One of the consequences of mass black immigration to white areas in America has been a phenomenon referred to as white flight. What this means is that as more and more blacks move into an area (usually inner cities), the whites who lived there originally start fleeing to suburban or country areas. For some reason or reasons unexplained, they’d much rather leave these areas to live in areas with a greater white majority. The elites who run things try to pass it off as being due to racism, that all these white people are simply consumed by irrational hatred for non-white skin tones, which causes them to flee for no actual logical reason.
By pure coincidence, these formerly 100% white areas, always start to see a rise in crime, a drop in living standards, a drop in real estate value, and a general decline in all avenues, as the ratio of whites to blacks decreases. This defies all logic and explanation. As all human beings are all 100% equal in every way (according to our elites who would never dream of lying to us), this couldn’t possibly be the fault of the new inhabitants. You see, the white people who flee these areas as diversity takes hold, will often use these reasons as excuses for doing so. We are of course expected to think that this all just lies. The logic we are supposed to accept (the politically correct logic) is that these whites just flee from areas with lots of blacks because they look different, and that any seemingly logical and verifiable reasons that they give such as high crime rates are just arbitrarily used later as excuses to justify the real reason. We’re supposed to believe that even if there was no rise in crime, no decline in living standards, no drop in real estate value, etc., that they’d still flee anyway, just because their new neighbours aren’t white. This logic is completely ridiculous.
We’re also supposed to accept the stupid idea that these areas simply decline by chance. It’s just a coincidence that the areas thrive just fine when inhabited by white people, but suddenly decline by random chance when this is no longer the case. I of course, think this is absolute bollocks. An area is a reflection of the people who live there. Crime is not some force of nature. If an area has a high rate of crime, it is because the people in that area are committing lots of crimes. If an area is an unkempt wasteland, with graffiti and rubbish everywhere, it’s because the people who live there and run it aren’t making any efforts to keep it tidy. If the people who live there are badly educated, and unemployable, it’s because they themselves either aren’t trying, or are simply incapable of bettering themselves.
This is especially true, in an area that actually once thrived. It’s one thing, to be forced to live in an area that was never thriving to begin with and therefore has no facilities, but if an area was once doing very well, and has been dragged down into the gutter, who do you blame? The people who made it successful in the first place, or the people who moved in, started causing trouble, thus scaring away those people who made it successful? Well of course, the politically correct media blames it all on the former.
I literally cannot understand how people cannot see the insanity of this. If we look around the world, we can see that white countries such as those in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all among the most prosperous in the world. Meanwhile, black countries such as those in Africa, and Haiti, are all third world hellholes. It’s even more obvious when you compare modern South Africa and Zimbabwe with Apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia. When those countries were run by their white minorities, they were the most prosperous on the continent. Everyone (black and white alike) enjoyed a much higher standard of living than anywhere else in Africa. Ever since the white minorities lost power, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, one of the worst run countries in the world, and South Africa, while still somewhat prosperous, has seen a significant decline in living standards.
However, we’re supposed to believe that this is all just pure coincidence, or if there is an actual cause, the cause is white racism. You see, even though I can guarantee that genuinely openly racist white people are extremely rare, we’re supposed to believe that they are in fact everywhere, and constantly plotting to cause suffering to black people for absolutely no reason.
The same effect that can be seen in South Africa and Zimbabwe happens on a smaller scale in black majority cities of white countries. These cities go from a European living standard to an African living standard, because the European people who built them are no longer there, and the African people who replace them are unable to maintain these standards. I know people are going to find that comment offensive but in all honesty, what’s the alternative explanation? I’ll even answer a few potential explanations, to save time.
1: The reason why African countries are so poor is because of colonialism.
My Response: Ireland was colonised too. We were also colonised for much longer than any African country, and we certainly suffered a lot during it. Large parts of Eastern Europe were colonised by the Ottoman Empire. Most of Asia was colonised. If colonialism is the reason for African living standards, why aren’t Ireland, Eastern Europe, and former Asian colonies like Africa?
2: America has too much racism from whites to non-whites. That’s why black people are so poor and so often turn to crime. It’s the same with Hispanic people as well.
My Response: If American whites are holding back non-white citizens so much (despite the existence of affirmative action) then why are Asians so successful in America? Not only are they able to compete with whites, but they often surpass them in terms of success. Surely white racists would hold back Asian people as well…right?
3: In America, blacks are still suffering the ill effects of slavery. Their descendants still haven’t shaken off the legacy of that time.
My Response: All races kept slaves at some point or another throughout history. The Arab slave trade saw the enslavement of significantly more black people than the Atlantic slave trade did. It also saw the enslavement of plenty of white people. I see nobody complaining about that today. Slavery in America ended about 150 years ago, and it was ended thanks to the efforts of good white people. The black slaves didn’t free themselves. When slavery did exist, there were white slaves as well, and yes, there were black slave owners such as William Ellison, so the idea that it was just whites exploiting blacks is a complete lie. I don’t see the descendants from Irish slaves still suffering from the legacy of slavery. It’s also historical fact, that Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade and owned many of the ships that brought them to America to begin with, but I don’t see Jews getting much blame for it, because that would be anti-semitic.
Even if you use the idea of slavery having lingering effects, how can you explain the Russian people? The vast majority of the Russian population were serfs (essentially slaves themselves) at one point, meaning that most modern Russians are descended from serfs. The serfs were only emancipated in 1861, just 4 years before the American civil war ended slavery in America. Why are modern Russians not suffering the same lingering effects as modern American blacks?
If anyone can think of another possible explanation that I’ve missed, please feel free to ask in the comment section, and I’ll address it there. Maybe there is another explanation, but I honestly think it’s just that African and European people have different ways of running societies, and this has happened and continues to happen the world over.
Anyway, that was a very long introduction. The whole reason I posted all this, was in response to this article that I read.
President Obama’s new suburban integration plan won’t just harm the middle class by reducing safety and property values. It won’t even provide the economic benefits it promises to relocated minorities.
We know this because HUD already tried a similar experiment under President Clinton of resettling urban poor in the suburbs. It failed, as a HUD study reveals.
From 1994 to 2008, HUD moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods. The 15-year experiment, dubbed “Moving to Opportunity Initiative,” or MTO, was based on the well-intentioned notion that relocating inner-city minorities to better neighborhoods would boost their employment and education prospects.
But adults for the most part did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.
The 287-page study sponsored by HUD found that adults who relocated outside the inner city using Section 8 housing vouchers did not avail themselves of better job opportunities in their new neighborhoods, and saw a “sizable negative impact on annual earnings.”
“Moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods does not appear to improve education outcomes, employment or earnings,” the study concluded.
Even then-senior HUD official Raphael Bostic, a black Obama appointee, admitted in a foreword to the 2011 study that families enrolled in the program had “no better educational, employment and income outcomes.”
Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods. “Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.
The same progressive prognostications we’re hearing now from Obama officials — that moving inner-city blacks closer to good jobs and schools will close “racial disparities” in employment and education — were made by Clinton social engineers back then.
Of course, even when reality mugs leftists, they never scrap their social theories. They just double down. Bostic insisted the problem was merely a matter of scale. “A more comprehensive approach is needed,” he said.
But the study’s authors doubted any better results from a larger or more aggressive relocation program that placed urban poor in even more affluent areas.
“The range of neighborhood variation induced by MTO is about as large as what we could possibly imagine any feasible housing policy achieving,” they argued.
Indeed, the ambitious social experiment involved more than 4,600 families from several major cities. No matter. The Obama regime wants to nationalize the experiment by relocating millions of people in more than 1,250 cities and towns until social engineers “eliminate racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.”
“We’re giving every person an equal chance to access quality housing near good schools, transportation and jobs no matter who they are (or) what they look like,” HUD chief Julian Castro said, unveiling sweeping new rules forcing cities to diversify suburbs by rezoning.
Expect the same failed results, but on a national scale.
So essentially, this just proves that forcing black people en masse into areas with lots of well off white people is of absolutely no benefit to these black people. They behave exactly the same as they did in the area that they came from, thus dragging the new area down to the level of that old area. This is why most black majority cities in America would essentially be African cities, if not for the federal government keeping them on life support. Who would have thought that?
They actually expected everyone to believe that an area changes the people, rather than the people changing the area. That somehow putting criminals into a nice area would turn them into nice people, rather than them turning the nice area into a crime ridden area. The fact that this ridiculous idea was tried before and they already saw that it failed proves that it isn’t being done for the reasons stated. They’ve seen the true effects, but they’re pushing ahead because the true effects are what they actually want. They don’t want to raise the living standards of poor blacks up to that of middle class whites. They want to drag the living standards of middle class whites down to that of poor blacks.
Again, if someone has an alternative explanation, and can back it up with evidence of some kind, then please feel free to share it with me. As it stands though, I can only call things as I see them, and that’s exactly what I’ve done.