Aaron M. Renn, New Geography, October 18, 2009
Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places.
But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.
In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.
The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African American population less than half the national average. It is America’s ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.
It is not just a regional thing, either. Even look just within the state of Texas, where Austin is held up as a bastion of right thinking urbanism next to sprawlvilles like Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston.
Again, we see that Austin is far whiter than either Dallas-Ft. Worth or Houston.
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large. Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip? Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries and other mechanisms raise land prices and render housing less affordable exactly the same as large lot zoning and building codes that mandate brick and other expensive materials do. They both contribute to reducing housing affordability for historically disadvantaged communities. Just like the most exclusive suburbs.
This lack of racial diversity helps explain why urban boosters focus increasingly on international immigration as a diversity measure. Minneapolis, Portland and Austin do have more foreign born than African Americans, and do better than Rust Belt cities on that metric, but that’s a low hurdle to jump. They lack the diversity of a Miami, Houston, Los Angeles or a host of other unheralded towns from the Texas border to Las Vegas and Orlando. They even have far fewer foreign born residents than many suburban counties of America’s major cities.
The relative lack of diversity in places like Portland raises some tough questions the perennially PC urban boosters might not want to answer. For example, how can a city define itself as diverse or progressive while lacking in African Americans, the traditional sine qua non of diversity, and often in immigrants as well?
Imagine a large corporation with a workforce whose African American percentage far lagged its industry peers, sans any apparent concern, and without a credible action plan to remediate it. Would such a corporation be viewed as a progressive firm and employer? The answer is obvious. Yet the same situation in major cities yields a different answer. Curious.
In fact, lack of ethnic diversity may have much to do with what allows these places to be “progressive”. It’s easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics. Minneapolis-St. Paul, of course, is notable in its Scandinavian heritage; Seattle and Portland received much of their initial migrants from the northern tier of America, which has always been heavily Germanic and Scandinavian.
In comparison to the great cities of the Rust Belt, the Northeast, California and Texas, these cities have relatively homogenous populations. Lack of diversity in culture makes it far easier to implement “progressive” policies that cater to populations with similar values; much the same can be seen in such celebrated urban model cultures in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Their relative wealth also leads to a natural adoption of the default strategy of the upscale suburb: the nicest stuff for the people with the most money. It is much more difficult when you have more racially and economically diverse populations with different needs, interests, and desires to reconcile.
In contrast, the starker part of racial history in America has been one of the defining elements of the history of the cities of the Northeast, Midwest, and South. Slavery and Jim Crow led to the Great Migration to the industrial North, which broke the old ethnic machine urban consensus there. Civil rights struggles, fair housing, affirmative action, school integration and busing, riots, red lining, block busting, public housing, the emergence of black political leaders — especially mayors — prompted white flight and the associated disinvestment, leading to the decline of urban schools and neighborhoods.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on October 21, 2009)
Comments
By pointing this fact out to the world, the author has clearly conferred a death wish on these happy, prosperous places. No doubt there will be a cadre of well-meaning jackasses who will work with great gusto to change the demographics of these places and make them just like cities in the rust belt and the south. Then, we’ll all be equal! Won’t that be nice and politically correct?
I’m not in this site’s mainstream — I’m pretty much a liberal except for diversity-type issues. Closest I can admit in public is “radical centrist.”
Recently read “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer about how Muslim immigration is affecting Europe, without them realizing it until it was too late. One of his points is that generous northern European welfare programs used to work because they could accurately assume people wouldn’t accept welfare if they didn’t have to. Then the Muslims came in with no such compunction, and created an entire welfare class.
It’s been said that the free-est communities are those that are most socially responsible. If hardly anyone spits on the street, then you can allow the few people who want to. If everyone wants to spit on the street, you have to prohibit it for everyone.
What white communities show is — a big public sector can work if the people are committed to making it work for everyone.
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
It’s such a shame that the author feels compelled to cast such facts in a negative light. I’m sure that if he could interview the people who live in such communities, he would find that a high percentage of them actually consider “whiteness” to be very desirable.
Do we have a Freudian slip in the admission later on in the article that ‘in fact, lack of ethnic diversity may have much to do with what allows these places to be “progressive”’?
As Mr. Renn points out, “It’s easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics. Minneapolis-St. Paul, of course, is notable in its Scandinavian heritage; Seattle and Portland received much of their initial migrants from the northern tier of America, which has always been heavily Germanic and Scandinavian.”
I think this comment belabors the obvious. But why not accept its corollary also? It’s easy to have African or Hispanic policies if you have those demographics, and if demographic policies in recent years give us any indication, the kinds of policies in force in Mexico, Zimbabwe or South Africa are not to the liking of most Americans (even the Hispanic and African populations seem to want to live among whites).
I’ve seen several books on the most livable cities, towns, etc. They all suffer from this inclination to regard lack of racial or ethnic diversity as a handicap when in fact many view it as a definite plus.
A few months ago I read an article by some goofy liberal woman decrying the fact that Portland has very few blacks. It was typical self hating tripe claiming that Portland can’t be as “progressive” as they claim without sufficient non-white population. The city where I live has about 30% black population, with all the pathologies that accompany blacks. Very high violent crime rate, murder rate off the charts, depressed wages due to watered educational system, declining tax base and falling property values. If those benefits of a high black population appeal to Portland than they should start a welfare benefits enticement much like Minneapolis did.
I think that the reason that these Cities are so progressive (read: uberliberal) is that they ARE so White. If these ridiculous liberals had to live and work around blacks or other minorities they would quickly change tunes.
All one has to do is look at areas that have large concentrations of blacks in it and see that they are not capable of maintaining advanced civilizations with progressive modern cities. Detroit, South Central Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and the best and most glaring example, is the entire continent of Africa itself. South Africa is another example of a nation that is going downhill because of black rule, which use to be formerly controlled by whites until they decided to commit racial suicide. If it can happen in South Africa, who is to say it can’t happen here? If the current population decline for whites don’t start changing and reverse themselves, by 2050, whites will become a minority right here in the U.S.
Aaron M. Renn??? Amren?!
Here’s the last paragraph of the article:
“This history and resulting political dynamic could not be more different from what happened in Portland and its “progressive” brethren. These cities have never been black, and may never be predominately Latino. Perhaps they cannot be blamed for this but they certainly should not be self-congratulatory about it or feel superior about the urban policies a lack of diversity has enabled.”
- - - Did you catch that? They cannot be “blamed” for not being predominantly Black or Latino?? Since when does a city get “blamed” for being majority White in the first place? And get that last sentence:
” … they certainly should not be self-congratulatory about it or feel superior about the urban policies a lack of diversity has enabled.”“
They shouldn’t be “self-congratulatory” about it? Like heck they shouldn’t! What should they do, recruit more Somalis or Bantu tribesman? Offer free housing to Blacks? Offer diversity training to evil Whites?
Unfortunately the current state of affairs in these mostly White cities will fade and more Blacks, Hispanics and others will displace more and more Whites. And you know when those cities go down it will blamed on - you guessed it - Evil White Racism.
“well-meaning,” Anonymous at 5:41???
No.
It’s time to put aside the false notion that those who want everything integrated are ever ‘well-meaning.’ They’re either appallingly ignorant or jealous spoilers.
People are fooling themselves if they think the dollar line will keep their communities safe from diversity. We have seen that plenty of otherwise worthless people can come into money by simply whining and griping, often into a microphone. Add to that the propensity for these lily-white utopias to become complacent as their communities diversify. And they will diversify because leftists find white communities way too simple to infiltrate so they can set up shop and start the changes. Cheaper housing projects, dumbing down the school standards and teaching the law to be more “tolerant” of the influx of people who don’t think “White Rules” apply to them. Good luck with this one Portland.
White people themselves are very diverse and do not need African-Americans around to make them diverse. White people in a single city have a wide variety of interests, careers, passions and hobbies. African-Americans throughout the country are generally pretty narrow people and not very diverse at all.
As for Renn’s incompetent methodology, he takes the percentage of the African-American population of the U.S. as a whole (12.8%) and uses that as the average African-American population benchmark for all American cities. What an idiot. Ethnic groups have been and always will be clustered. There is no ‘national average’ for any racial group in any individual city. He is just angry because he thinks there are white people living peaceful, fulfilling interesting lives free of the poisonous effects of a significant African-American population.
Furthermore, I live in the Twin Cities and Minneapolis proper is disgustingly diverse in terms of race with plenty of ‘no-go’ neighborhoods full of African-Americans who come here for welfare.
“Imagine a large corporation with a workforce whose African American percentage far lagged its industry peers, sans any apparent concern, and without a credible action plan to remediate it. Would such a corporation be viewed as a progressive firm and employer?”
Perhaps not, but it would most likely be the most profitable, with the best service and the highest quality products in its industry.
It is curious that the chief metric for determining success or failure of ANYTHING in America, is the percentage of Blacks involved or included therein! The entire country revolves around “Blackness” as a standard of measurement and morality in and of itself. What a ship of fools are we…
Here’s the author’s excuse for the fact that every black neighborhood is unlivable: “white flight and the associated disinvestment, leading to the decline of urban schools and neighborhoods.”
So if we just poured more tax $ into black schools and cities they would be as civilized as their white counterparts! And of course none of this $ would ever be embezzled.
What that article was too PC to mention was the high correlation between a city’s black population and crime, esp. murder rate.
“According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation’s homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5012
Article reminds me of the real definition of “diversity”:
that’s what you endure in college so you can graduate and get a good job so you can afford to live as far away from it as possible!
Maybe one of the big reasons these cities are considered “progressive” and “cool” are BECAUSE they are mostly White and homogeneous. Maybe the absence of significant numbers of blacks makes it much more possible to have a pleasant, citizen-friendly cityscape with good public transportation, clean air, etc. Maybe it makes it easier to fashion a city that’s great to live in if you DON’T have to take into account the different “culture”, so-called, of several different racial groups.
Maybe Aaron M. Renn thought of all these points before I did, and as a good White liberal, wrote this article in the way that he did, in an attempt to try to head off such thoughts from taking root in the minds of others. Don’t compliment the people of these cities for fashioning pleasant urban environments for themselves; condemn them for being “too White.”
To “anonymous” (first post), we should all fervently hope the writer did just condemn these cities. Very little is more harmful than these lily white enclaves dictating others should be forced to live in (racial) diversity. Nothing would please me more than to see Seattle become an analog to Detroit. Or to see Portland become Gary, Indiana.
These people should become intimately familiar with the consequences of their fantasies.
And where did the idea come from that diversity was a desirable characteristic of residential communities? Most residential areas offer houses/apartments of similar construction and hence attract households of similar composition—there are neighborhoods of singles, of families, of seniors.
Is diversity a strength if some singles households want to party at night while families want to put their kids to bed? Is it desirable for kids to want to ride bikes on sidewalks that seniors use? If Muslims move to your neighborhood, should girls play ballgames against boys, or is that blasphemy?
Residential neighborhoods are strong when people share common expectations of community behavior. The desire for diversity falls apart the instant you ask a tough question about it.
Conservatives are often angry their viewpoint is never heard in mainstream America. Sometimes this could be a blessing. The writer here seems to have actually read some conservative publications and it’s simply made him a better racist. That is, it’s made him even more effective at hating whites.
It is very well written, so the author is most likely a foreigner or is himself a product of the very kind of progressive neighborhood he takes to task here. Perhaps an exercise is in order where he examines his own life for ‘unsettling’ signs of bigotry? Perhaps a workshop of some kind beginning with the activities of his childhood?
First he insinuates in his article that communities are driving up prices to keep people of color out/impoverished minorities. Then he says they’re reaching completely out of the country to foreign countries to get persons of color to move to their neighborhoods.
On one point however the author is completely wrong. There’s no city in America that doesn’t have more than it’s fair share of African Americans so it would appear it is poor whites most likely to miss out his vibrant progressive culture.
The author is overlooking another thing too. It’s very easy entertaining a progressive lifestyle and mentality (where hardly anyone owns an American car I might add, driving American car manufacturers out of business)… it’s easy if you are rich or well to do. It doesn’t work so well for the poor. Which is probably one reason the powers that be work so hard to keep poor whites unsettled, reacting against, and angry at ‘educated’ people like the one who wrote this piece. At least poor whites have some of their dignity left intact.
To: RandyB
No you’re not, Randy! Most Liberals classify you as a RACIST. Diversifying (i.e. destroying) the Western nations is goal of the Liberals. You may agree with Liberals on economic and social issues, but for Liberals this is irrelevant. They deem as non-Liberal anyone who objects to a massive influx of non-Western people, or insists on these people adopting Western values and customs.
I live just outside Philadelphia. Actually, I still like this city, so I must take issue with some of the comments made about it. That said, Philly, is (“Way To Go Phillies!” I had to say that.)as good as it is DESPITE it’s large black population. It has a long history; lots of interesting tourist attractions; the largest inner city park in the world; great restaurants; colleges, universities; etc. etc. It has not gone the way of Detroit. But that is because Philly, unlike Detroit, has managed to maintain a fairly sizable white population within it’s borders. And unlike nearly every other major city, the Philadelphia Police have controlled major ghetto insurrections. The city still does not have a black majority population. In Detroit all the white people fled, and we can see the results. But, I will admit, Philly is not Portland, and would be so much better without any black people.
Mr. Renn is a master of the obvious. Progressives generally never live in the “diverse” hell-holes that they like to create for others. Does the author really believe that injecting third-worlders and homegrown reprobates into these cities will improve the lives of everyone involved? I doubt it, more likely that he jealously wishes the same fate on these monochrome cities that has befallen other late, great metro areas of which he’s probably a resident.
Just as a warning to those on the board: Portland ain’t a white utopia. There may not be many blacks there but they make up for it by being extra beligerent. There is also a large mexican population that has arrived to service the many, many white junkies who reside there.
This is my first time posting , I hope I do okay. The reason I’m posting is that I lived in Seattle for a few years and I moved there from St. Louis where I grew up. In Seattle if you tried to tell anyone about black crime you were labeled a bigot. They are extremely liberal there. I just looked up some stats.
There is a Black population in Portland. However, it is a relatively expensive city to live in and thus most of the Blacks and othe non-Whites are upscale professionals.
Hmmm, could a name like Aaron M. Renn be code for Amren? It’s as though the author was trying to point out in a backhanded way that if you want an urban area to be hip, progressive, and desirable it had better be white.
It’s no surprise that progressives live in heavily white areas. It’s vastly easier to have progressive attitudes towards blacks if you don’t face the stark reality typical of black neighborhoods. That’s why my sister is more liberal on race than I am. She lives in New Hampshire. So the only blacks she knows about are the police chiefs and neurosurgeons she sees in TV fiction.
Bottom line: The whole reason for any of this diversity nonsense whether it is extolling the virtues of blacks or immigrants (i.e. Mexicans) is about garnering votes. Right now the Democratic party along with the brain-dead Republicans are importing future voters at a devastating rate that assures the destruction of decent American culture. As soon as the majority is gained and although they will still be referred to as minorities they will soon start voting themselves more benefits and programs paid for on the backs of decent hard working American taxpayers.
Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver are all being overrun by Hispanics. These cities will also soon fail.
I am not sure what the other cities are like, but I have visited austin tex. It is a very liberal city. It should be overrunned with blacks and hispanics. Austin seems to be a magnet for every intellectual slacker, so the intelligence level is higher than most cities. The low intelligent groups will feel left out. It has a vibrant music scene. They play a lot of outlaw country music and grunge rock. In another words, the type of music that all minorities hate.
This story is part of the building propaganda campaign that foreshadows an open, admitted campaign by the government to get rid of “all-white” or mostly white enclaves. This is opposed to the program underway now wherein non-whites from Africa, SE Asia, Latin America suddenly show up in small towns across the US. Very white small towns. This, and stories / books like “Whitopia” mentioned elsewhere on this site are the beginnings of a very open government campaign that will start much sooner than anyone thinks. They are going for it all over the next 4 - 6 years. No doubt about it.
Hello,
Portland may be a white city to the nose counters, but it has enough real-live diversity to drive anyone crazy. Where did all these people come from? How did they get here at my bus stop?
No doubt some whiney leftist will be kvetching for more “diversity”. And I would encourage them to find that diversity by moving to a city that is more diverse. Isn’t that the real solution after all? To integrate the majority black cities? And who better than those self righteous liberals. I say Renn should set the example by being the first to move to Detroit.
A quick google search shows that:
“Aaron M. Renn is the publisher of The Urbanophile, the Midwest’s leading urban affairs blog. He is on a mission to help America’s cities thrive in the 21st century global economy by discarding old stereotypes and adopting new strategies based in progressive planning, economic, and branding principles aimed at creating sustainable, everyday places for the majority of Americans to live, work, and visit on an ongoing basis.”
Blog:
Human beings cannot be a mixture, we are an EMULSION at best, if you remember Chemistry 101, an EMULSION is a product that, if left alone will seperate into it’s various componants. AND! as poster #1 pointed out, it will be the U.S.government that comes to screw all those places up with section 8 housing and/or importing thousands of Somalis….gotta love diversity or should we call it DIEversity?
Perhaps it’s a silly point but is the author of the article ‘Aaron M. Renn’ a pseudonym based on ‘Amren’, or is it purely coincindence?
i apoogize again for no cap’s and certain punctuation. my keybard is on the blink.
boy, is this ever a no-brainer. i remember about 15 years ago while working in a hospital lab in shreveport, la. - which has a high black pop. and just elected its first black mayor - i was reading an article in ‘u.s.a. today’ that contained a chart of the major cities and their percentages of black and hispanic populations. later in that article it published a chart of major crime committed per capita per year. one could stack up the two charts side by side and predict, without knowing the cities’ name, the percentages of blacks by the number of crimes. ‘u.s.a. today’, being the liberal rag it was - and is - didn’t mention the racial corrolation. the leading cities in major crime were the blackest…hispanic illegal immigration was not much of an issue in 1994.
“nice places to live are mostly White”…
For that matter nice countries to live in are mostly White. Which is why non-Whites want to live in them. Proof positive that the races are not equal.
It’s obvious. Look up crime rates and racial percentages. It never fails. Cities with low crime are always mostly White, and crime-ridden hell holes like Newark are always non-White.
The author of the original source article fails to recognize that progressiveness is a function of both race and wealth. Specifically, progressive enclaves are typically nearly 100% White. As mentioned above, even in a city like Portland or Austin with large numbers of diverse folks, the progressive Whites tend to circulate in small pockets of artificial reality that are sustained by wealth. Within these areas, the monochromatic population enjoys the conviviality of continuous interaction with people who share their culture, values, and politics. They are able to indulge in continuous reinforcement of their fantastically misguided social views ONLY because they enjoy the luxury of being almost completely free of the diversity they crave.
Consider Austin, by far the most liberal city in Texas. As the commenters to the original article have noted, Austin has plenty of diversity. It is effectively “invisible diversity” though for the majority of Leftist Whites, who self-segregate in the areas around the University of Texas and in the wealthy neighborhoods in the north and west sides of the city.
This sort of insularity is manifested in particularly interesting ways in two of the more notable pockets of liberalism in the city. The first, and most easily observed, is the bizarre phenomenon whereby liberal White UT students construct for themselves a mythical version of reality in which they valiantly suffer the slings and arrows of deprivation, while sharing the noble struggles of the oppressed. The fact that their “struggle” is experienced in the midst of an enormous and luxurious educational institution representing billions of dollars of infrastructure and endowment is, of course, completely lost upon them. They are even more oblivious to the fact that they are able to enjoy these incredible benefits only because of the contributions of the White majority of the past that they so fervently decry. Instead they buy hemp-flavored ice cream at the Whole Foods store, weep sensitively over the plight of the endangered Indonesian rutabaga worm, and generate an infinite number of term papers on “Man’s Inhumanity to Man” in their English, Sociology, Government, Womyn’s Studies, Math, and Physics classes. Interaction with them is a truly fascinating trip through the looking glass.
The second population of interest is centered in the vast sea of mini-mansions that carpet the hills west of the city. In one of the more tragic fallouts of the California real estate boom, Austin was infested a couple of decades ago by legions of Californians who moved to Texas to work in the semiconductor industry, and who found to their delight that selling their 3-bedroom hovels back home resulted in a pile of cash that would allow one to buy a castle in Texas. They infused that cash into the housing industry of Austin, and flocked into insular communities in the hills. Surrounded by other California transplants, university faculty, and other fashionably wealthy liberals, they soon began to infect city and state politics with their uniquely Californian strain of Mad Leftist disease.
From their vantage point in the hills they can easily see the hugely diverse and problematic areas of East Austin, but their eyes slide past the reality as if it were completely invisible. They happily ignore the problems of those diverse areas, just like the UT students. The two populations circulate endlessly within their pockets of artificial reality, happy to stay in their comfortable bubbles while working feverishly to dump more diversity on everyone else.
Their ability to enjoy those bubbles of reality is of course a luxury, a product of the wealth and society that their White ancestors and fellow citizens have made possible, but they rarely wake up to this obvious truth. They stay in their bubbles, comfortable and secure, oblivious to the ruin that their political philosophy inflicts upon the nation.
It will be interesting in the extreme to observe their reaction as their bubbles are popped over the next twenty years by the remorseless demographic pressure of the diversity they have supported.
A person’s tolerance for diversity is related to their distance from it.
3 — Uniculturalist wrote:“This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?”
They simply cannot say so. The code of Political Correctness won’t allow it. It’s our new state religion. It’s an odd thing: we don’t have official censorship in this country. Nonetheless, there’s an unwritten code that prescribes what you can say and what you can’t. You’re free to ignore it if you wish, at your risk, but only if you’re prepared to bear the heavy consequences. Most people aren’t willing to be “heretics”.
I suspect (at least) some of these writers know the real deal. However they have to mouth the required platitudes or be considered heretics (and take the consequences that go therewith.)
I agree, it is absurd. It’s as if they wrote that these cities all suffer from low crime rates, attractive neighborhoods, excellent schools. and efficient government. But aside from those regrettable deficiencies, they’re still a wonderful place to live.
Double talk! That’s what we’re forced into by Political Correctness.
It’s getting like Spain at the time of the Inquisition. People had to effect an exaggerated display of religiousness, blessing themselves constantly and muttering the names of the saints every few sentences, in order to show their piety. Better than coming under suspicion of being a heretic and getting arrested!
Lol, those places aren’t ‘nice’ at all, they are just as completely screwed as the rest of America. The White people there are just the same as the ‘average’ white American — high double-digit IQ, overweight, lazy, unimaginative, and destined to be overrun by more vigorous, goal-oriented people.
People on this board need to stop kidding themselves and take a good, hard look at ‘white America’. The average white person isn’t worth preserving in the first place, so what’s the point of a White Nationalism movement?
As a white man living in San Antonio, Austin is exactly sixty-six miles north of me. It is a completely different world! The people are friendly, intelligent, and majority white. I always look forward to going there because of this. Austin is a town that is orderly, and clean. As soon as I complete my degree, I plan on moving there. I truly believe a people who stick to there own kind are happier than those who are forced to be around others with different ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. I highlight the positive aspects of Austin; and what is lacking in San Antonio.
“It is very well written, so the author is most likely a foreigner or is himself a product of the very kind of progressive neighborhood he takes to task here…..That is, it’s made him even more effective at hating whites.” — Anon.
I agree that it’s interesting… and well written. But I think I must disagree with you and some others who believe that he’s a bitter liberal or that he hates whites. It could be just the opposite. Doesn’t he see the glaring contradictions in what he says? I suspect he does. How could he not?
I suspect that Mr. “A.M.Renn” understands very well what he’s writing about, and that he’s writing it tongue-in-cheek. (As he would have to.) He’s getting across his points subtlely, and effectively (tho’ in a “backhanded way” as WR put it). He could very well be one of us. Just maybe.
[Congrats to WR and Awakened who caught on. And very interesting post, Simonetta!]
Practically all the “too white” cities named in this piece are bastions of American liberalism, which flaunts its defining characteristic of hypocrisy proudly.
We should help these haughty liberals to realize their dream of a truly multi-racial society by relocating several million blacks and Hispanics from Detroit, LA, Chicago, Philly, St. Louis, Atlanta, etc. to their lily white enclaves.
Only then can these proud liberals realize their dream of a truly multi-racial urban center.
Aaron m renn? A.M. RENN!
Okay, who here wrote this?
Major points if you actually got paid for this stunt.
Stan w/ post #15 hit the nail right on the head, amen brother, or should I say AmRen brother, these diversity champions are richly deserving of a dose of “minority culture” i.e., rape,murder,and robbery via carjacking and home invasion.
The fact is the liberals are the true racists, treating minorities like “disenfranchised” pets instead of holding them to a higher and equal standard that promotes self-improvement and betterment.
The worst enemy that white America faces today is in the mirror, neurotic self-hating whites are a bigger threat than any minority could ever be.
I love this website I have no doubt whatsoever that the demographic that posts here is the SPLC’s sum of all fears, intelligent, articulate whites that make no apology for their feelings and blend in perfectly with society, no being marginalized as drunk, redneck inbreds.
Thanks to this website and those who post on it, I have had a racial awakening and found an outlet of expression I feel comfortable with, I thank you all.
Googles around and now more confused than ever. Renn’s cover is either real deep, or, he may be real…. Still not sure.
Story does make a lot more sense if it’s read as Swiftian. Telling, however, how hard it is to tell satire from liberal sincerity sometimes..
I still suspect someone here is doing a bit of moonlighting… Someone particularly clever…
People need ot go to numbersusa and join up and fax their traitors in washington on immigration.
“Renn’s cover is either real deep, or, he may be real…. Still not sure”.
Is he one of us, masquerading as one of them. They still have us about 10 to 1 in that regard. Plus, the secrets out now, lol. This article here does nothing but make whites feel ashamed, and he’s very good at it.
“all the “too white” cities named in this piece are bastions of American liberalism”
The too dark cities are also very liberal, if you go by election results. Wherever there is diversity, whites especially need to be bombarded constantly by anti-white propaganda, and nothing else, just like this article. At least, that’s what happens. Plus, the educated and well to do seem to have bought into this inverted world too. It’s the path of least resistance for them. Is there anyway to turn this ‘victims’-as superior, godless, and antiamerican mentality around?
I think there is.
I can’t believe they would actually complain about lack of diversity! I grew up in Orlando- was born in 1971. Saw the area I live in start bussing these “diversity subjects”. Wasn’t a pretty sight. In Orlando, there was an area that was black and then our area was white. If you went into a black area, the black immediately wanted to know why you were there and vice versa. Now Orlando has a County Sheriff (black) married to the City Police Chief(yes, also black). They have began campaigns to “stop the violence” with vans that drive by with huge billboard type advertisements speaking of the promise to stop violence. It’s almost ridiculous. They won’t admit that the money is so lucrative to the drug dealers that they will never clean up the area. And that blacks don’t care or listen to such messages. They are all about “getting a lick” and nothing will ever change that. The area I am speaking of is of course 99.99999% black. I find more and more than many communities take great care of their neighborhoods and have sneaky ways of keeping it predominantly white. They have high HOA fees. It works because it has worked in our neighborhood. As soon as a real estate agent is spotted, neighbors come up to talk to the “diversified applicants”. They talk about how great the neighborhood is, but that the HOA fees are relatively high because of all the costs involved to keep the neighborhood beautiful. I have seen with my own eyes several run to their car or get into a verbal confrontation with the realtor- why did you waste my time coming to this expensive neighborhood, etc. The blacks may be able to get section 8’s and other assistance, but the Section 8’s don’t cover HOA fees.
Portland is proof that “socialist” planning policies are better for whites than free market planning policies.
The article fails to mention that many “progressive” cities that have low numbers of blacks have high numbers of Asians. Cities that have a high percentage of college educated people attract Asians as well as whites. Thus, the whitest cities are not necesarily those that are progressive. Many of the whitest major cities tend to be rust belt locations like Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, etc.
“…This raises troubling questions…”
I note pointedly here that if the Rainbow Daydream were ONLY a simple pragmatic assumption, it could have long ago been abandoned as soon as…the first birds came home to roost.
I stopped counting the word “Progress” after about the second paragraph. Its uncritical use is normally the hallmark of a Believer. “Progress” here, as everywhere else is a doubly compounded falsehood which I advise ALWAYS to be on guard against. It is Not synonymous with IMPROVEMENT, and anything which cannot be argued against is inherently tyrannical and is to be treated as such.
Wow. Where do I start?
Aside from the apparent belief that “diversity” is automatically good, and that a dearth of blacks in a city should be a mark of shame for shame’s sake, some of these little gems are just too much.
This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?
I can answer that first part easily: “progressivism” goes hand-in-hand with “multiculturalism,” and it is much easier to delude oneself into believing in the former when one doesn’t have to deal with the effects of the latter.
Beyond that, why should they be “called” on it?
The relative lack of diversity in places like Portland raises some tough questions the perennially PC urban boosters might not want to answer. For example, how can a city define itself as diverse or progressive while lacking in African Americans, the traditional sine qua non of diversity, and often in immigrants as well?
Talk about sidestepping. All of that can be explained away by any nonsense any “intellectual” progressive wants to cook up to justify their obviously hypocritical actions. The real question they don’t want to answer is “why don’t you want to live around blacks any more than all those backward hicks you so detest?” They’d have to admit that it’s for all the exact same reasons.
Imagine a large corporation with a workforce whose African American percentage far lagged its industry peers, sans any apparent concern, and without a credible action plan to remediate it. Would such a corporation be viewed as a progressive firm and employer?
I imagined it would probably be viewed and referred to as that business that runs far more smoothly and at a greater profits than its more progressive competitors. Sounds good to me.
It’s amazing the way libs ponder and fret over the reasons for urban decay. The answer is so obvious yet they act like it’s particle physics.In Cleveland they are so proud of the urban studies program at Cleveland State- doing basic research into the causes of urban blight. I’d love to take one of those courses and remind them of some “hate facts”.
What would this county be like if the cities were livable? What beautiful neighborhoods we would have. Drive through any American city and one can see the results of black peoples’ industry. When one ponders the enormity of it all it’s just heartbreaking.
Whatever the white man can build the black man can destroy.
Quite a mystery here. 31 Jane T. googled A.M. Renn and found that he’s “…on a mission to help America’s cities thrive…by discarding old stereotypes…” Nothing wrong with that. We’re so used to hearing corrupt language, “compassion”, “diversity”, “racism”, and so on that maybe we’re a little deaf to the subtext. As I read it, this person is:
This is journalism? This is the 21st century? The article is nothing but a soft-core imperial decree. The fedgov decrees that America must become nonwhite; the schools, churches and other institutions bow down and parrot this NWO gospel. The media become the daily update in the project, the hourly IV drip of idiotic suicidal propaganda. The de-whitening isn’t accomplished by bringing troops and cannons to (e.g.) Portland - even though they did in Little Rock — but by having the media din the dogma in the ears of the people and politicians everywhere all the time. Over decades the mass brainwashing/attitude engineering/”values clarification” program takes effect. It’s that simple — the slow drip carves a channel in the sold rock. They’re SCIENTIFIC about it, although you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the brainlessly simple MO.
Our job is to point that MO out to the fatally distracted masses.
I say “fedgov” and “media” etc. but no doubt every reader here knows who that really means.
For RandyB and other liberals, I am a conservative who would prefer a socialized but white state to an integrated state with Adam Smith style enterprise. In fact, I was introduced to Amren by my Norman Thomas-voting aunt. Its great to have liberals get with the program. And it may be liberals, not conservatives, who finally wake up to what is happening.
All you have to do is look at the demographics for America’s Top Ten Worst Crime Cities. All have a black population of greater than 50%.
If you look at the demographics for America’s Top Ten Most Safe Cities, they all have a black population of less than 6%.
….enough said?
If Aaron M. Renn is just a pseudonym of someone from this site, congratulations.
The article has been picked up on The Root, the website of none other than Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
http://tinyurl.com/ylg5o5g
I’ve been to Portland and it’s not that homogenous. This is not the first time I’ve seen Portland on a diversity hit list. The census says it’s about 78 percent White but other “progressive” cities like Portland and Bangor Maine are 93 and 95 percent White so why do they escape scrutiny?
“Lol, those places aren’t ‘nice’ at all, they are just as completely screwed as the rest of America. The White people there are just the same as the ‘average’ white American — high double-digit IQ, overweight, lazy, unimaginative, and destined to be overrun by more vigorous, goal-oriented people. “
Nice try, but maybe that’s YOUR family and the people YOU choose to be around if you’re White, which I’m not sure you are. The White people I’m around are nothing like what you described. Also, there is no “destiny”, we are being overrun by a deliberate act on the part of our government and a lot of these people are vigourous and goal-oriented alright, their goal is to leach off of White America for jobs, welfare etc.
19 — John wrote at 10:10 PM on October 21: Philly … the largest inner city park in the world;
—-
No, it’s not. Griffith Park in Los Angeles (Dodgers go down in phlames to Philly) is the largest urban park in the US, but not the largest in the world. Kings Park in Australia is the world’s largest. Of course, all of these large urban parks were designed and created by whites. Now they’re being destroyed by non-whites. It’s amusing to see posts from the usual suspects remarking on “ambitious” immigrants when really all a non-white needs is average ambition to do well, as they are helped every step of the way by America’s now very open, anti-white government. Non-whites and the usual suspects can make every claim they want about hard work, ambition, brains, but the fact is that on their own, in their own countries, without whites to take from, these people basically do little. The ones who do succeed in their own lands are generally imitating whites on the one hand, while enjoying the fruits of nepotism and / cronyism in the other, in order to have gotten their chance to do well in the first place. This isn’t even arguable.
I think WR and Guilty Lib may be onto Mr. Renn’s trail here. There are generous hints dropped throughout the piece that make me tend to doubt the author’s complete sincerity as well.
To those I’d add another: “progressive” white writers on urbanism, and I’ve read the run of them, from Andres Duany to James Kunstler to Jane Jacobs, tend to avoid racial topics like the plague. The same goes for the (liberal) architects and urban planners I have met. When forced to address them, they tend to talk in strict PC code, and move onto the next topic as swiftly as possible. They avoid them precisely for the reasons that Renn’s article reveals: that any serious discussion on the topic is bound to uncover some politically unpalatable truths that have significant and unpleasant consequences for their profession!
The white, progressive New Urbanist does not want to be reminded that the black and Hispanic populations sharing his city may not share his … “white!” … values. He does not want to be reminded that his values are typically “white” at all. It makes him uncomfortable and begins to stir forbidden thoughts.
Mr. Renn has done some stirring all right. Looking at his blog, it’s difficult to believe he’s simply a clever pseudonym, as he has voluminous writings on urban topics of all kinds. That his views may be sympathetic to some degree with those on this site, though, can’t be ruled out. In his other posts he displays some very clear-headed writing on racial matters that may simply reflect a very independent thinker.
I do not believe in this multicultural bruhaha. It has ruined much of our country as we were strongest when we were ruled by pure whites, even Asian Americans, perhaps the only race to rival us in intelligence agrees that we are the true America. We must keep our rulers white, our voters white and our schools conservative white, not prototypical liberals from the 60’s with their weaknessnesses for the equality of all races like Bill Ayers.
Jen, What the heck is an HOA fee, and how are we supposed to know? Why can’t you at least explain your terms for those of us who are clueless about these things? Your comments were meaningless to me.
John wrote at 10:10 PM on October 21: Philly … the largest inner city park in the world
No, it’s not. Griffith Park in Los Angeles is the largest urban park in the US [and]… Kings Park in Australia is the world’s largest.
Of course, all of these large urban parks were designed and created by whites. Now they’re being destroyed by non-whites.
It’s amusing to see posts from the usual suspects remarking on “ambitious” immigrants ….Non-whites and the usual suspects can make every claim they want about hard work, ambition, brains, but the fact is that on their own, in their own countries, without whites to take from, these people basically do little.
I confess I was puzzled what he meant about “inner-city parks”. Odd terminology. And odder to be praising them.
As for those wonderful, hard-working immigrants: if they are so enterprising and creative, then why aren’t the countries they came from models of progress and prosperity?
But, to the contrary, those immigrants invariably end up duplicating HERE the very same conditions that they escaped from back THERE. They can’t help it. It’s in their nature. That’s their culture which produced them. It should be obvious that a culture is only the expression of the people who created it. And wherever they go, they will take that culture with them, and replicate it.
Thus, Mexicans settle here and soon create barrios just like back home. What else would we expect?
It’s utterly absurd, and wishful thinking, to suppose that Africans transported to Paris will be transformed into good Frenchmen, or that Guatemalan Indios transported to Chicago will be miraculously turned into good Americans. It’s a liberal fantasy, nothing more.
It’s one thing if idealists want to daydream. Fine. Who cares? It’s quite another thing when they try to make their daydreams, that are spun out of thin air, into government policies.
“Nice try, but maybe that’s YOUR family and the people YOU choose to be around if you’re White — which I’m not sure you are. The White people I’m around are nothing like what you described.”
I have always understood him to be white —- and VERY white and Waspy at that! — (a point which he has taken pains to make clear). But possibly I was naive.
I do notice, though, that he always takes a contraian point of view to everyone else, which I have considered to be non-constructive and divisive.
You may be right. His insights are often interesting and well written, but ultimately not helpful to our cause.
Anonymous
“Nice try, but maybe that’s YOUR family and the people YOU choose to be around if you’re White, which I’m not sure you are. The White people I’m around are nothing like what you described. Also, there is no “destiny”, we are being overrun by a deliberate act on the part of our government and a lot of these people are vigourous and goal-oriented alright, their goal is to leach off of White America for jobs, welfare etc.”
I personally don’t consider myself ‘white,’ but I would certainly be considered ‘white’ by the US government. I come from Old American Anglo stock (pre-1840’s), and am of Welsh/English descent.
Oh, you are only kidding yourself if you think that ‘white America’ (at least as it’s defined here) stands any chance of ‘taking back America’. Heck, I’m a student at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and I can tell you that most of the other white ‘students’ wouldn’t have even been given bachelor’s degrees in an earlier age. If this is our ‘cream of the crop,’ then I can assure you we are all in big, BIG trouble…
And, btw, if you think the average white person isn’t as I described, then you need to check the record for yourself. Overweight figure? Around 60%. IQ average? Probably around 98-99. Well-educated? Heck, just talk to one for yourself! Lazy? You better believe it! Most ‘whites’ in this country are more interested in watching ‘Weeds’ or Survivor than in opposing multiculturalism. People here seriously need to get a strong ‘reality check’…
Mr. “Renn” claims to be from Laconia, Indiana. On checking, I couldn’t even find such a place in my atlas. But I did finally find it on the Internet. Interestingly, it is 100.00% white, 0.00% black (or any other race).
And he’s all for diversity? Come now.
But, to the contrary, those immigrants invariably end up duplicating HERE the very same conditions that they escaped from back THERE. They can’t help it. It’s in their nature. That’s their culture which produced them. It should be obvious that a culture is only the expression of the people who created it. And wherever they go, they will take that culture with them, and replicate it.
To the poster who made the above comment. I’ll help prove the point you made.
Writer Renn doesn’t seem to understand that the opposite of progression is regression. He consider Portland OR to be a progressive city, but wonders why there is so little “diversity” (i.e.,m a scarcity of blacks).
I suggest Renn look at the city of Detroit, with its 88% black population. Detroit is in a state of regression, because the black population simply has not taken care of their environ on many levels. Indeed, some parts of Detroit are reverting back to their natural state, by being settled by wild birds nesting in abandoned lots.
Or, on an international level, if Renn really wants to see regression, he can visit Johannesburg, New South Africa which is already looking like the aforementioned Detroit. Or Timbuktu, Mali; the center of the Mali Empire of a thousand years ago; but today, a town of a few thousand people, which is actually in danger of disappearing off the face of the earth, thanks to Mother Nature.
Historama comes off as another of the pogues fresh out of school who as part of their mandated internet monitoring time while interning / working at the SPLC, ACLU, ADL etc are required to hit sites like Amren, present themselves as white, smart, capable, and then tell you there’s no hope for whites in this country, give up, it’s over, whites are weak and so on. The posts vary little from each other, never mind from site to site. It proves these brilliant folks aren’t as creative as they believe themselves to be. That it’s becoming more and more obvious, and these types of postings more and more numerous, shows that the people directing these lugs in their “work” are starting to worry.
Besides the sophomoric writing style, Historama claim of currently attending one of the “…most prestigious law schools in the country,” is a grand tip off. After all, very few “unconnected” whites or whites from all but a few select, “aggrieved” groups are allowed into the very top law schools these days. Historama’s contact with “real” whites at this institution, if the story is true, would have been limited at best. I have no doubt that Historama is telling the truth though when stating “he” does not consider himself white. Most of the elites and their ilk have the same mindset. The brown and black folks they foolishly believe will be their manservants forever after don’t have such illusions.
No. 40 Historama,
“People on this board need to stop kidding themselves and take a good, hard look at ‘white America’. The average white person isn’t worth preserving in the first place, so what’s the point of a White Nationalism movement?”……..if we don’t preserve white pople civilisation will end. A black or hispanic liberal like you is stuck in the ghettothink attitude and see progress as ‘regression’. Plus we need to preseve whites as where will blacks and hispanics go for their handouts?
Reply to no.51 Anonymous,
Pittsburgh is 68% white and 28% black
To me a white city to form a “majority” would be over 75% white. All these cities have sizable black and other populations.
These so called “whitest” cities in the US are listed as:
Portland is 78% white, 6% black and 6% asian
All these cities have highest black populations than asian. Asians do not create their own wealth in the US, where are their wealth creating factories and large service corporations etc? Asians are just as bad as blacks and hispanics in the sense that they need to hang around whites to get the crumbs.
What about the filipino, hmong, vietnamese populations etc, many are poverty ridden and living on benefits.
Let’s be completely honest white people create civilised socities while the “others” wish to destroy it and reshape their own divisive agendas. The less white America becomes the poorer it will become - that’s REALITY!
http://tinyurl.com/no5knk
I used to live in Seattle and as # 21 said about Portland, the blacks in Seattle seem to be even more obnoxious because they are enabled by and lord it over the cowed wimpy white-guilt liberals who make up a large part of Seattle’s population.
From the article “List of 2008 homicides in Seattle” from the Seattle PI
selected from the list of the 28 Seattle homicides in 2008….
Allen Joplin, Jan. 4 — black killed by black
De’Che Morrison, Jan. 10 — black killed by black
Maurice “Moe” Allen Jr., Jan. 26 — black killed by black
Degene Barecha, Jan. 30 — black killed by black
Perry Henderson, Feb. 6 — black killed by black
Stephan Dwaine Stewart, April 2 — black killed by black
Eldora Earlycutt, July 4 — black killed by black
James Paroline, July 10 — white killed by black
Troy Peters, July 22 — black killed by black
Pierre Lapoint, Aug. 5 — black killed by black
Jane Kariuki, Oct. 16 — woman of unknown race killed by black man named Christel D. Murphy
Quincy S. Coleman, Oct. 31 — black killed by black
Edward McMichael, the “Tuba Man”, Nov. 3 — white killed by multiple blacks
Nathaniel Lee Thomas, Nov. 23 — black killed by black
So by my count blacks (8% of Seattle) were the killers in at least half (that’s at least 50%) of the murders in the Seattle area in 2008. At least five of the other murderers were latinos.
The numbers are actually worse for 2009 and although I haven’t had time to do a full breakdown I would bet good money that blacks have committed about 80% of the murders in Seattle for 2009.
#65, I didn’t know what HOA fees were either so I googled them. They are homeowner association fees for condos that cover insurance and services.
I live in the Pacific NW and go to Portland regularly.
Even if you wanted to live away from blacks, you could do so easily there but I think white Liberal/Progressives are worse to live with. Blacks do not and cannot pretend to be anything else but what they are-for better or for worse.
White L/P’s are smug, sanctimonious, intolerant, self-righteous, dogmatic and illogical as anything.
They are terrible.
I moved to Portland specifically for the lack of diversity. All the liberal concepts of environmentalism, equality and social justice flow from the White mind. They may not believe that or agree with that, but like the laws of gravity - they still apply to you whether you sign up or not.
Fact: Oregon didn’t allow black folks to live within its borders until fairly recently, maybe the last 100 years or so. Once again we stand on the shoulders of our wise elders. It’s interesting to note that black folks haven’t been here that long and still have found time to wreck their part of town.
72 — Point out the Obvious wrote at 7:10 PM on October 23:
Lol, I can assure you that the SPLC, ACLU, etc. and similar organizations would have no use for me at all. They would consider me to be ‘racist’. I agree with many principles on this site, I just don’t believe in all of them, including some very fundamental ones (like what is ‘white’ to begin with). There’s no conspiracy to make this ‘movement’ lethargic, instill hopelessness, or anything of the sort.
Besides, keep in mind, ‘white’ means something totally different to me than it does for you. From my perspective, ‘whites’ lost control of this country well over a century ago…
I wouldn’t be so quick to blame them for that, though. It’s not so much ‘their fault’ as it is the fault of certain historical processes that have made it very difficult to feel much ‘kinship’ with people outside of your immediate social circle. You’ve read the bell curve, I’m sure? Well, if you have, you’d know that it will be increasingly difficult for people at the top to sympathize with people outside the top, because positive traits aren’t distributed evenly anymore. Positive traits are less and less spread out, because ‘background’ and ‘name’ are no longer a critical factor in success.
It’s fairly easy to understand why the traditional ‘sympathy’ for the lower classes would diminish under such circumstances. The ‘elites’ are no longer able to really even identify with the ‘average’ anymore, since the selection processes that enabled the elites to reach the top were so intense. What do elites have in common with your average overweight ‘joe couch-potato’ type? The contrasts in the society have become much, MUCH sharper. It was much easier to share a common identity back when practically anymore could rise since positive traits were more evenly distributed. Nearly everyone stood a fair chance, and mobility was a common theme. Not so anymore. The people getting ahead are almost exclusively those that were already head. This will only develop further in the same direction, with the consequence that a common identity across social boundaries will be practically impossible…
“Besides, keep in mind, ‘white’ means something totally different to me than it does for you. From my perspective, ‘whites’ lost control of this country well over a century ago…” - Historama
I fully understand that, which you have made clear previously. But, whatever the case, we have to take what we have now and work with it. That’s only practical and realistic. We have no option. But why would you care about whites anyway, since you have stated that you are not “white” — whatever you mean by that, according to your own definition? Just what do you consider yourself if not white?
I have to side with #72, Point out the Obvious, Nick the Aussie and some others. Historama’s attempt to counter their observations are filled with more gobbledegook and disingenuous prattle. Histo comes off as another of the Usual Suspects in the line-up of those who hate whites or who are self-loathing.
“The Bell Curve” is useful in terms of facts in some areas, but in others, it’s theory or wishful thinking. For instance, top spots at various academic institutions are only partially based on actual academic performance. It was shown almost 20 years ago that Harvard and Yale were admitting Asian and Jewish students at three times the rate that they would have been admitted had grades and test scores been the only criteria. So much for name and background not being a critical factor in “success”. If Historama were actually in Law School, and honest, he would be well aware of how critical name and background are in that field, never mind which Law School one attended. Blacks and Hispanics are also admitted to colleges and universities at rates far higher than they deserve. More name and background at work I’d say. The people in charge have done a good job of alienating whites who are doing well by convincing them they are special, different from other whites. In some cases convincing them they aren’t really white at all. To make sure there’s no feelings of racial kinship. They turn these whites into snobs, with these now very smug and superior feeling whites unable to see they are being used. One price of arrogance.
If Historama has to openly question what being white means, that means he’s either been fully brainwashed, which explains much of his muddled thinking or the other posters are correct in stating he’s another plant, one of the trolls who’s following instruction and pasting certain disinfo all over the web so he can move up and make his political connections and bones with the ACLU or whomever. Eventually these puppets get to go out and be a front-man / useful idiot for the people really in charge of things. The people ahead for the most part work to keep their own ahead first. To deny so is being completely dishonest.
The only good thing on the horizon is the complete collapse of the current situation. It’s inevitable. Just as they have before, the elites have overreached, and despite true believers like Historama and his ilk trudging along behind them, we will have another messy fall to rock bottom with whites being shaken out of their slumber and forced to clean things up and build from scratch. Again. But this time around will be much worse than any of the cycles that occurred earlier. Real whites, not cowards who choose to hide, to be smug, will have to make sure the lessons learned are preserved. With technology the way it is now, that won’t be the impossible task it was earlier. This is what has the elites so frantic.
“If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.”
It’s noteworthy that New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles aren’t progressive anymore. Their public school systems are failing, they are running in the red, etc… and whites are now a minority.
I am not surprised that mostly White cities would be able to be leftist havens. Whites prefer the TV and movie images of blacks to the reality of blacks living besides them. It is easy to accept the carefully controlled image of blacks presented in entertainment, and not too pleasant to have them anywhere near where you live, work or shop.
It was shown almost 20 years ago that Harvard and Yale were admitting Asian and Jewish students at three times the rate that they would have been admitted, had grades and test scores been the only criteria. Blacks and Hispanics are also admitted to colleges and universities at rates far higher than they deserve. The people in charge have done a good job of alienating those whites who are doing well by convincing them they are special and different. In some cases, convincing them they aren’t really white at all, to make sure there’s no feeling of racial kinship. They turn these whites into snobs [and enemies of their own], with these smug whites unable to see how they are being used.
80 — browser wrote at 2:38 PM on October 24:
“But why would you care about whites anyway, since you have stated that you are not “white” — whatever you mean by that, according to your own definition?”
I don’t have any ill-will towards them, I just don’t want to give up my identity and heritage. Unlike ‘white identity’, my identity is actually meaningful; it’s based on real history and real experience. I do ‘care’ about them, but not in the same way you do. I don’t want them to mix with us. As I’ve said before, I’m willing to collaborate for the purposes of overthrowing multiculturalism — this is exactly why it’s so stupid to accuse me of a being a ‘plant’ for the SPLC. I’m just as much against it as people here. The difference, though, is that I don’t believe in homogenizing the Euro-races in the process.
Exactly what I am: part of the Anglo-Saxon ethnoculture (that is, belonging to the group of races that established Anglo-Saxon culture and brought it to North America). This has nothing to do with Bulgarians, Poles, Italians, etc. What makes this confusing?
“More name and background at work I’d say.”
What they describe is a very broad process that is noticeably different from the dominant general trend before; sure, there are still some instances where it may not apply on the individual level, not just for non-Euros but also for Euro-types as well (think of George Bush, for example). But, the fact remains that racial solidarity across class lines will only become more and more difficult in the future. This isn’t really the fault of ‘the powers that be’ so much as it is the result of hyperindividualism and the ‘free for all’ mentality being taken to extremes. As I’ve said, it’s plainly observable that positive traits aren’t getting shifted around evenly as they once were.
Lol, well call me crazy, but for some strange reason I don’t feel much ‘racial kinship’ with Ray Romano. You might, but I don’t.
FACT: the vast majority of people in the US today who are classified as ‘white’ are not descended from proud pioneers; their ancestors came in a state of utter desperation and/or despair. Do you think that the Irish of the mid-19th century or the Southern/East Europeans of the 20th century were welcomed as ‘fellow white brothers’? If you do, then your reading of history is WAY off.
FACT: the term ‘white’ was originally applicable strictly in the context of relations between the Anglo-establishment and the visibly darker non-Euro types in North America (i.e. natives, blacks slaves imported from Africa, etc.). It was NEVER meant to be applied in the context of European diversity. The Old Anglo-Saxon types (and the non-Anglo types that had already assimilated — think of people like Teddy Roosevelt, from the low countries) did not consider all Euros to be ‘white’ and made that clear in many ways. The way that the term is being used today has absolutely nothing to do with either historical or racial reality.
Lol, care to actually DEBATE my arguments above, or would you prefer to make pointless assertions? Yes, I am ‘openly questioning’ how YOU use the term, since it has nothing to do with racial reality. Race does exist, of course, it just doesn’t break down how people on this site tend to want it to.
Why does this mean I’m brainwashed, just because I’m taking my definitions from historical fact rather than the Amren political agenda?
84 — Anonymous wrote at 12:59 AM on October 25:
“Yes, it’s just clever form of Divide and Rule. Like turning white females against white males, They further sub-divide us by turning smug well-to-do whites against less “successful” whites. Jack College against Joe Six-pack. Gender against gender, class against class, economic bracket against economic bracket. “Good” Ivy League degrees against “inferior” state college degrees. And so on. People who are proud to boast that they are not low, fat, stupid, lazy whites (like us). But we have to look at who’s pulling the strings, who’s setting the rules of the game. What’s in it for them? Cui bono?”
I think it’s far more complicated than that. This isn’t the 1910’s anymore. Back then, it may have made sense for ‘elites’ to feel a shared identity with ‘the masses’ since they still had certain fundamental connections with them — shared religion, shared history, shared values, shared family structure, etc. Not so anymore. Things are not just WAY more complex racially, they are also more complex socially, culturally, economically, etc.
Back then, the elites could at least expect that non-elites were basically like them, but perhaps just a little less ‘subtle’ mentally; that’s not the case anymore. The old unifying principles that allowed them to ‘look after’ the people on the lower rungs of the ladder have totally disintegrated. People at the top barely ever even come into contact with people outside the top, so how they have the same sort of bond that unified them before?
The breakdown started with the immigration of more and more disparate types after the War Between the States, and the process has continued ever since. Heck, even by the 1930’s, the racial situation of the US was already so confused and contorted that ‘white solidarity’ was basically meaningless. At that point, the US ceased being a society with a ‘community focus’ centered around a founding stock, to a society with an ‘individual focus’ based on the atomized ‘economic unit.’ I can tell you don’t like this, but it’s just historical fact. Amreners should discuss these things openly instead of just shouting slogans like ‘white pride!’ or ‘whites should stick together’. If you really want to understand what has happened to the US, you need to look at the larger historical context; when you do that, it’s relatively easy to see that the current situation is the result of processes that were already set in motion a long time ago.
You’re trying to apply old standards and old principles to a society that has been totally transformed. The old model of ‘interclass’ harmony based on shared substance is impossible today. That may have worked for most of history, but in the next stage of history that is approaching I just don’t think it will carry any weight.
Portland isn’t so nice. They are too homeless and drug friendly. The public transportation is filled with unstable looking homeless people. The tram stops and parks are full of marijuana smoke and thugs. It’s still safer than DC or Philadelphia, but it won’t be nice until they crack down on homeless thugs and drug use.
Regarding Historama’s bona fides: He simply believes that the “White” racial category that most of us accept is an error. I think we have room for him in our movement, though he may not have room for us in his. What matters most to me is, Would he have defended the walls of Constantinople with the Greeks in 1453? Rowed in a galley under a Italian Captain at Lepanto in 1571? Placed his sword under the Polish King at Vienna in 1683? If he would fight with us, then we can tolerate his different vision.
Regarding the indifference of the elites for the masses, I’d agree with Historama that ethnic differences play a role, but are not the driving force. After all, are the ruling elites all still descended from Anglo-Saxon racial stock? It’s not a matter of rich and powerful Lodges and Astors not caring about lowly Italians and Poles any more.
“And, btw, if you think the average white person isn’t as I described, then you need to check the record for yourself. Overweight figure? Around 60%. IQ average? Probably around 98-99. Well-educated? Heck, just talk to one for yourself! Lazy? You better believe it! Most ‘whites’ in this country are more interested in watching ‘Weeds’ or Survivor than in opposing multiculturalism. People here seriously need to get a strong ‘reality check’…”
While there are a lot more overweight people today, that is not relevant to the issue here. The IQ of Whites in America hasn’t dropped since the past when they were racially conscience. Whites in America are not lazy, we have less vacation time than lots of countries. I do agree that American Whites have become guilt ridden and brain washed by political correctness and as such, don’t oppose or at least don’t want to appear racist by opposing multiculturalism. This brainwashing of Whites is not just in America either but all over the Western world.
“This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?”
Because high numbers of African-Anericans are the absolute opposite of any sort of progress.
“Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it?”
Actually the mixing of the different white ethnic groups would merely serve to heighten white identity as a whole, which is what was happening until our current rulers began their decades long media and academic campaign against a white racial identity. A white racial identity is no more silly than Asians have an Asian racial identity, which they do, despite infighting among the Japanese and Koreans, NE Asians looking down on SE Asians and so on. In the end, they still see themselves as a distinct group. A group battling whites on some levels. That the elites grant this “privilege” to non-whites and to themselves is only leading whites to eventually see themselves as a distinct racial group. This is one area where the elites miscalculated. As noted by others, these arrogant folks overreach time and again, and their arrogance is always a major key. Sometimes I think this trait could be genetic, just as is impulsiveness is genetically based in certain groups. I am starting to believe that this trait, arrogance or whatever it is that gives the appearance of arrogance, and the blindness toward certain outcomes and beliefs it bestows on those who possess this trait, cannot be overcome by the “afflicted”. Which is why they make the same mistakes and overreach again and again.
The talk about things be far complex these days is only partially true. It’s more the methods used to divide and conquer are a bit more complex or there are more tools available. The situations themselves aren’t more complex, it’s merely that things are more chaotic, with all the societal breakdown (intended) and non-whites thrown into the mix. Keeping things chaotic, hectic, allows the manipulators more room to work without people noticing. To a point. With things collapsing around us despite smug claims made stating the opposite, whites are slowly waking up and asking out loud what happened, and who did it. I know, as just yesterday I had that experience again, with a former co-worker I hadn’t seen in person in almost 15 years dropping by and asking me what was going on. However, what he was doing was testing the waters and trying to tell me what was going on with the US, the West, who was responsible. I was quite surprised he’d be at this stage, considering his former uber-liberal beliefs and background. But years of seeing certain groups and people get favored treatment, praise, promotion over his far superior abilities and work finally led him to break the surface. I filled him in on what I know, much of which he’d already researched. And his awakening of his has only been over the last several months. This is happening more and more all over, even with some of those awful, average whites who like to drink beer and watch sports. A lot of these average folks whom the tools look down on seem to more capable of introspection than some college kid who’s being groomed as a useful idiot by having his ego fed just the right way. The “unwashed”, the “average” in many cases are more open to stepping back and taking a look at the big picture and the fact that there is malevolence behind what is going on.
Ignore the trolls telling you otherwise. They’d like to make everyone think that things are so complicated, out of control of the average person, that the people in charge and those they let join the club are so much smarter, so different, that situations can’t be changed and that the elites can’t be challenged. Wrong. If they were so confident they wouldn’t be stepping up their campaigns. Do your best to wake people up and we’ll see what happens when it’s us against them, lined up on the field for the final quarter. Because that’s what’s going to happen.
“After all, are the ruling elites all still descended from Anglo-Saxon racial stock?”
No, and that partly supports my point. I don’t want to be lorded over by anyone not of my own stock, whether it be by someone like Wolf Blitzer or Rudy Guiliani.
Besides, I don’t think that Anglos should be concerned with elitism any longer; we should just be concerned with preserving ourselves in the modern world. I couldn’t care less about being a ‘world power’ or living in comfort and ease. Those things are only transient, ephemeral, etc. What really matters is living in a real community with others of the same heritage. If the US falls tomorrow, a better civilization can be rebuilt; but, if Anglos are physically destroyed through miscegenation, that can never be recovered…
The agenda of most people here seems to be: “we’ve got to maintain a homogenized ‘white identity’ so that America can still be a ‘great power’ and give us lots of comfort, ease, etc.” or “well, homogenized whiteness is better than mixing with mexicans, vietnamese, etc.” That might work for some people, but for others, like me, it makes absolutely no sense. Why would anyone want to cultivate a fake identity without any genuine basis or foundation? America is finished anyway, so it’s a pointless agenda altogether.
“While there are a lot more overweight people today, that is not relevant to the issue here.”
Sure it is. It provides support for the idea that the ‘average’ is no longer worth saving/preserving.
Sure it has; the drop has occurred for two main reasons: the enlargement of the ‘white’ category by adding in more ‘intermediate’ types from outside northwestern Europe, and dysgenic breeding across the board.
Not all Euro-groups have the same racial quality; the same principle of inequality also applies to different generations of the same general Euro-group. No two generations will ever be the same on ANY measurable trait.
Yes they are. I don’t care about other countries. They are FAR lazier than their ancestors. They have grown fat and lazy. You need to stop making excuses and face the FACT that most ‘whites’ today would have been considered total failures just a few generations ago. Heck, a substantial portion of the baby-boomer upper-middle class probably wouldn’t have even been able to achieve lower-middle class status if they had been held to the standards of their own parents (i.e. the WWII generation); they were essentially given success because they had no competition, and they have passed their tradition of sloth, irreverence and insolence on to their offspring.
In fact, the WWII generation also would have been lower on SES if they had been held to the standards of their parents. The general story — at least since the middle of the 19th century — has been a continual worsening of average racial quality in the West due to ‘relaxed standards’ and guaranteed survival. This will have to be changed.
Good points Bell Lap, spelling errors aside, although I’m sure you simply rushed through the post as it seems filled with passion. Very good stuff indeed. Do you work in a business or area connected with the “elites”? I get that impression from what you wrote. You come across as having some real experience in certain areas, especially if it comes to have been living in the middle of “it”, unlike Historama who comes across as repeating things from a guidebook in his cubicle.
Schoolteacher did not write it as a statement, but as a question.
“After all, are the ruling elites all still descended from Anglo-Saxon racial stock?”
I took the answer to be an obvious “no”. (Can there be any dispute?) But Historama is arguing with him about it, as if it were a statement of fact.
And incidentally (since they’re mentioned) the Astors came here from the Rhineland in Germany; they were not Anglo Saxons, and I’m not sure even they were Germans.
91 — The Bell Lap wrote at 2:02 PM on October 26:
“Actually the mixing of the different white ethnic groups would merely serve to heighten white identity as a whole, which is what was happening until our current rulers began their decades long media and academic campaign against a white racial identity.”
Wrong. Up until VERY recently, all Europeans weren’t considered ‘white’ at all. What developed in the US was a very limited racial identity centered around a dominant Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, with other compatible types assimilating over a long period.
Mixing with anybody from Europe would lessen a ‘white’ identity because it would blur the lines separating whites from non-whites. There are plenty of mexicans who could easily pass as ‘greek’ or ‘italian’ or whatever. Back when most everybody was northwest European prior to the Civil War, the lines were MUCH better defined, and so there was little confusion about the ‘white category’. Adding in more intermediate types would EXPAND the white identity, and make it less viable in the long-term. That’s precisely why the ‘whites’ have allowed the campaign you describe to go on for so long — it’s because they don’t even really ‘feel’ themselves to be ‘white’ since the category has been expanded to the point of absurdity. This wasn’t the case before, back when people actually knew what white was supposed to mean.
Not really. Europe is more diverse than East Asia, so it actually is more silly. Europeans display a far wider range of phenotypes than NE Asians. Perhaps certain limited subsets of Europeans can form a legitimate ethnocultural identity, since they are quite similar, but Europeans writ large have basically nothing in common except a very basic facial structure. That’s all. They aren’t the same in terms of skin tone, with some being very fair and others being as swarthy as your average mexican, and many being darker than the average NE Asian.
And, BTW, those distinct Asian groups DON’T actually have a ‘pan-Asian’ identity at all. Nor do they consider themselves to be racially compatible, despite the fact that they are closer to each than Europeans are with reference to other Europeans (i.e. Koreans are closer to Japanese as compared to the distance between a Swede and a Bulgarian, etc.)
Bottom Line: A homogenized white identity has no basis in either history or racial reality.
Historama: Not really. Europe is more diverse than East Asia, so it actually is more silly. Europeans display a far wider range of phenotypes than NE Asians. Perhaps certain limited subsets of Europeans can form a legitimate ethnocultural identity, since they are quite similar, but Europeans writ large have basically nothing in common except a very basic facial structure. That’s all. They aren’t the same in terms of skin tone, with some being very fair and others being as swarthy as your average mexican, and many being darker than the average NE Asian.
This doesn’t really challenge or change what the original poster posited. The N. Chinese are very different in looks from Central and Southern Chinese, epicanthic fold and black hair not withstanding. Look at the various peoples of NE Asia and SE Asia again. Historama has been backed into a corner and is reaching. The ‘pan-Asians’ do see themselves as a distinct group as opposed to the rest of the world - perhaps he should look up the Japanese concept of “sangoku” - basically three countries; Japan, China, India against the West, with Korea and other nations behind them, playing supporting roles.
HIstorama does write like a law student. A lot of empty rhetoric, just like that which now fills courtrooms.
