XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.politics.nationalism.white
There is no greater litmus test for human liberty than the right to
decide what kind of community you and your family live in. Since the
advent of the Great Migration of blacks from the South to the Northeast, California, and Midwest, and later the passing of the Civil Rights and
Fair Housing acts, white Americans of all political persuasions and
economic statuses have fled urban enclaves for suburbs and, in more
recent years, even further out to sprawling semi-rural exurbs in hopes
of escaping the rampant violence and general state of decay and
alienation brought by new neighbors.
The primary strategy used to limit diversity in neighborhoods and towns
has been for town councils to pass local zoning regulations preventing dwellings more accessible to minorities from being built. Today, a very well-funded coalition of real estate capitalists, Silicon Valley
billionaires, conservatives, libertarians and anti-white leftists who
call themselves “YIMBYs” (Yes In My Backyard) are pushing federal and
state officials to begin undoing single-family zoning rules in white communities in the name of the free market and racial equity.
They have achieved a degree of success in several states and localities,
though they continue to encounter fierce grassroots resistance. The
Biden administration, Democrats, and some Republicans (including Todd
Young of Indiana, who represents some of America’s safest suburbs
located around one of its most dangerous cities) have sought to tip the
scales nationally through federal activism aimed at overruling the
democratic will of local communities and put the power to decide their
quality of life in the hands of wealthy developers and speculators
through offering billions in incentives in exchange for loosening their
zoning regulations. Every effort YIMBYs have put forward has hit a solid
brick wall, as the places targeted by these policies continue to reject
these “opportunities.”
For decades, white people — whether Democrat or Republican — have
defeated these impositions from activists, billionaires and politicians
in order to live and go to school away from an increasingly racially
incoherent and dysfunctional America. NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) on the
right argue that constructing low-income housing in their communities
will increase the crime rate, raise their tax burden, overwhelm public services, and cause their property values to plummet. Left-wing NIMBYs
likely share these concerns, but have made more dishonest arguments more palatable to blue state courts and governments, such as that new housing
will lead to gentrification disparately impacting minorities or that development will harm the environment. These left-NIMBYs have
nevertheless successfully organized to block minority-friendly YIMBY
reforms in places as liberal as San Francisco and Minneapolis as
effectively as conservative homeowners. Activist judges and legislators
also have to live somewhere, after all.
Elite commentators eager for more housing development argue that by
increasing supply, the booming demand for real estate can be met and America’s soaring housing costs can be reduced. Businessmen want more housing in order to reduce the local price of labor (especially through
the mass importation of illegal aliens, as seen in states pioneering anti-zoning laws like Utah), while their leftist allies argue that
YIMBYism will undo the historical effects of “redlining” by granting minorities access to the greater economic and educational benefits
whites have historically created in suburbs.
The first problem with this argument is that redlining, to the extent it
ever was a major factor, no longer exists and has not for several
decades. Today, blacks continue to pour out of big cities and into the
suburbs, which according to the most recent census, are now home to 50%
of all black Americans. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, East Asians, and
Indians of all types have also seen their suburban population grow at an accelerated pace. If suburbia is the “American Dream,” then they are partaking in it.
But America’s social planners are not happy. According to data examining
this rapid suburbanization of minorities since the 1980s, all of the
social problems that plague non-white urban enclaves have only followed
them to the inner-ring suburbs they were supposedly once excluded from,
proving the fears of NIMBYs warranted. Even in an era of heightened
crime rates and depolicing, big cities have become safer since the
1990s, but that is thanks in large part to the violence, gangs and
poorly performing schools following blacks and Mexicans to previously
white and successful nearby suburbs that are now horrible ghettoes. In
many instances, the issues minorities have in urban areas such as a lack
of functional services and existing in a general state of anarchy have
been worsened by suburbanization, as the tax base of these smaller
communities collapses and municipalities are unable to cope with the
rising criminal and social problems. Rather than making housing more
affordable in minority urban areas through government planning and
subsidies, real estate speculators want to accelerate the deliberate
process of pushing non-whites into middle class suburbs to build new
luxury condominiums for wealthy urban transplants.
For those on the receiving end of this internal migration, the news is
grim. One 2022 study found that the value of a home begins deteriorating
as soon as a single non-white household appears nearby. Increased
diversity, including of peaceful and quiet Asians, continues to trigger
white exoduses across the country, leading to whites from every walk of
life leaving “mature” (communities built before the 1960s closer to
urban areas) suburbs with fewer zoning restrictions for new and more
rural developing ones that retain desired population mixture through
legal loopholes such as obscure environmental regulations and ever more complicated residential restrictions, such as putting limits on the
height of a dwelling, that make these new neighborhoods more akin to
gated communities. On the education front, it has been found that whites
in diversifying suburbs simply stop sending their kids to public
schools, adding the financial burden of home schooling or private school
to the mix.
As minorities leave cities, the children of white people living in
increasingly remote areas have been simultaneously repopulating
abandoned urban centers in pursuit of social and employment
opportunities, a process pejoratively referred to as gentrification.
Studies of upzoning inside Chicago, Jersey City, and New York City have uncovered that unleashing real estate development according to supply
and demand principles has actually driven housing prices up, largely due
to the fact that landlords are often absentee speculators who would
rather their high rises remain vacant than reduce their investment’s
value by lowering rent prices. Political pressure on these entities,
many which are foreign investors, to house more poor minorities never
gains traction. Young whites from exurbs — some who hypocritically
engage in performative “woke” politics — are going around the minority heavy suburbs in the middle to turn inner cities into segregated white
majority enclaves, while working class and middle class hoping to
preserve their white suburbs and towns struggle to keep the influx of
minority refugees out or leave.
While some whites playing this cat-and-mouse game are wealthy, many are
working people often enduring absurdly long commutes and laboring at two
or more jobs in order to afford a decent place for their family to
live. The top concern for any parent looking to move is good schools,
but “good schools” can only be produced by “good kids” — a euphemism for
white (or sometimes Asian) kids, as shown by school research websites
that have no qualms listing racial demographics.
The dwindling number of officials (liberal or conservative) willing to
defend the rights of communities to maintain single-family zoning have
argued that locals are rejecting poor people, rather than diversity, in
hopes of creating the unfair impression that low-income white people are
the problem NIMBYs are trying to avoid. Studies have consistently
replicated data showing that wealthy blacks have higher rates of violent
crime than poor whites, while other peer-reviewed studies have shown
that white students coming from homes making under $10,000 a year score
higher on standardized tests than blacks who come from households
earning $100,000 a year. The drastic expansion of single-family zoning
after the Supreme Court found overt racial exclusion was illegal in
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) suggests that the intent isn’t to exclude
little old ladies counting their pennies or low-income
whites. Sociologists have shown that white homeowners are inclined to
leave areas even when new minority entrants are in the same income
bracket as locals.
The American housing experience is fairly unique in the developed world
and reveals an inherent flaw in heavily multi-racial experiments. In
racially homogenous nations like Austria (95%+ European) and Singapore (overwhelmingly East Asian), the state builds heavily socialized housing
for low-income tenants, and the policy is popular and
uncontroversial. Libertarians and leftists are correct when they
excoriate NIMBYs as thinly veiled white nationalists when they present
novel strategies such as labeling their community a mountain lion
preserve or deploying conservative small government arguments for
collectivist efforts to prevent a landowner from doing what they want
with their property to keep racial diversity out.
The Elites Versus The People
NIMBYism is not partisan, it is group self-interest and strong racial instincts, conscious and subconscious, are at play. Surveys show that
the overwhelming majority of Americans fall lean left on the economics
of housing and want to lower the price of real estate, but on the other
hand, similarly high numbers believe increasing the housing supply in
their area will not reduce prices or make their neighborhoods
better. Various YIMBY lobbyists, such as the Zuckerberg Chan Initiative,
have at times even been forced to concede that the NIMBYs are correct on
this matter, yet they continue to push for anti-zoning laws in spite of
it.
YIMBYism, thanks to billionaires backing it with limitless resources, is
a visible and dominant yet minoritarian opinion (including in
California, where white liberals are organizing a 2024 ballot initiative
to preserve single-family zoning) that has a more ideologically rigorous
bent, including from extremists on the left and right. Leading
intellectual pioneers include free market fundamentalist lawyer Bernard
Siegan, Harvard libertarian economist Edward Glaeser, Substack
neo-liberal opinion writer Noah Smith, former Vox editor Matthew
Yglesias, New Century Foundation leftist Richard Kahlenberg, and anti-segregation activist Leah Rothstein.
These influential YIMBYists are all Jewish. In a cursory examination of
10 recently published journal entries neurotically documenting a
so-called “white diversity exposure” index or characterizing white communities with single-family zoning as the root of minority problems
have in all but two cases at least one discernibly Jewish author.
YIMBYism versus NIMBYism, in other words, is a proxy conflict between
whites and Jews.
The Jewish advantage is overwhelming. YIMBYs are able to flood the press
and opinion columns with their narratives while suppressing NIMBY counter-arguments due to the Jewish control of the media. Figures such
as Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, GitHub’s Nat Friedman, and various slumlords are pouring millions of dollars into Gentile-fronted YIMBY activist groups, along with YIMBY crusading Jewish politicians such as Scott Wiener and Senator Brian Schatz.
Battles between Jewish YIMBYs and white NIMBYs have been playing out
across the country. We can see a microcosm of this dynamic playing out
in New Canaan, Connecticut, where Jewish real estate developer Arnold
Karp’s multi-year campaign to build multiple unit housing on a property
he owns is being rejected for a third time by locals.
Besides the profit motive in the heavily Jewish and highly lucrative
real estate world, a deep Jewish distrust of white defiance in any form
shades the YIMBY side of the debate. In Neighborhood Defenders:
Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis, a 2019 book written
by Jewish YIMBYist Boston University academic Katherine Levine Einstein,
she singles out the ability of middle-class white homeowners to use
their rights in the democratic process and prevent unwanted development
in their community as the main factor behind rising housing prices.
Despite having no political allies, well-funded NGOs, or intellectual advocates, white NIMBYs across America use bloc voting and direct
activism to out-organize big business and state legislatures. The rising
Jewish chorus of YIMBYs demanding the federal government to step in and
crush the NIMBYs is an expression of frustration over an agenda that is
so unpopular it fails almost everywhere. For Jews, meeting meaningful resistance at the hands of people who, when they fall into the trap of
petty partisan politics, are otherwise completely ineffective, is an
enraging experience.
Political leaders, including Democrats, may want to obey their donors
and take a more aggressive stance, but the prospect of whites of either
party mobilizing to vote for an opponent looms large, especially as
white suburbanites become more important in the Democratic
coalition. When local fights between YIMBYs and NIMBYs break out in “progressive” blue areas, all but the most fanatical ideologues end up siding with homeowners. When Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign was
struggling, the cynical but intuitive Trump began openly campaigning on defending single-family zoning and accused the Biden administration of
planning to destroy the suburbs through school bussing style
integration. Amidst the turmoil of COVID and the George Floyd riots, as
well as Trump’s own disastrous presidency and campaign, the Twitter
appeal went widely unnoticed by the public. In the prestige press,
however, it triggered a rash of Jewish anger over the president play to “white identity politics.”
The strong record of NIMBY success should not be taken for granted. The
YIMBYs are ascendent, and actively carving up and passing legislation in accordance with their agenda. It is only a matter of time before the
federal government caves to their demands for a more aggressive
integrationist posture. As out of control crime and third worldization continues to push whites out of inner-suburbs to even more isolated
places, the system is encountering diminishing resistance as it pushes
forward.
The National Justice Party, which has held multiple protests against
unwanted housing developments bringing crime and illegal immigrants to
white communities remains the only political organization capable of
uniting and articulating this sentiment nationwide.
<
https://nationaljusticeparty.com/2023/08/04/yimbyism-the-jewish-war-on-white-communities/>
<
https://archive.ph/PyqLb>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)