Posts Tagged ‘detroiting’

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.

Diversity Never Works, Kate Steinle Edition

Friday, December 1st, 2017

Leftists — an alliance of neurotics and “drones,” or the plebs who resent those above them — wanted to transform America. With the acquittal of Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in the killing of Kate Steinle, we can see how vast this transformation has been.

The complexity of this case originates in the fact that Zarate did not directly shoot Steinle, and may not have specifically targeted her. He fired a gun wildly, and a ricochet zoomed up off the steel pier and hit Steinle in the back. She died two hours later at a hospital.

Prosecutors advanced the case under a theory of depraved indifference to human life, arguing that Zarate intended to harm someone and did so with full knowledge that death was possible if not likely. For most of us, firing a .40 caliber handgun wildly into a pier would bring about murder or manslaughter charges.

Zarate adds a wrinkle in that he was either insane or so overcome with resentment for the happy people around him that he wanted to harm any one of them, randomly. He picked up a stolen handgun and fired it wildly, but not so wildly that he was not certain to harm or kill someone on that pier:

In closing arguments last Monday, Deputy District Attorney Diana Garcia told jurors Zarate deliberately shot a stolen gun towards Steinle while “playing his own secret version of Russian roulette.”

She also cited testimony from one witness who said the 54-year-old appeared to be smiling or laughing to himself as evidence that he had decided in advance to shoot someone.

…The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident.

Zarate proves a troubling case because he clearly has a low intelligence and has demonstrated in the past a proclivity for behaviors that we associate with the insane. He was already a felon, and had most recently been arrested for selling marijuana, a drug often favored by the insane.

If we dig a little deeper, the real story emerges with a question of policy. Who was the killer here, the insane man who was so overcome with hatred that he fired wildly into a crowd, or the government that has defended and protected him because he is a symbol of the political transformation the Left wants for America?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions alluded to this with his statements about the acquittal:

“San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle,” he said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens. I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

He gets closer to the actual issue: Kate Steinle was murdered by the neglect of her government, a jury who chose to ignore callous disregard for human life, and the voters who chose to make this a political issue rather than a practical one.

In practical terms, someone who has been deported five times and has a long rap sheet that includes violent crime should be kept apart from the innocent normal people that people like him prey on. However, San Francisco wanted to make a point, and for Leftists — who are driven by a manic compulsion to achieve equality at all costs — this was a worthwhile sacrifice.

The city was aided by the jury, which decided to opt for a narrow interpretation of the law instead of finding at least a manslaughter charge for someone who fired wildly into a crowd. Consider another case where someone fired into a crowd with intent to injure or kill.

Zarate is being used as a symbolic resistance to any attitude toward our borders except to keep them fully open. San Francisco proudly proclaimed itself a “sanctuary city,” or one in which law enforcement is prohibited from enforcing or even asking about immigration status. This set up the conditions for both Steinle’s murder and Zarate’s acquittal:

I think that the larger issue is not whether the jury gave the Steinle family the finger in an apparent attempt to “resist Trump”, it is the fact that her killing could and should have been prevented. We know that his convicted felon had been deported no less than 5 times. We know that the agencies charged with enforcing the laws of the land acted to protect a known felon and illegal migrant from further deportation. We know that the state of California and the city of San Fransisco conspired to protect this felon. THIS is the real problem.

…Where are the RICO charges? Why are these cities and states still getting federal money? It’s easy to point at the jury. It’s even easy to point to the officials in the city and state but ultimately it is the failure of the big dogs in Washington, you know, the ones who put troops on the ground to get desegregation done, to put the smack down on these cities and states that is the real problem.

While the federal government could act on this and still might, the bigger problem is the people of California. The voters approve of sanctuary cities; the juries will not convict non-whites; even the prosecutors may be doing a poor quality job in order to keep their own people out of jail.

This tells us that “detroiting” is not a question of institutions, but of the citizens. We know that diversity never works because each group maintains its own sense of self-interest while pretending to go along with the universalist diversity agenda, but once it has a chance for power, uses that power to assert its dominance over all others.

In California, as in Detroit, the majority are non-white, and so they vote against white interests. Whether this is acquitting Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, or letting Zarate walk despite his clear intention to kill, it shows that each group votes in its own interest. For whites, this is protection of law and order; for other groups, it is dominating all other groups, including whites, which means that law and order must become means to that end.

The O.J. Simpson verdict told us this two decades ago: every ethnic group works toward its own interest. These interests do not overlap. Courts, media, and government itself will be used as tools to achieve this end goal. Demographics determines outcomes, and in minority-majority areas, white people will always be discriminated against.

Even more, minority ethnic groups will war with each other. The L.A. Riots showed us how African-Americans, Hispanics, Koreans, and whites all clashed on the streets as social order disappears. When minority-majority groups control the police force, no matter how many rules are written, the police will ignore other ethnic groups.

Take the example of Houston, Texas. Since the Hispanic immigration boom began in the 1980s, the city has had nothing but Democrat politicians and increasingly Leftist policy. Whites either content themselves with spitting into the wind, knowing that their votes will never count, or rationalize the issue and become Leftists in order to feel good about the direction their city is taking.

San Francisco represents our future. A detroited city will only benefit those with the money to escape government entirely. Citizens are either rich enough to live in areas with private patrols, gated communities, and high rises with security forces, with private cars to take them to work and elite shopping areas with their own private security, or they live among the endless increasingly favela-ish neighborhoods filled with homeless people, criminal gang activity, ethnic warfare, escaped mental patients, and immigrant violence. Life is binary: you have either bought your way out of government, and then you pay the taxes that fund the 47% who contribute nothing, or you live in a crumbling third world society with no hope of escape.

Apparently, this is what the Left meant by “transformation” of America. They told us back in the 1980s that immigrants were natural conservatives who would adopt The American Way™ and become future leaders just like the founding fathers, but of darker skin tone. The reality is endless warring groups as civilization falls apart from a lack of unity, just as happened in the multicultural final days of Athens and Rome. History repeats itself because we refuse to learn from it.

One might think that this disaster could be avoided, but the truth is that the Left are pathological. Like Captain Ahab, for whom Moby-Dick became part of his personality, they recognize that without their ideology, they have no purpose or meaning in life. They will chase the white whale of Equality until it destroys them. Ideology is a hard drug.

In order to have equality, one must destroy those who rise above the mediocre minimum that “equality” implies. Sometimes the Left even admits this, as in this jeremiad to scapegoat the rich for the self-created problems of the poor:

This system, which might have been designed to prevent social mobility, is then intensified by parents, the most potent enemies of mobility. The children of parents who are not equipped to pass on too much knowledge or wisdom will have, by the age of three, heard perhaps a million fewer words than the children of professional parents. And how children perform in tests when they are three and a half is a strong predictor of how well they do at school years later. By the same token, wealthy parents will do all they can, perfectly reasonably, to insulate their children from failure. The debate about social mobility always rests on the romantic notion of the poor child clambering heroically up the ladder. A society that really cared about being mobile would find a way to ensure its princes could slide down a snake too.

…Social mobility and equal opportunity are stories that the British like to tell themselves. It is gratifying to suppose we care enough. We care all the way up to the point of taxing the wealth that entrenches the privilege or shifting the emphasis of the education system in which the children of the powerful do so well.

So many words, with one small point: tax the rich so that their children do not have advantages. The next step is to make the system as boring as possible so that the stupid get ahead, as seems to happen in American colleges, and then you can filter those rich people out entirely. That way, no one knows better, and stupidity and wrongness are acceptable, so every individual can feel that they do not run the risk of losing social status for engaging in illusory, immoral, or unrealistic activity.

The Left applies the same agenda to race. If some races are high achievers, then we need to ear those down, and make a system that benefits the lower, because that way all of us as individuals are immune from losing social rank by being unrealistic or bad. This in turn creates minority-majority districts, and then, the rich and the white can be removed, forever, like Kate Steinle.

Recommended Reading