Flight or fight?
0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 |
This recent article discusses the phenomenon of black flight. We read a great deal about so-called "white flight", but what with the massive influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, in recent decades, it's not only whites that are fleeing, but blacks.
The media have succeeded in downplaying the stories of clashes between blacks and Hispanics in California and elsewhere, but there is no denying that the races, in general, don't get along. And blacks are not any more likely than whites (probably less so) to welcome the transformation of their neighborhoods and towns into Spanish-speaking enclaves.
The article describes the surge in the black population of Victorville, California, as blacks move there from the greater Los Angeles area.
The article does not deal with the white aspect of this situation: are white people then in turn displaced from towns like Victorville, as black people double in population there? One would think so, especially considering the increased crime which has accompanied the demographic change:
''Ken Jones, a high-school dropout who is learning construction skills, says his family moved from Los Angeles to get him away from gangs. It worked�he describes his life in Victorville as a "retirement". But he says gangs and crime are becoming entrenched. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of robberies in Victorville increased by 62%. "They bring their lifestyle with them," says Jim Melton, a youth worker.''
Of course they bring their lifestyle with them; this should go without saying. But it is an article of liberal faith these days that people have no intrinsic nature; they are mere products of their environment. If they live in an inner-city slum, that environment causes them to be more crime-prone and to be poor and undereducated. The liberal would never think it the other way: the inner-city slum is a slum because of the traits of the people who inhabit it. Poverty is a result of bad life-choices in many cases, not the cause.
So yes, people bring their ghetto lifestyle with them when they move to quiet little suburbs. And those quiet little suburbs will not be quiet for long.
And the immigrants who are now such a substantial proportion of California's population all brought their 'lifestyles' with them from Mexico or India or China or wherever they arrived from. So their presence will lead to a replication of the conditions they left behind. We see this happening, and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberal dogma.
So blacks are fleeing the immigrant tsunami, and whites are fleeing the influx from the ghettos as well as from the third world.
Why is it that only whites are considered blameworthy for packing up and leaving a transformed area? So many of the articles written about "white flight" take a critical tone, and describe "white flight" as nothing but a manifestation of 'racism' and bigotry. Why is this? Most minorities and white liberals say that 'racism' is a white 'sickness' and that all whites are innately racist. Why, then, is it somehow necessary for minorities to be able to live in proximity to these 'racist' whites, and to be educated with them and work with them? Think about it: it makes no sense. Wouldn't blacks prefer to live among their own, especially since they complain that whitey discriminates against them and treats them rudely? Similarly with Hispanics and other immigrants: they complain of 'gringo' racism and general bad behavior toward them. Why on earth would minorities then complain bitterly when racist whitey does not choose to live among them? Why would they even resort to lawsuits and the use of government force to compel whitey to associate with them?
Another tenet of liberal faith is that separation is bad, immoral, and downright evil.
Why do blacks and other minorities want to follow 'racists' and remain in close proximity to them? Is this not irrational and counterintuitive? Separation is in some situations highly desirable and healthy for all parties, especially when relations are strained and clashes appear inevitable.
I realize the rationale that is offered for why minorities insist on requiring white people to associate with them. The rationale is that whites keep all good things for themselves and refuse to share the best with non-whites, so they must be forced to allow non-whites to attend their superior schools in their superior and more livable neighborhoods. Non-whites "know" that their schools and neighborhoods are inferior and dysfunctional precisely because whitey has monopolized everything good for himself, and cheated non-whites of their rightful share of all the good things.
White schools supposedly have more money and more resources and more 'pull' with authorities and so they are therefore better than mostly minority schools. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, the parents, the home life of the families, so says the liberal dogma. It has to do with 'discrimination' and "institutional racism."
The answer is more contact among the races and more money of course.
Blacks and other minorities see white flight as 'racism' and 'hate' because they think it is a deprivation of their lawful right to associate with whites, even forcibly.
So our controlled liberal media dutifully tsk-tsk about 'white flight', describing it as evidence of ongoing racism on the part of whites.
I've said before, and I believe, that people have a natural affinity for their own kind; people prefer to live among people similar to themselves. We are comfortable with people who have very similar values, customs, preferences, and standards. Like attracts like; birds of a feather flock together, as the old saying has it.
Given this natural affinity for those like ourselves, it is understandable that blacks and Hispanics want to live among their own and worship in churches with others of similar habits and customs. But yet, despite their very obvious preferences for their own, they still complain and raise a fuss at any sign of "white flight" or of any hint of separation or ''segregation''. Why this paradox?
I think they recognize, deep down if not consciously, that the 'better', more desirable neighborhoods and schools and towns ARE better and more desirable because whites tend to create more harmonious, livable, and well-functioning institutions and communities. They realize, although they would never acknowledge it, that they do not create livable places for themselves, but can only seek out what has already been created by others. I suppose this fact must surely foster a lot of resentment: imagine feeling dependent on someone you resent and even despise. It must be a very unpleasant state of being.
But my concern right now is: with the vast game of musical chairs that is being forced on us by our 'elites', what now, as blacks are being displaced by opportunistic immigrants, and whites are now being displaced yet again?
In the past, anyone choosing for whatever reason to become an expatriate might relocate to a congenial Western European country, or another Anglophone country. But now, all these countries are being transformed too, as our possessed rulers are engaged in this frenzied rush to third-world status.
Our enemies among the Aztlan 'reconquista' forces taunt us 'gringos', telling us to ''go back to Europe, Pilgrim!"
Unfortunately this is not a good plan at the moment, as the Camp of the Saints invasion is underway in the lands of our ancestors.
Most of us, in any case, love this country, or at least love our people, and would consider emigration only as a last resort. But where is there a place in this country that is still relatively untouched by the government-assisted invasion? My plan, before I realized how far-gone my country was, involved going back to Texas and finishing my life in the place where several generations of my family lived and died, and being buried with my kin in the family cemetery in south Texas. Now the handwriting is on the wall: it may be that the Trans-Texas Corridor will cut right through that part of Texas, through that very place where I had hoped to sleep one day. And even if it doesn't, the reconquista is practically a fait accompli there; one day I expect that the Lone Star flag will be replaced by the vulture flag of Mexico, and my ancestors' toils in Texas, and the blood they shed, will have been in vain.
So, I considered the Southeast, hoping that some corner of that area would survive with Southron culture intact. But that, too, seems unlikely as I hear of the all-out invasion of the Southeast; there is not only a large Mexican colony there but the 'refugee industry' is feverishly working to settle many exotic people in the Southeast. It looks as though the elites have decided that we old Americans can run but we can't hide. They are, I am convinced, out to foil "white flight" by ensuring that every place is as multicultural as every other place. No pristine corners of old America are to be allowed to survive intact. I find this all very creepy and malevolent. What kind of system wages war on its own people, and unleashes a planned invasion? I am convinced that there is method to this madness; it is not accident. It is chaos, but it is deliberately fostered chaos.
Where is there to flee? Do any of you live in areas which are still intact, or are we all under siege?
I know some of you have talked of relocating, feeling that the cause is lost, and there is nothing to do but move elsewhere. Some have considered Europe or other English-speaking countries; others insist that Europe is worse off than America. Still others have said the opposite is true; Europe has a smaller percentage of foreigners in their midst than we in America, and Europeans have the advantage of a strong national heritage, whereas we in the U.S. have in too many cases bought the 'proposition nation' propaganda or our own heritage is too mixed or too remote to have a strong identity as our European cousins have.
What's the future for us? Is it cowardly or defeatist or disloyal to consider moving, even within our own country?
Should we stand our ground where we are, or is it a lost cause? Where are the places which are likely to survive with enough of their original character intact?
If emigration is the best option, what is the best destination? I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of running to another country; I think, ideally, Western countries should have very tight immigration policies. Each country should be for the historic people of that country; no country should be held responsible for taking in immigrants from other failed countries. I respect the right of a country to shut the doors to outsiders. Nobody owes it to us to take us in.
Some think that there should be a common overriding 'European' identity, with which many of us could align. But I don't think Europeans feel this way; they have strong national feelings. For instance, some have argued that it's fine for Polish people to immigrate en masse to say, the UK or Ireland "because they are white and they will eventually assimilate and fit in." I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Polish people are not just like British or Irish people, despite their white European origin. Poles have a strong national identity and Polish colonies in Ireland or Britain would be out of place. Polish people should remain in Poland and improve it, just as Mexicans should stay in Mexico and work to improve their dysfunctional country.
Likewise I don't think European countries should be expected to welcome American 'refugees.'
Personally I would never move to a country in which I would be a fish out of water, a country to which I could never assimilate. I think anybody who moves to a place with a different culture should plan to blend in fully, and if that is not possible, they should not go at all.
As for me, I will probably finish out my days in America; my ancestors came here 400 years ago, and some of them many thousands of years ago. I'm a little too old and set in my ways to emigrate but I respect the feelings of those for whom that choice seems the best one.
What are my readers' thoughts and experiences with relocating?

Labels: , , ,