A long time ago, Occam’s Razor found this:
The federal government is getting serious about pushing racial and ethnic diversity into America’s neighborhoods–and is using big data and big money to achieve its aims.
A new interactive database will help regulators, local housing officials and individuals take action on a newly proposed regulation that would require agencies to “affirmatively further” the inclusion of minority residents in white neighborhoods.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan announced the database and regulation at last week’s NAACP convention, saying the Obama administration was battling “a quieter form of discrimination” that was “just as harmful” as long-outlawed segregationist practices, like racially restrictive property covenants.
The problem now, Donovan said, is that prospective minority buyers are not being encouraged to move into predominantly white neighborhoods with top-notch schools, government services and amenities like grocery stories, etc.
The goal here then is to continue to prosecute at a high rate incidences deemed proactively segregationist – Donovan touted 25,000 individuals in the past 3 years being paid damages under cases reported to the agency or independently investigated by HUD – but to add in a mandate for diversifying neighborhoods.
The old way was to punish exclusion. The new way is to punish lack of inclusion.
The punishment is also different. Rather than fines and prosecutions for those who sought to keep minorities out, the new penalty would be a withholding of federal funds from local and state government agencies dependent on HUD grants if they fail to push greater diversity. The way those agencies interact with developers, realtors, homeowners associations and others would need to reflect the federal push for diversity.
There is barely a pretense anymore that the goal is to help blacks. The goal is to destroy neighborhoods with any type of white/European ethnic character. Now, it’s true that from a communitarian perspective, most of the destruction has already happened–we’re long past the days when ethnic groups like the Germans or the Poles clustered in their own neighborhoods. It is nevertheless important that the federal government is pushing so aggressively for ever more thorough homogenization, that is, for ever more thorough destruction of any distinctive subculture.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Throne and Altar 
I recently saw an episode of Uncommon Knowledge with archbishop Gomez as a guest. The guy is more than horrible, openly supporting mass Mexican immigration, using the worst kind of PC language, holding the sermon in Spanish etc. John Derbyshire often mentions the Catholic Church as one of the organizations who do a lot of evil when it comes to immigration restrictions in the US, and after looking at Gomez, I can understand him completely.
However, how do things look on a micro level? Is Gomez just an elite crook, along with some other bishops, or has the PC infection really gone wild among Catholics in the US?
[…] Source: Throne and Altar […]
Of course the PC infection has gone wild. Even reactionary Catholics are, generally speaking, racial liberals & leftists.
Anti-racial-integrationists were excommunicated in the 1960s but abortionists aren’t.
Etc.
The null hypothesis holds up pretty well in my experience: since Vatican II, members of the clergy have the same beliefs and behaviors as people of analogous social station in the secular world. Meaning they have gone PC crazy, but they’re followers, not leaders.
Those excommunications were particularly scandalous because
1) segregation is not directly condemned by the tradition, so those politicians had no reason to think they were violating a binding teaching
2) it was such an obvious attempt to curry favor with the elites
3) E. Michael Jones has persuasively argued that racial integration was a plot by the WASP-Jewish elite to use blacks to destroy the ethnic Catholic ghettos.
Bonald,
I did not understand about the excommunications. Could you say more on which people were excommunicated for their belief in segregation.
Certainly segregation is politically defensible and also very natural. However, what place did “ethnic Catholic ghettos” had in American state? Why should the Poles or the Germans live in enclaves in American soil? To live in a enclave means not to be an American and why should you expect the American state to tolerate them?
Why does it mean to not be an American. Self segregationist as American as Apple pie. Americans used to be extremely localist and community oriented.
As Larry Auster explains in his multiculturalism essay, American ethnicities used to share (some) culture while living apart. Once, when I was speaking with my Grandfather, it happened to come out that when he was growing up my hometown (a small town in central Illinois) was divided into four ethnic regions with clear boundaries. The Germans lived in one part of town, the French and English in another, and so forth. This disappeared in my parent’s generation, and my generation never knew it had even happened. This was a huge transformation of American society, and it’s one I was never told about in school. Most Americans only know that the blacks were a distinct group and imagine whites were always the undifferentiated mass they are today. One wonders what other big parts of the American story I still don’t know.
One could also look to the French, Spanish and Mexican communities. When idiots like Vox Day claim that Catholic immigrants “ruined” American “freedom” by immigrating here, I feel reminding him that when the American experiment was hatched, Catholic peoples had already long inhabited this land from St. Augustine Florida to Northern California, from New Orleans to Quebec.
Read some of the history of the Spanish communities in the Southwest, one couldn’t get more old-world.
@vishmehr24
That’s a very unreactionary attitude. Ethnic segregation has been tolerated by many empires because it is wise to tolerate it and dangerous to try to crush it. America did not tolerate it for anti-reactionary reasons—because Catholics were not adopting America’s modernist cant as their own.
America’s mandarins believed, correctly as it turned out, that they could crush it here without significant problem, and, whether correctly or not, that crushing it was a compelling need were they to keep America ruled by their masters and their cant.
I would actually agree that letting in all those nineteenth-century Catholic immigrants (including my ancestors) was ultimately bad for the previous people, most of whom would have liked to continue living in a confidently Protestant culture. (I myself would prefer a confidently Protestant culture to an aggressively secular one that Protestant/Catholic/Jewish mixing tends to produce.) On the other hand, as Chris Ferrara has shown, there leaders were set on secularizing America from the beginning, so I don’t feel too guilty.
I would actually agree that letting in all those nineteenth-century Catholic immigrants (including my ancestors) was ultimately bad for the previous people, most of whom would have liked to continue living in a confidently Protestant culture.
Could (American Protestant) indifferentism ever have been confident for longer than a generation or two? It’s a real question, not rhetorical.
Was it really “confidently” Protestant by the mid to late 19th century, before Catholic political power came into its own? If it was, why did the amendment to enshrine Christ in the US Constitution fail? They were the overwhelming majority in late 1800s and so cannot blame Jews, Catholics or Atheists. I mean even the much denigrated Mexicans at least took up arms to defend the Faith in their country. It seems that idea has never even crossed the minds of Americans. It also wasn’t an influx of Catholics or Jews that turned England, Holland, Scandinavia and Prussia into the centers of Enlightenment liberalism.
The only thing I can fault the immigrants for was many being too eager to assimilate. I find it interesting that some of the most reactionary Catholics in the U.S. were not descendants of immigrants. Orestes Brownson and Brent Bozell were both converts.
Could (American Protestant) indifferentism ever have been confident for longer than a generation or two? It’s a real question, not rhetorical.
It couldn’t and it didn’t.
For those of us with mixed ancestries, it’s natural to have mixed feelings. I trace three-fourths of my ancestry to old stock British (mostly English) Protestants but my patriline is Catholic-German and a man’s patriline always has a unique place in his heart.
I would have preferred an America that looked more like Europe – distinct, sovereign ethnic nations – not one nation.
Ita Scripta Est,
There’s always been a strong desire to avoid anything resembling a national church as a result of post-reformation English history/experience.
It’s terrifying the illegal immigration trend into the United States of America. These people are now what, 30-50 million? It’s like the rich elites in Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras and other countries are dumping the crap of their nation unto the U.S.A, and want Americans to take care of them permanently (e.g. amnesty).
The rich, elite Spanish-speaking descendants south of the border are just jealous that the U.S.A. (historically) actually brought their own women with them, instead of leaving them behind, bringing just men and shagging darker (Native Amerindian) foreign women. The mestizo/castizo in Central-South America population is into drunk driving, drug trading and other stuff, whereas the mulatto/quadroon population in the Caribbean have horrible education trends, in addition to being impulsive.
And who should be blamed for this? Not the U.S.A. in the least. U.S. Americans shouldn’t feel guilt for the mistakes of other people.
In my opinion the Spanish conquistadores (as well as the Portuguese) should have brought their own women with them and segregated. Instead, perhaps the only stigma against miscegenation south of the border is that of against indios (Native Amerindian men) and negros (Black men). Basically, they were sex-biased (making black men even more low-status), which is stupid when it comes to ethnicity during the occurrence of miscegenation. What difference does it make to assimilate the shittier parts of the female versus the male? Both are bad in the end.
Indeed, the caste system in Central-South America is even worse than India (South Asia). Hilariously, Indian people after centuries of conquest (thanks to Northern men) assimilated Southern dark-skinned women into their population as well. Nevertheless, that damaged their morale, which is why modern-day India heavily dislikes duskier women in advertisement and traditionally didn’t like them.
There’s two major solutions: deportation/evacuation, or massive sterilization of both male and female illegals. If not, then at least make it a default 1 child policy. That way, with a drop in their fertility, the illegal population should halve itself from 50 million to about 25 million in the next generation. But most of all, deportation should be enforced 100%. The U.S.A. has an invasion for heavens’s sake.
Remember that Mexican elites are huge hypocrites. They’re dumping the bad parts of their populace unto the U.S.A. yet enforce their own sourthern border with other central american nations like crazy. If I was a smarter bird, I would hire terrorists from the Middle East to hunt down the rulers of these Banana Republics who are making money from this scheme and assasinate them. They have no right. Absolutely, no right to call other people “racists” (e.g. skin color, ethnic features, hair type) when they’re the biggest colorists around on the planet.
There’s always been a strong desire to avoid anything resembling a national church as a result of post-reformation English history/experience.
Sure, but that is just the inherent weakness of Protestant’s pluralism. America really was a watershed moment, a state that officially repudiated any subservience to Christianity.
And who should be blamed for this? Not the U.S.A. in the least. U.S. Americans shouldn’t feel guilt for the mistakes of other people.
Nonsense. The USA has plenty of blame for how screwed up Latin America is. From supporting Masonic revolutions and brutal dictatorships to imposing NAFTA and promoting evangelical “missionaries” we’ve done much to destroy not only their livelihoods but also their traditional culture.
Lincoln Steffens seems to have written the Mexican Constitution in 1917.
Latin America is a misnomer. They aren’t Latin, they don’t speak Latin (Spanish is Latin derived, that I agree), they aren’t from the Mediterranean, and their culture isn’t nowhere near Greek, Italian or even Romanian.
They’re Central-South American, which is their actual geography. Besides pockets of Native Amerindians still left, the Spanish conquistadores created those mestizos/castizos and implemented a caste system after miscegenation.
For decades since the 1940’s their elites and rulers supported leftist socialism and communism in an effort to “spread the wealth” to their lower classes but it didn’t work did it? Mexico for example was fine with NAFTA. Why? Because their upper-class wants to dump their lower-classes, the crappy part of their population, unto U.S. Americans.
Feel no guilt for the historical mistakes of others. Hire terrorists to assassinate people who profit from these scheme. For heaven’s sake, their nations range between mild/neutral to Banana Republics.
The “Latino vote” is a mistake. If one doesn’t deport them, then unfortunately, the only thing left is massive sterilization and abortions in order to halve their population for at least two generations (from 50 million to 25 million to 12 million).
Politically correct politicians will shout “racism!” at every turn, but without deportations, then what’s remaining? The American left is insane. They’re destroying their own country.
Completely bonkers.
U.S. Americans shouldn’t feel guilt for these illegal monsters, these lower-class Native American people who were victimized by their higher-caste Spanish descendant rulers, nor the mestizos/castizos who were the result of massive miscegenation. This is a Central-South American dispute, their issue.
The “Latino vote” is a mistake. If one doesn’t deport them, then unfortunately, the only thing left is massive sterilization and abortions in order to halve their population for at least two generations (from 50 million to 25 million to 12 million).
Contraception and murder are both grave sins, and I would strongly encourage no one to imperil their soul by participating in them or encouraging others to participate in them.
I find myself wondering if the Mexican invasion isn’t divine punishment against the United States for the 1) total rejection of recognizing Christ in our government, 2) contracepting/aborting ourselves out of a nation (and exporting that anti-life ethos around the world). Similarly, the Moloch-worshipping Aztecs were defeated and tens of thousands converted to the Faith, thanks in no small part to a miracle by Our Lady.
Who knows, I’m not God, but it’s interesting to guess His motivations.
All that said, I’m with poster “Bruce” above and would prefer an America that is not one country, but distinct nations, where I’d feel more comfortable with my own kind. It’s sad, because I have quite a few friends who are Mexican, but some denigrate my culture right to my face (ugly language, bland food, etc.). It grieves me, though I sometimes think it’s just an inferiority complex on their part. Still, I’d rather not have my own friends criticizing my culture and I would avoid that in a distinctly ethnic kingdom where everyone shares and cherishes the same culture.
I live where whites have ethnic identities. It’s very interesting because the region is very SWPL in some ways, but people never deny their German or French or Scottish or Spanish, etc. ancestors. There’s far less of the whole ‘I’m just a mutt’ thing and much more ‘My mother’s people were from Norway and my father’s people were from Kerry County, Ireland’ from white people here.
It is one reason there’s so much love of collectivism and socialism up here, though.
Politically correct politicians will shout “racism!” at every turn, but without deportations, then what’s remaining? The American left is insane. They’re destroying their own country.
I think it is more productive to assume that the people calling the shots are not insane or terminally stupid. George Soros does not seem insane or terminally stupid, for example. Where is the US heading, demographically? Towards a society with a mixed smart whites/Jews/Chinese/Indian professional class, a mestizo servant class, and a pardo underclass. Towards a society lacking in cohesion. To whom might this look good?
If you fear revolution from below, you fear it from the lower level aristos and whatever allies they can find in the professional class. If these are riven with division or, even better, unified only in their zombified belief in a weak and thin advertising-line-cum-social-contract, revolution is less likely. If you fear general civil disorder, then pardos are a step up from blacks. The society will be weaker, poorer, and less able to resist external threats, but you might judge those threats to be unimportant or even nonexistent (they certainly are right now) . . .
Politically correct politicians will shout “racism!” at every turn, but without deportations, then what’s remaining? The American left is insane. They’re destroying their own country.
What’s remaining? Notice how bad a decision it now seems, in retrospect, for white Catholics to have left the Democratic Party. We’ve gotten absolutely nothing of what we thought we would from that move. Instead, we have been infected with the GOP’s cheap labor ideology.
Worse, now there is the chasm of party identification between us and our natural allies among the mestizos. We are in the impossible position of trying to convince America’s servant class that they should vote for the party which slavishly seeks only the interests of their masters. Had we stayed and fought, the brown tide would now be swelling our ranks and making our victory in the culture war more likely. Instead, because the brown tide is swelling the ranks of our foes, we are feeling ever more pressed to abandon the culture war entirely in order to attract more whites to “our” side—which side, without the culture war, would have been regarded by practically every Catholic even a generation ago as evil incarnate.
DrBill,
Excellent comment. Were you to say this over at the Orthosphere, however, you’d likely get shouted down. According to the “traditionalists” over there, we are supposed to make common cause with some Danite Constitution-worshiper. The Orthosphere is going the way of First Things, first Catholics have to water down their teaching to not offend Protestant “traditionalists” next we know we are being called fascists, for not making Lydia McGrew feel “comfortable.” How sad.
ISE,
Thanks. I think the problems are more in the comments than anywhere else. Alan Roebuck is pretty reasonable.
It’s weird, though. Utterly demented Jack Chick style anti-Catholicism gets posted in comments, but any push back brings on the wailing about persecution. It does give you some insight into Protestantism’s persecution narratives, though. Too bad Polish peasants had little experience with Protestants or we would have one colorful saying or another.