March 15, 2016

Break up ghettos and re-settle them down South and out West

In the wake of the Chicago disruption, people will start to associate the anti-Trump forces with the rioters of Ferguson, Baltimore, and so on. There may be other large-scale disruptions in other major cities before or after the general election, which will only strengthen the association.

Once the American people see these outbreaks of violence as not just a fleeting mob that burns out quickly, and instead as planned and organized collective actions with an ideology that will sustain them toward future attacks, they will begin to want to really do something about the problem. Violence driven by an ideology is more threatening than random lashing-out. Islamic terrorism is another obvious example.

The ghettos have been festering for nearly 100 years already, and they ought to be dispersed. There's simply too dense of a concentration of disrupters, and when those disrupters join up with one another, we get street gangs or worse.

There aren't as many problems down South, where blacks are more historically rooted, and where the weather is nicer. Black and white groups co-evolved alongside each other, so neither one can easily take advantage of the other, and both sides agree to stick to their own side and leave the other side alone.

And down South, the racial dividing line is just a line, allowing each side to fan out as far as they want from the line, on their own side. Birmingham is a good example: the dividing line runs SW to NE, with blacks to the west of it and whites to the east. Blacks can move around as far as they want on the west side of the line, and whites as much as they want on the east side of it, without ever having to run into each other.

In the ghettos of the North and Midwest, blacks live in highly circumscribed neighborhoods, surrounded on all sides by white neighborhoods or natural barriers. They have no room to fan out, without running into whites. This creates a pressure cooker environment, where running into each other becomes unavoidable, and where the group that's penned in is going to resent living in what amounts to a great big prison yard. Chicago is a great example of clearly defined black enclaves surrounded by neighborhoods belonging to other races.

So one solution to draining the ghettos is to subsidize their migration back to the South, which huge numbers of blacks have already undertaken on their own over the the past couple decades, getting crowded out by soaring immigrant populations. Aside from having more room to roam, they'll be around their own people (the Black Belt) instead of getting into day-to-day encounters with other races. And since blacks lived for the longest time in the South, their communities are more rooted and stable, compared to the shaky recent foundations of life in Midwestern cities. If they don't like city life, they can choose small towns or rural areas filled with their own people, an option they don't have outside the South.

Whoever doesn't want to join the South, should be subsidized to move farther out West. That will alleviate the strain and burden back East. Right now, most cities west of the Mississippi are not shouldering their fair share of the ghetto burden. Northern and Midwestern people did not bring in the slaves hundreds of years ago, so it's not right that they should bear the brunt of ghettos today. Folks out West didn't bring in the slaves either, but if we have to have down-and-out black areas, then so should they.

Fortunately there's still lots of wide open space out West, compared to the crowded eastern half of the country. And they would still be settled so that the dividing line was a straight line, not an enclave surrounded by the host city, which would re-create the pressure cooker problem all over again. The Sun Belt is relatively more booming economically, so they'll find better job prospects than they will back in Chicago or Cleveland.

Flaky out-West types claim to embrace diversity -- now they'll get a chance to practice what they preach. They won't have to share neighborhoods with them, but they will have to get used to a "black side" of the metro area, across a dividing line that will allow each group to enjoy itself without being bothered by the other.

And of course a good number of transplants out West -- who make up an increasing share of all residents out West -- specifically chose their adoptive region in order to move away from diversity. But why should their flee-and-hide strategy be rewarded? Their home town stinks, so they'll just move away and let their fellow home towners deal with the problem? The more good people that leave, the worse the situation will get back home, as the ghetto comes to make up a larger and larger percent of the remaining population.

But hey, "I got mine, lots of luck getting yours." And "If you don't like Chicago, you too can deracinate yourself and pretend to belong in Denver."

The Western transplants will complain that they spent all that money to move away from the problem, and now we're sending the problem to find them. Hey, why should we care, when you deserted in the first place? The people you left behind are supposed to deal with the problem indefinitely, not you? I don't think so.

And "diversity-enhancing" policies are all we need to start equalizing the burden of the ghetto population. Again, they won't be moving in next door, a la Section 8 housing, but they will be moving into your metro area, and will have their own "side" to roam around, not being surrounded in a pressure cooker fashion.

For far too long, waves of white transplants have been using the Frontier and the West as a playground to pursue their inane lifestyle-striving contests, content to let the metro areas back East be plagued by ghettos. They need to start shouldering their fair share of the burden.

We'll do our best to encourage blacks to move to their homeland within the country, the Black Belt in the South. But whoever remains outside of it, must be spread out more evenly across the Northeast, Midwest, Plains, Mountains, and West Coast. None of us brought the slaves over here, so none of us has any greater claim to not be responsible for living around their descendants.

25 comments:

  1. Hosting the bantustans should be the North's punishment for opposing the Confederacy.

    It's only just.

    Keep the Africans in the North and Midwest among the Yankees who care and venerate them, and whose cuck ancestors literally died for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, the great migration was the South's revenge, undoing it now is not right. Besides the lower UV environment will "thin the herd" faster due to prostate cancer, asthma, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your proposal increases their footprint. It's the exact opposite of quarantine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can see the "dilution is the solution to pollution" rationale but it doesn't work with Blacks because their disfunction is not "soluble."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BioCultBeamDelta3/15/16, 7:45 AM

      I got to second your statement. The western states face some of the worst cases of diversity/demographic crisis. 60% of children born in Nevada are non-white. It's even worse in California (which Agnostic has admitted has a more rooted white populace). It's one thing to acknowledge that the western states are flaky (I agree, being in one of them), but we need to be homogenizing western states, not making it worse. Why not just finally start paying them to go to Liberia, like should have been done in 1865?

      Delete
  5. Though the medical jury is still out there on this, another reason blacks may not do so well in the north/midwest is their vulnerability to Vitamin D deficiency.

    Then again, why is Africa failing so badly? Surely there is plenty of room to move around there without bumping into nonblacks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lack of vitamin D is not "thinning the herd" up North -- they're more numerous than when they first got here.

    Union soldiers died to prevent the cheap labor lobby of the day to continue its program of white impoverishment. And most Westerners are descended from Union ancestors anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The post says that the first and most important thing to do would be to boost their migration back toward the South, already under way.

    However, for those that remain outside the South, they're going to have to be spread out more evenly. The people who stay where they're from are not going to keep shouldering an unfair burden of the major ghetto problem, which is only going to get worse once the crime rate starts rising again.

    Dilution does work because blacks have a low carrying capacity -- they're more numerous than when they first arrived in the North, but they haven't taken over entire cities or metro areas, let alone states. Contrast with Mexicans, who -- judging from Mexico and the Southwest -- have a high carrying capacity, and who could take over an entire region.

    (Difference is due to their ancestors' subsistence mode -- intensive agriculture allows large populations, while tropical gardening keeps them small.)

    I don't like large sudden migrations, but we'll be talking about smaller sizes since the first move will be to get more to move back South, and the remainder will be divided up among a huge number of areas west of the Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The North's stated goal was always to "preserve the Union," they would've been fine with slavery if the South had just stayed in.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A good chunk of the nonwhite population in California is illegal immigrants -- obviously I'm talking about what's going to happen after the illegals are deported, and immigration slowed down / suspended.

    And I'm not advocating sending blacks to areas out West that are already heavily nonwhite in their citizen population. Not L.A. for example.

    But as for all these transplant havens that are white flight writ large, why should they be rewarded for severing ties with their roots AND leaving their home towners to deal with the now worsening ghetto problem? If they act selfish, they can't appeal to "greater good" arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The North had multiple reasons for going to war -- mostly they were fed up with the slave economy, but even more fed up once the Southern elites moved to secede in order to get their backward way.

    If the West seceded, the East would mostly be fighting them to end the cheap labor / darkening of the nation. But they'd also be fighting to stick it to them for trying to break up the country just to get their backward way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My rule of thumb would be to re-settle diversity where they voted for Cruz. Not necessarily -- or not only -- as a form of payback, but because that's where the self-centered loners live.

    If they vote for Trump, that's a sign of good faith that they're willing to help out the larger group -- the entire nation -- in dealing with the population problem.

    But if they tried to sink that only hope, in order to indulge their airy-fairy personal values, they obviously don't care very much about demographic problems. OK then, let them deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why the hell should the South be burdened with even more of them? Let the Yankees suffer the curse they called down on themselves. Perhaps it will teach them something. What was the Civil War, after all, if not the first great Social Justice Crusade?

    South: You're cramping our style. We want to be independent.

    North: NO YOU MUST LET THE NIGS RUN WILD BECAUSE MUH UNION AND MUH SLAVERY!

    *hundreds of thousands of white men die so blacks can be free to shoot heroin and beat grandmas*

    ReplyDelete
  13. The northern industrialists (who were not averse to importing loads of cheap labor) were pretty shitty too: Republican party was corrupt to the core with its patronage schemes and 14th amendment + bungled reconstruction paved way for eventual Civil Rights movement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Calvin TBF the abolitionists were a small minority, and those who wanted equality for freed naggers an even smaller one; avg Billy Yank fought to "preserve the union." However, war was set in motion b/c the Republican oligarchs' desire to seize the South's wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The war on the Union side didn't start to get rid of slavery, but take one look at the lyrics to Battle Hymn of the Republic:

    "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
    With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
    As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
    While God is marching on."

    The war opened everyone's eyes to how repulsive slave labor was.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BioCultBeamDelta3/15/16, 11:13 AM

    I'll write a proper response later, but I'll admit this article kind of adds evidence to your point:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/15/jerry-brown-if-trump-wins-we-build-a-wall-around-california/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Compassion for the po' oppressed nigguhs is what got us in the mess. Kooks like John Brown who were willing to plunge the nation into war on the negro's behalf were our equivalent of Jacobins or Bolsheviks (many actual communist revolutionaries fought on the Union side).

    ReplyDelete
  18. A wall around California would be great, as a redundant line of defense just in case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I will say this for Lincoln, he was apparently committed to deporting freed slaves even at the time of his assassination. He belonged to the more rational wing of the Republican party that was committed to securing land for "free white labor" above all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Many plantations in the later years before the war were corporations and the stockholders, many from Boston and New York are responsible for the growth of chattel slavery. Many people in the South considered this to be a great affliction.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LOL at these Southerners who understand nothing about the Civil War. The southern planters were breeding vast numbers of blacks and turning half the country into a recreation of Haiti. It was terrible for the non-slave-owning whites because the planters were able to monopolize the land. That's why Appalachian areas like W. Virginia and Kentucky stayed out of the Confederacy--they didn't want the cucked out treasonous southern planters to pave their state over with obsolete human farm equipment.

    All because the southerners were too damn lazy to pick their own cotton.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Appalachian areas were simply not suited for plantation agriculture. W Virginia "seceded" from VA because of a conspiracy by a group of politicians in its northern region and Kentucky could never have joined the Confederacy simply b/c Union troops were on its soil very early in the war. It is true the upper South states probably wouldn't have joined the Confederacy at all if Lincoln hadn't called on them to provide troops to crush the deep South.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As amusing as I find the thought of shipping thousands of violent blacks to Boulder, Austin, and Seattle, it would be simpler and better to just pack them in cargo containers and ship them back to Africa, or better yet, exterminate them like the parasites they are.

    ReplyDelete
  24. We already have enough Mexicans. Plz don't send blacks out West.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."