland launches guaranteed pay plan for low-income people,” takes you to a story that explains it’s open only to BIPOCs.

It’s open to illegal immigrants, too, but white people? Forget it. And when we learn that “800 Compton residents to get guaranteed income in two-year pilot program,” since Compton is only 2 percent white – yes, just 2 percent – white people won’t get that money.

Here’s the program’s home page.

Note the fists in the upper right corner.

A few whites might worm their way in to some programs. Last year, San Francisco announced it would choose 130 artists – whatever they are – to get $1,000 a month, but with a concentration on “our BIPOC, immigrant, disabled, and LGBTQ+ artist communities.”

Who got left out? And just last month, New York State said it would pay $1,000 a month to 2,400 artists – but only for “communities that are historically underserved.”

We know who they are.

West Hollywood is bragging it’s going to “Test Impact of Cash Payments on the Financial Stability of LGBTQIA Older Adults.”

Free money, but only for aging homosexuals. By the way, how do you prove you’re LGBTQIA?

But let’s end where we began, with Nicole. Do you see that happy, normal-looking white woman behind her with a handful of money?

It’s a con. That money is not for you, white people. Half the time, they’re open about it. Beat it, whitey. The rest of the time, they just rig the game to keep you out.

This is illegal, but the law never stops our rulers when they decide to ring the dinner gong for their preferred groups.

Why do we put up with this? And how much farther do you think they’ll go? If we wait and find out, it will only be our own fault.