Posts Tagged ‘detroit’

Detroiting And The Meta-Ferguson Effect

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

Detroiting occurs when a city has a majority of non-white voters. It does not matter which race they are, so long as they are non-white. It even occurs when a former majority of Western Europeans loses the demographic majority to a group of other European-descended people, like Irish, Eastern or Southern Europeans.

When a majority loses control of a city like this, a revenge pathology plays out. The new majority does not succeed as much as the old majority did, and so they fall into scapegoating the old majority for their problems, which conveniently justifies taxing the heck out of the remnants of that old majority.

Whether the mayor of that city is of the old majority or new majority matters little. The votes determine who wins, and so winners pander to the new majority, which wants government jobs with good benefits, welfare programs, diversity programs, and most of all, nothing to go to the old majority and its wealthy, ancient neighborhoods.

This pattern afflicted Detroit. After unions devastated Michigan, anyone with the ability to leave headed for the hills, looking for industries which were not ruined by worker greed. To keep the city thriving, government brought in new citizens, but those — whether legitimately or not — triggered white flight.

The city entered its death spiral. In order to keep the new majority happy, it raised taxes on the old majority, causing more of them to leave. This shorted revenues, and so the city raised taxes, eventually becoming a sea of hopeful faces looking for government help while the station wagons kept leaving for less unstable places.

Since that time, the city has endured minority rule. New majority voters — of whatever stripe — will never vote for what old majority people want, and instead, will always vote themselves more helpings of Other People’s Money (OPM), which old majority people will shrug off for a few years and then suddenly flee to the suburbs. Soon you have a third-world ruin of a destitute, bankrupt, and decaying city.

The more people flee, the more the city taxes and offers benefits to buy peace with its citizens, and then the more people flee.

Detroiting happens without a single African-American being present. It even happens in Asian communities, as in Houston, and is common in Hispanic communities. Some say it happened in Orthodox Jewish communities in New York. What this tells us is that detroiting is not the province of any specific racial group, but of racial difference. When a new majority rises, it draws everything it can from the old majority, so that it can get ahead on the wealth of the past, just like rich kids with inheritances.

It turns out that human behavior is fairly predictable after all.

When detroiting hits, most old majority people simply leave. To them, it is a business question: no matter how long their family has lived there, the civilization around them has failed on a local level, so they need to get on to another locality. They abandon the family home for pennies on the dollar, say goodbye to parks and churches, and flee to someplace else.

In the Boomer generation, people would often do this several times in the course of a career because there were many reasons why an old place had to be bailed out of. The big employer in town closed down, the military base moved, the freeway shifted, or a bunch of foreign ethnics moved in. They just shrugged and figured another good place got ruined, and moved on.

What stopped this mentality in 2016 was recognition of what we might call The Meta-Ferguson Effect. If you recall, the Ferguson Effect referred to what happened after a police officer shot a misbehaving felonious minority youth and after several days of riots and the police officer being fired, other police officers simply stopped noticing minority crime. If an arrest could end in a shooting, shatter their careers, make their names known worldwide in a negative light, and starve their families, there was no point risking it; let them eat each other.

The Meta-Ferguson Effect, on the other hand, refers to how people who are not police officers view what happened in Ferguson. When the police backed down, it signaled to the rest of us that any group of non-majority people can detroit any community by showing up, discovering “racism,” and driving out the majority people who want things like police patrols. This caused them to stop and think: if we spent three times as much as we did on our wars on eliminating poverty, set up massive anti-discrimination legal regimes including affirmative action, contorted our media to show minority people as the majority, struggled to make every aspect of our society multicultural (“diverse”), and elected two presidents — Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — on the promise that they would end the racial conflict, what would it take to stop the minority-majority conflict? They quickly realized that the answer was that there is no end to the conflict; it is Detroits all the way down.

Barack Obama was the turning point. He was elected in a misguided attempt to seal over the wounds of racial disharmony. Instead of fixing a problem, and letting normal life continue as majority people hoped, the election of Obama emboldened the racial grievances. “We’ve got them on the run now!” might express the attitude of professional race commentators, “identity politics” SJWs/SWPLs, and the ad hoc minority groups that form after a police shooting to protest injustice, or to demand more welfare and more political power. Obama was elected to end the outrage of minorities after an event like Hurricane Katrina, but instead, brought us seemingly endless Fergusons, with the dead minority person and ensuing three days of violent riots, looting, and burning becoming a national trope.

Majority people looked into the future and saw endless dhimmitude, or the state of being a conquered people subject to paying “tribute” to their new overlords. When well-meaning idiots declare every person to be equal so that they can overthrow the social hierarchy of their own civilization, this invites in those who have fewer illusions but may be even more stupid, and they will use that equality to construe themselves as victims and therefore, the majority as an oppressor, gaining access to the wealth and power of the civilization. You would think humans would have noticed this pattern repeats time and again, but the European-descended mercantile and lower castes apparently either were oblivious or did not care.

Very few people can understand that the problem is with diversity itself. It does not matter what the other groups are; they will behave this way because it is in their advantage to do so, and they are already at a disadvantage by being aliens in a civilization. No matter how much they “assimilate,” and only real idiots believe in assimilation which requires people to entirely give up their identity to serve the identity of a different group, they will always know that their people did not create this civilization, that it was not designed for them, and that they exist in it only to perpetuate it for the benefit of those not like them. They can have no pride in being mere tools of an empire which was never intended for them, and which uses them as means to its own ends.

Instead, fools spent their time arguing over which ethnic groups are permissible. “Oh, no, I like this one,” they say, with all of the wit of someone choosing an ironic shirt to wear because it makes them stand out in a group. This is all that altruism is, one monkey showing another that it has a shiny object that they do not possess, and therefore, it is a superior form of monkey. You can tell immediately who the useful people in a group are, and who the useless are, because the useful are focused on tasks or ideas, where the useless are focused on themselves and comparing themselves to others, including the base behavior of trend-following. They just want to be in the spotlight. They compete for attention. And they fear, more than anything else, any event which might make them look incompetent and therefore lose social status, so they demand that all standards be lowered to the absolute minimum.

When any two or more ethnic groups meet, a competition emerges. One group will rule the rest, and whoever is in that group is safe from being ruled by the rest. If one group seems to be permanently in power, the others adapt, but resentment grows. Soon they counter-attack with thousands of tiny acts of sabotage. This causes the majority to retaliate, and then out come the accusations of “oppression” and “racism.” Diversity is a dead end.

In our society, when Western Europeans are on top, you get Western Civilization; when another group is on top, they build their ancestral civilization. Mexicans make tropical chaos, Asians make frenetic hives, Africans make equatorial combat zones. This is nothing more than each group producing culture from its genetics; we each make whatever type of society fits us. These societies fit no one else, but this is to the advantage of each group, as it keeps itself from being assimilated this way. Humans have been capable of mass migration for thousands of years, and so any group that did not firmly and strongly assert its identity was quickly replaced with an ethnic hybrid of itself, which is essentially an act of genocide.

It was obvious that Mike Brown was guilty, but no one from outside the majority cared. The same was true of Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Trayvon Martin and Hurricane Carter. Just as in prison, your skin is your uniform. You either find your tribe and work toward their dominance or you will be dominated by others, and they will use you as a means to their own ends.

Detroiting Houston Led to The Great Flood of 2017

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

As Houston continues to welter in floodwaters, the postmortem begins, with many finding that growth without infrastructure growth created the groundwork for the floods brought on by Hurricane Harvey:

When the Brookings Institution ranked the prosperity growth of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, New Orleans came in dead last. (The ranking tracked changes in productivity, average annual wage, and living standards from 2010 to 2015.) Houston, by contrast, was second only to Silicon Valley. Houstonians don’t need to escape the area to build better lives. Theirs is a city of hope where ordinary people come to find jobs, buy houses, and live the middle-class dream.

…Only 17 percent of Houston area homeowners have flood insurance, and federal disaster relief pays a pittance — capped at $33,000 and often much less — compared with the cost of rebuilding.

…Houston is on a flat coastal plain with clay soil that doesn’t absorb water easily. Pavement exacerbates the problem. The glib response is to decry “development” and advocate stricter regulations — to call for Houston to mimic the unaffordable, anti-growth cities of the West Coast and Northeast.

Houston grew quickly because it offered affordable housing in contrast to the over-regulated areas on the coasts. In theory, as a city grows, it takes in more income and can then dedicated some of that to improved drainage, which in the case of Houston would involve a subterranean cistern leading out of the city, either to the Gulf of Mexico or an outlying area where the water could be stored, updating its 1940s reservoir system.

Unfortunately, that would be expensive, and Houston is broke.

Once upon a time, Houston had a reasonable system for getting rid of excess water, which was to channel it into large reservoirs and then drained those slowly into the bayous, shallow muddy rivers which lead into the gulf. But as Houston doubled in size thanks mostly to immigration — the city is 44.7% Hispanic, not counting the metro area — the reservoirs were forced to collect the runoff from more concrete-covered developments, land which deposits five times as much water as natural land.

This system worked for many years but cannot bear the water load of the new developments:

Houston has quietly become our fourth largest and fastest-growing city, due in large part to cheap housing. But the latter has come at an exorbitant cost to its safety. The swamps and wetlands that once characterized Houston’s hinterland have been replaced with strip malls and suburban tract homes.

Those landscapes once served as a natural flood protection system for the city. Research shows that, if they hadn’t been filled and developed, Harvey’s impact would have been lessened. Sam Brody and his colleagues at Texas A&M University in Galveston have been predicting an event like this for nearly a decade. That their work went unheeded by Texas policymakers should not be forgotten.

…For a lasting recovery, Houston will need to supplement whatever barrier system it builds with a broader, regional network of wetlands, retention ponds, and green infrastructure to restore the once-robust, natural flood protection lost to a half-century of urban sprawl.

Specifically, Houston’s reservoir system worked when the reservoirs were outside of the city and had nothing but open land beyond them, so that they could discharge into this land. This enabled Houston to survive numerous floods in the 1980s and 1990s, but as the city revived in the 1990s, rising demand for housing caused by immigrants from Mexico and people fleeing high-tax California caused the city to expand outward beyond the reservoirs.

Starting with Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, it became clear that Houston needed a new drainage system. But Democratic mayors Lee Brown, Bill White, Annise Parker and now Sylvester Turner have refused to act. To get elected in Houston, you need to please the minority vote, and they are not interested in saving the mostly-white communities which flooded during Harvey, but they are interested in more pensions and benefits, the burden of which has bankrupted the city.

Interestingly enough, the amount of water produced by Harvey was not that much greater than during previous floods:

The bayou is above it’s [sic] all-time peak of 61.2 feet and has hit 62.7 feet.

Currently the Left is pushing for the non-solution of making zoning the law in Houston, which has been famous a no-zoning city, but all that will do is raise the costs of housing and make government more powerful, which will benefit the same builders who have run the city for years as now they can exclude competition more easily. The real problem at this point is that Houston needs to install a drainage system with powerful pumps, long drainage canals or tunnels, and someplace to put that water which is removed from the city.

It has needed this since Allison made it clear that the new concrete explosion had amplified even smaller storms into disasters, so when facing a crisis like Harvey, the city has no chance to prevail. And yet, under the last sixteen years of Democrats, nothing has been done.

In this, we see a similar pattern to cities like Detroit and Chicago, where the minority swing vote has prevented necessary investment in infrastructure in order to pay for the social benefits favored by the Left. The city avoids investing in the future and therefore, is perpetually playing catch-up, with the result being urban decay.

The entire third world shows signs of this same problem. Short-term thinking has voters approving of more social benefits at the same time there is less money to pay for them, and the result is that these countries default and currency collapse occurs, ensuring perpetual poverty for all but a few who coincidentally often happen to work in government.

Houston shows us how this will play out in America: unable to pass the bills needed to fix infrastructure, despite an abundance of wealth, politicians will find themselves held hostage by the minority swing vote and thus, the only politicians who will run for office are those committed to ignoring long-term problems like floods of Biblical proportions, dooming those communities to collapse.

In the meantime, the people most affected by the flooding are those in the affluent white communities to the West and Southwest. This flooding was not caused by the storms, but by controlled release from the reservoirs. With floodwaters predicted to stay high for two weeks as the reservoirs drain, it is likely that many of the properties in those affluent communities will be worth a lot less, since they will either be teardowns or lose market value because of the certainty of future floods. This means that in addition to its current woes, Houston will experience a sudden crash in property taxes, which are based on property value.

Yet again we see how diversity never produces anything but dysfunction, because diversity is that paradoxical notion that competing groups can replace their individual interests with the intersection of their common interests, which is actually very little. Voters demand what benefits their group and screws the other groups, and in this case, the people who pay all the taxes in Houston found themselves rudely awakened by what minority-majority rule does to a formerly prosperous city.

What Destroyed American Cities

Wednesday, July 12th, 2017

From The Wall Street Journal, an analysis of how fear of racial violence has destroyed American cities:

The economists William Collins of Vanderbilt University and Robert Margo of Boston University argued in a 2004 paper that black job prospects have been harmed since the 1970s by a “riot effect” that dates to the previous decade. The effect is not only felt in the immediate aftermath but can linger for decades. The riots had “negative effects on blacks’ income and employment that were economically significant and that may have been larger in the long run (1960-1980) than in the short run (1960-1970),” they wrote. “After a riot, firms and residents might revise their expectations of the benefits, costs, and risks of locating in or near a particular central-city neighborhood even if they were not directly affected by the riot.” In other words, Detroit and Chicago and other cities didn’t riot after the factory jobs left. The riots came first.

Wandering around the neighborhood today, I found that African-Americans were quite pleasant but there was massive passive hostility from Hispanics. Which group is closest to losing its place at the American table?

Democracy specializes in denying reality because most people want to believe reality is not real and they can focus on their own drama instead of paying attention to their world. In reality, diversity never works. Each group has a self-interest that includes self-determination, and that requires subjugating all other groups.

As a result, Africans riot; Mexicans steal; Asians cheat on taxes; Irish people form machine politics; Italians join mafias; Jews go Communist. Each group recognizes that it is not the majority and begins working so that it can overthrow that dominate group, or at least subvert it, because that gets the minority group closer to have control of territory.

There is no future for the USA. The mistake was made long ago to import diversity, both white diversity and racial diversity, and this has created a tense standoff where each group is at the throats of all others. There is no escape from this condition; one group must win, and everyone else will be destroyed, in turn destroying the “winner” as they are absorbed into it and genetically obliterate it.

Typical democracy experience.

Escape From Detroit: The Collapse of America’s Black Metropolis by Paul Kersey

Thursday, May 24th, 2012

Escape From Detroit: The Collapse of America’s Black Metropolis
by Paul Kersey
374 pages, SBPDL Books, $12

We last checked in with Paul Kersey with his earlier book Hollywood in Blackface, an exploration of the radically different realities of race in movies, and in the physical world. For his next venture, he has launched an exhaustively-researched inspection of the inward collapse of Detroit, MI.

Whether Kersey is right or not distills to a question of root causes. Many of us would argue that the cause of Detroit’s decline was abandonment by the middle class, which is inevitable once a mania for democratic equality becomes the norm, because democratic states focus on their poorest and least productive at the expense of the most productive in order to prove efforts are being made to enforce equality. A symptom of this, however, is a tendency to focus on ethnic minorities and civil rights at the expense of all other topics. This is a social conceit, not a political one; it’s popular to pity. The result is a tendency to favor the underdog at the expense of others, effectively bleeding a society dry for political objectives just as surely as the Soviets did before their collapse.

This may be the root cause, but in the meantime, Kersey asserts that the intermediate cause was racial strife — and he has the evidence to back it up. White middle class flight occurred only after the race riots of July 1967 which were the worst race riots in American history. Further, other factors do not adequately explain white flight. Conventionally, proponents of integration have blamed the collapse of the auto industry. However, this occurred in the 1970s and the exodus began immediately after the 1967 riots. Further, the suburbs showed no decline from the auto industry fallout; people simply found other jobs. While economic woes may be a contributing cause during the 1970s, the exodus started in the relatively prosperous late 1960s and was part of a larger pattern in which the white middle class moved out of the city for the suburbs as urban violence rose. After the riots, however, whites began to abandon the city wholesale.

Even more importantly, as this book points out time and again, for whatever reason that the white middle class left the city, the city then became ruled by African-American leaders for the African-American majority. This point is perhaps the most important one this book makes. If Kersey has time to do more analysis for a second version of this book, it would behoove him to include an economic history of the auto industry in Detroit to debunk this correlation that is often trumpeted as causation for Detroit’s decline. His analysis of black leadership may be more important, in that he shows how African-American poverty was not alleviated by African-American leadership:

Young was quoted as telling Rose in Detroit’s Agony:

In this country, Black people are victims of racism. It’s not accidental that cities around the nation that have the largest percentage of Blacks, have the largest percentage of poverty, have the largest percentage of crime, and the largest percentage of unemployment.

Immediately after making this assertion (which is true, because once a city goes majority Black, the Visible Black Hand of Economics takes over), Rose points out:

But in Detroit, Blacks aren’t just the majority. They’re the authority. They run the police, the courts, the schools, and city hall. But Black political power has not meant Black economic prosperity.


This paradox underscores much of the book. If white rule was oppressive, removing that white rule would alleviate the problem, we think. Clearly it has not, and Kersey will give any thinker a run for their money because his analysis of this gap is diligent and thorough. The evidence is overwhelming: since the advent of white flight and African-American government, we haven’t heard much from Detroit. The city is known worldwide for “ruin porn,” or photographs of its once-grand buildings and homes now in decay. Most people find such images depressing because they show abundant potential put to waste.

Kersey draws a distinction between Black-Run America (BRA) or the liberal plan for wealth transfer to poor black Americans at the expense of everyone else, and Actual Black-Run America (ABRA) which he uses to describe the leadership in Detroit and thus to illustrate the negative future offered if BRA succeeds. His thesis seems to be that African-Americans are incapable of self-government, and that a liberal plan to introduce Black-Run America will thus introduce Detroit levels of destruction across the United States. This idea contradicts the notion that most Americans are applying to race, which are expressed most clearly in the Kerner Report (253). This report, like most mainstream news sources and government, argues that since people are equal, the only source of African-American poverty is white racism. Further, the thinking goes, the solution is to spend large amounts of money on “Great Society” styled programs designed to bring equality to people through welfare, education and empowerment programs.

To defeat this mythos, which has the power of being an emotionally-satisfying and clear “easy” answer, Kersey digs deeply into the news articles and books about Detroit’s failings. His strength is as a researcher and contraster of ideas, and most of his arguments do not directly attack dominant paradigms but rather undermine them with clearly contradictory data and then explore those topics like tunnels through the vast mound of information on Detroit. At the end of those tunnels, he finds information that suggests a different truth, and emphasizes it by incorporating it into his narrative of the white middle class versus BRA and its advocates.

Much like the articles on this blog, Kersey is fond of quoting whole sections from his sources, and then explaining them in depth like a sociological analysis from primary sources. This fits right in with the funereal tone of this book as it presides over the decline of “The Paris of the West,” and allows him to approach it as an archaeologist trying to uncover the reasons for the failing of a once-great civilization. His sources often do the best explaining for him, through their inability to address certain possibilities or provide reasons for the decline; Kersey fills in for them using other sources, showing a truth emerging from reading between the lines and correlating similar data from different sources to provide a full picture of events.

In the 1960s, Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs) like Mayor Jerry Cavanaugh thought that massive spending programs — redistribution of wealth — could maintain a steady peace between the white and black populations of the city. These dreams would spectacularly end in late July 1967 when Black people rioted, but the rest of the nation still clings to the belief that the government can redistribute money to the Black community to maintain the peace. (181)

The writing is compelling with strong and clear topic sentences, formidably readable explanations, and a refusal to drift off-course and ramble. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the copy-editing of this book, which is a bit rough at times and undermines his message. However, as these are blog posts gathered up and republished, it’s understandable that some errors would creep in since blog posts usually happen after work, during dinner, while phones and family members scream, at least for most bloggers. If SBPDL re-editions this book, it could use a rigorous edit to bring out its true power. As it is, the book is a joy to read that zips right along without running the reader into any incoherent parts. It doggedly stays on top of its argument, and owing to its nature as a collection of essays, is redundant, but without losing sight of what it is expressing. The effect here is like layers of an onion, in which each essay provides more clarity on what the previous one expressed.

As a good nationalist, I think Kersey has made a monumental effort here and has most likely identified the proximate cause of Detroit’s downfall, but there is more to the story. Whether African-descended people are capable of self-rule here or in Africa or not is not the question; the real question is, can diversity exist without destroying both the host (majority) and guest (minority) populations? History and current events show us that wherever diversity is tried, no matter what the ingredients, one population ends up impoverished and angry and the other population ends up in the role of perpetual giver, or being those from whom wealth is redistributed. Detroit shows us a valiant effort at making a city diverse and how, because diversity fosters distrust as Robert D. Putnam’s research shows, that valiant effort is doomed to failure because the resulting distrust creates blame, which in turn creates victimization, which in turn creates retribution through crime by the minority and abusive authority by the majority. This pattern repeats time and again even when both groups are white. African-descendend peoples, who evolved to adapt to an environment and social climate that did not emphasize rule-based civilizations, may also have additional challenges, but these are somewhat academic since diversity itself will undermine African-American self-rule and/or white stewardship.

It is important that these contextual musings come secondary to what Kersey so eloquently expresses in this book. When the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote about freedom of speech, this was the kind of book they had in mind. Speech that is universally praised or is inoffensive does not need protection; radical theses that undermine the wrong but popular ways in which we construct our society, on the other hand, not only need protection but require us to be extra-vigilant in promoting and analyzing theme. Whatever we think of the ultimate cause of Detroit’s decline, Escape From Detroit shatters the possibility of the convenient fairy tales we tell ourselves, and shames us into searching more diligently for the actual cause. In that it is a triumph and for those who can think outside of the government-media-populist narrative, one of the major book events of this year.

Recommended Reading