Liberal White’s “White Knighting?”

Integration?

Sondjata over at Garvey’s Ghost had a interesting blog post in response to an article on The Hill about Obama’s bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods by placing affordable housing in them. I largely agreed with Sondjata’s perspective. But thought I would note how they largely omitted race from the article, despite it being the obvious elephant in that particular room.
I see this as a clear attempt at social engineering of the worst sort. Forcing unlike people to live among each other because of Utopian ideals and feel good rhetoric. But the most insidious part of this is of course is that it promotes idea that Blacks need white saviors and if Blacks aren’t somehow allowed to be in the general vicinity of thee great white man, Blacks are doomed to failure. Forced integration was and is still bad policy. It has created a racket for despicable opportunist and has created little to no actual opportunities.
 The administration could take many other routes towards the goal of increasing mobility in these communities. Promoting self determination is as many areas of life as one can, so discrimination isn’t particularity relevant, is a major one. They could attack the deficiencies with in our culture that causes us to have children in unfortunate circumstances, they could fight the underlying causes that lead us to kill each other with astonishing frequency. They could certainly do what I prefer,  and that’s too simply leave us alone to figure out our own problems. If we deserve to prosper we shall if not we’ll fail on our own ten toes. A much more honorable way and one that allows us to keep our identity.

So I’m reading this piece about “diversifying” wealthy neighborhoods where I found the following:

“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.

Maybe that’s because that’s where the people that can afford it live. Wealthy neighborhoods don’t need “affordable housing” cause they can already afford the housing that is there.

The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”

There’s that garbage concept again.

“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.” [my underlines]

You know what? I’d like to live in Alpine NJ. Maybe a house overlooking the Hudson. No. I want to have a house in the Hamptons. Oh wait. I don’t have enough money. But I WANT to live there!!! Let me get the government to make them build a house I can afford in those places.0.0 Look. News for the cry babies out there. You don’t get to live where you WANT to live. You get to live where you can afford to live. That said, let me be clear that I am for rent stabilized places. I am for building places that are affordable for people who are not making 6 figure salaries.

“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.

So long as there are people who make more than other people, there will be “unequal neighborhoods”. That’s a fact of “free enterprise”. Secondly the vast majority of people want and like to live around people who are of the same racial and ethnic backgrounds as them. Why is this a problem? Those who WANT to live in highly mixed neighborhoods find and move into such neighborhoods.

Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.

Well there are a few things here. First the “violence and crime”. Who is committing all this “violence and crime”? Wouldn’t that be the other people in those communities? It certainly isn’t people coming in from the wealthy neighborhoods deciding to take a trip “slumming” and shooting and robbing the residents for fun. So why not point out that it is the very residents who are creating this violent and criminal environment? And furthermore why not realize and say that the reason that there isn’t “affordable housing” in these wealthy areas is specifically to keep those persons prone to “violence and crime” OUT of their neighborhoods so that they do not become subject to “violence and crime”.

“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.

Segregation has been legally dead for decades. Negroes who can afford it can live just about anywhere they want. Restrictive covenants are illegal. Why is this person talking about segregation like it’s the 1950s?”

9 thoughts on “Liberal White’s “White Knighting?”

  1. OT, but I’m curious: what is the beverage in the picture? Milk with crushed Oreos in it?

    Whatever it is, it’s certainly not much of a mixture, as the dark brown bits aren’t staying suspended, distributed evenly throughout the milk, but are mostly sinking to the bottom.

    Which perhaps is your point.

    Things that aren’t alike enough can’t be evenly mixed…

  2. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/06/14) | The Reactivity Place

  3. Pingback: Father Knows Best: First Weekend of Summer Edition | Patriactionary

  4. “Why is this person talking about segregation like it’s the 1950s?”

    Because this isn’t about “segregation”. It is about white genocide. This is about destroying everything whites have built and their heritage. This includes whites themselves. This is why diversity only means less whites. No black or Asian areas are said to need more diversity. No one ever suggests shipping in more whites.

    • In Europe and maybe worldwide I can imagine you have a stronger point. American Blacks have low birth rates and make up a pretty small percentage of the nations population. We’d disappeared due to mixing much faster than American whites.

      • i think theres a lot of reason s including the previous commenter but its a bit subtler they are trying to break down our whiteness which is practically gone anyway growing up we were Irtish american italian american ,scotts irish many of us didnt even use the -american we were german english irish scandinavian if someone asked but people didnt have to ask it was written all over our faces we were a people that had come to live a better life in a big new country. Its like pulling teeth to get someone to admit what they really are although many of us are just as irish as ever. marxism cutural marxism wants atomized citizens desegregation will due this on many levels simultaneously you have read no doubt bowling alone.
        Another reason is whites dont vote racially since we have been shamed out of noticing our whiteness or that others notice their otherness and vote accordingly so about half of whites signal high status by voting democratic its the im an intellectual of nuanced moral party, and the other half votes republican also thinking they representing traditional american values and cheap labor for high stock prices. anyway 95% white republican districts are usually voting 54-46 republican or less so if you bring in 10% minorities that will reliably vote 100% democratic guess what happens.
        I suppose they also really think this will work this time to civilize the black underclass why cant they remember how this keeps turning out? because part of the machinations is the perpetual revolution every generation is told the same story about how bad the old days were and only undying loyalty to the party can save humanity its always 1859 or 1959.Dont forget whites that are that liberal only know blacks and black history from grad school and hollywood.You could drag out reams of statistics from jim crow of black marriage legitimacy and employment rates and youde just get that cow stare.
        Also they want the cities and coasts back. Some how they cant remember that these ghettos were once affluent white neighborhoods prized for proximity to downtown urban centers of commerce and culture as they lament the gentrification while they gentrify,but they get that they want them now and they want them without prole blacks cause well they cant even think it let alone say it but crime and general yuckiness.There big big money in this somewhere on the internet is a long expose about how the black church leaders in chicago conspired with the city fathers and i think goldman sachs to clear the ghettos out and the preachers made hundreds of millions by buying iy first then reselling at huge profits in return for political race cover.
        who knows maybe they are thinking about post collapse logistics as well
        certainly you have to realize its academia where this starts and if this is the fashion then it will be implemented, someone recently did an post about some social scientists noticed a trend in inner city crime diminishing but small town/city and rural crime increasing exponential, after some years of mapping this they got the idea to map the sect 8 vouchers and overlap oh oh they said there goes our careers exact match of course and the same thing happens as happened in affluent urban neighborhoods that whites leave followed by the talented tenth of blacks and voila another 90% black slum rinse repeat. wanna buy a cheap house in fergason?

  5. Pingback: Insight on how diversity is segregation

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s