Open Borders, Free Trade, Globalization, and the End of Democracy

From Ian Welsh‘s fantastic site. Check it out if you never have. He’s just about Alternative Left himself I believe.

Ever get tired of reading media lies all the time? Well then, come on over to Beyond Highbrow, where our motto is “We will never lie to you.” And if you want a dose of honesty as anti-venom for the lies you are force-fed every day, just read the piece below. Everything you will in that piece is 100% true. There is not a single false sentence in there. Read it and digest it.

Bottom line is you can either have open borders, free trade and globalization or you can have democracy, but you can’t have both. In other words, open borders, free trade and globalization will always be voted down by any sane populace and any attempt to implement these projects will involve not only massive amounts of lying and propaganda and but also probably some sort of authoritarian, anti-democratic or even dictatorial rule.

Sort of like what Milton Friedman said about how the masses will never vote for his radical Libertarian neoliberal ultra-laissez faire project, hence the need to for a dictatorship to impose Friedmanism. This is why Friedman loved Pinochet so much. Friedman freely admitted that a dicatorship was necessary to implement his own project, as no self-aware population would ever vote for it. If you have ever wondered why the US is always overthrowing democratic governments and fomenting rightwing military and legislative coups to overthrow anti-neoliberal governments, there’s your answer. We’ve always loved rightwing dictatorships. Anyone knows rightwing dictatorships are great for business. None of that messy democracy stuff to fool around with.

I like this guy. He’s really got a way with words.

My problem with the EU’s Four Freedoms and the Euro project, as with NAFTA and its successor treaties, now being debated, is that they enshrine the democratic deficit at the core of the legal order of the nations party to the relevant agreements.

One may argue over the details of the legislative procedures by which all of the agreements were adopted, ratified, whatever – and the respective statuses of different agreements and mechanisms – but it seems intuitively obvious to me that, had proponents of these treaties openly discussed both what they entailed as a matter of law and what was likely to ensue, practically, upon their implementation, public disapproval would have been overwhelming.

Such agreements have always been sold to the public as reforms that will bring about a state of comity between nations, increase general prosperity, and basically result in every child having both a puppy and a pony. The realities of hot, speculative capital flows, regulatory arbitrage in some areas, convergence in others, mass immigration, the destruction of whole sectors of national economies, and the resultant marginalization of whole classes – even generations, in some societies – were not only not mentioned, even as possible consequences, but denied, either openly or implicitly.

To make matters still worse, when folks began to voice their objections to the new regime and its consequences for their lives, they were first dismissed as rubes and bigots (and sometimes, they were), and eventually informed that their objections were misplaced because the immiseration of one section of the population, by the destruction of its employment, had made possible X% gains in well-being for Y millions in countries A-G, thus returning through the back door the very “zero-sum”, some will have to sacrifice argument that was explicitly rejected by the initial apologetic for the reforms. So, in the end, it is Who? Whom? Just as the critics alleged in the early 90s, say.

In fine, the reason for the rancor and distrust is not merely that there is bigotry rife within the masses of mankind, but that whole swathes of the populace were betrayed, rooked, and then mocked and degraded for the amusement of those who did they betraying and rooking.

If one extends the benefit of the doubt to the constructors of the European project, and of NAFTA, etc., and assumes that they were all enlightened social democrats of the most impeccable convictions and intentions (which is, of course, far too generous by several orders of magnitude), it still remains that what they proposed was a multi-step process, with immense possibilities for slippage as one negotiated each transition.

There never was a guarantee that, when the reforms were implemented, and whole communities and economic sectors were obliterated, the political system would bestir itself to redress the dislocations in precisely the correct manner. There are always too many contingencies in politics for that, even granting the best of intentions.

However, the projects of globalization have always had a clear class valence: they are clearly in the interests of the elites and the professional classes who simultaneously serve elite interests and operations and aspire to ascend to the elite plane in the social hierarchy.

Once one accounts for objective class interests in the unfolding of political ‘reform’ movements, it becomes rather difficult to assume as possible, to say nothing of probable, that the classes benefiting from the reforms will, having increased their wealth and power precisely by disempowering and immiserating the working classes, will immediately turn round and say, “Well, boys, now we have free trade and freedom of capital movement, what do say we tax ourselves a lot more to provide for the sort of social democracy that will cushion the lives of the workers?” The entire logic of the projects is the gradual attenuation of social democracy.

And thus, the democratic deficit. It’s not that one could have expected the advocates of these policies to be honest with their electorates, admitting to them that most of them would suffer stagnant or declining living standards, all so that the professional classes could grab larger shares of a larger pie. No, it’s that the very proposal of such reforms, absent any binding mechanism to build social democracy concurrently with them, was a case of the elite hiving itself off from the rest of society, no longer professing to represent the people and their interests, at best implicitly claiming an identity of their class interests with the national/continental/international interest, and in practice governing strictly in their own interests.

As the US could not – and still cannot, really – claim the mantle of democracy while maintaining Jim Crow, so the neoliberal elite cannot claim that mantle while deliberately, knowingly marginalizing and rubbishing large swathes of the societies they (mis)rule. Unless, of course, democracy is nothing more than the bare formalism of the ritual plebiscite, one of the formal freedoms of bourgeois society.

In closing, since I have droned on a bit, I am dubious that integration can proceed beyond any horizon, wholly without limit – to take but one of the issues raised by the populist discontentments. The most tolerant and generous societies we’ve yet known, in Northern Europe, are now experiencing some of the same discontents that we witness in France, Germany, and the UK.

While the ideational structures and symbols that transcend discrete tribes can mediate a common culture to diverse groups, or mediate multiple cultures to each other, it is not obvious that this process can or will continue indefinitely, either temporally or in terms of effectuating the union of cultures and tribes. There are always potential sources of friction and resistance. In fact, I’m not certain that wholly open labor/migration flows could ever be managed save by a combination of undemocratic policy-making and illiberal tutelary policies. People can be more tolerant than they are, this is certain. I don’t believe that large groups will ever be as tolerant as neoliberalism requires that they be.

37 Comments

Filed under Britain, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, Immigration, Journalism, Labor, Left, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Traitors

37 responses to “Open Borders, Free Trade, Globalization, and the End of Democracy

  1. Jason Y

    Again the condescending words of a neo-liberal capitalist are no different than what you’d hear from high caste Hindu, a WN, or just a general race realist.

    How can one back left wing ideas, yet at the same time, embrace a race realism ideology which basically gives a green light to every exploitation known to man?

    • Jason Y

      Again the race realist, capitalist etc.. wants to blame either the person’s behavior for his poverty, and/or blame his ethnic background. Either way, there is no room for left wing politics.

    • “How can one back left wing ideas, yet at the same time, embrace a race realism ideology which basically gives a green light to every exploitation known to man?”

      You apparently forgot who runs this blog, didn’t you?

      Regarding race, left wing Ideas support helping other races from depravity and insuring them equal liberties. Equality by sense of real biological metrics is a concept based on assumption as inequality isn’t simply race-related but individuals as well.

      “Again the race realist, capitalist etc.. wants to blame either the person’s behavior for his poverty, and/or blame his ethnic background. Either way, there is no room for left wing politics.”

      Despite you talking about the obsession rednecks and Koreans have with race and generalization, you have an equally bad habit of criticizing race realism when it isn’t even relevant under an article.

      One, a “capitalist”, by this article’s standards, actually wants more 3rd world workers and doesn’t give a shit about the majority population even if they are his own race. So scapegoating isn’t even an issue.

      Two, where the hell were you even going with this?

      • I do not wish to believe in race realism at all. I would love it if nothing the race realists said was true. The problem is it’s true. Since it’s true, I am obligated to believe it whether I like that fact or not. Because I have to believe in all facts and I have to reject all falsehoods. I have accept lousy facts and I have to reject wonderful falsehoods. There’s no real choice about the matter.

        Jason seems to be saying that anyone who believes in the truth cannot be on the Left. Although this is increasingly true, I reject that. There are no facts of reality and human experience that the Left must reject. The Left must accept all facts of reality and human experience whether it conflicts with our ideology or not.

        Granted, race realism gets in the way of some Left ideas, but most of us have never said everyone was equal or everyone had to be equal anyway. This is one the big lies about the Left. The Left believes in relative equality especially in incomes and economics. We oppose excess inequality especially in incomes and economics.

        I can’t imagine any existing fact on this Earth that would make it impossible to be on the Left. The Left can handle anything. We can deal with any truths about human beings or nature. The notion that there are certain facts that the Left must reject is crazy.

        • Often I wish it wasn’t real either,as it has complicated alot of things for me.

          The thing is though that keeps me from a pessimistic life is, well, how pathetic that would be to spend the rest of your life in a pity party. Thus, I take initiative in finding a solution one way or another.

          Legit criticism and small matter aside, I’m quite against forms of prejudice. What began to piss me off though is Jason persistently (and currently I’ convinced deliberately as well) mixing up hate and race realism.

          It would be one thing for him to argue his stance in not believing it….it;s another thing where he eventually labeled me racist due to his denial / ignorance.

      • Jason Y

        One, a “capitalist”, by this article’s standards, actually wants more 3rd world workers and doesn’t give a shit about the majority population even if they are his own race. So scapegoating isn’t even an issue.

        The capitalist uses social darwinism and race realism also against his own race, for instance in justifying the oppression of poorer white people, who might have a lower IQ, hence why they’re easier to oppress.

        • “The capitalist uses social darwinism and race realism also against his own race, for instance in justifying the oppression of poorer white people, who might have a lower IQ, hence why they’re easier to oppress.”

          OKAY….in this scenario you are ACCEPTING these things as realities.
          This is vastly different from your original point, that being-

          “Again the race realist, capitalist etc.. wants to blame either the person’s behavior for his poverty, and/or blame his ethnic background. Either way, there is no room for left wing politics.”

          This arguments deals with Tribalism but what you’re now talking about is using the advantage of HBD to gain wealth….problem. HBD, in terms of accepting it by it’s scientific merits, isn’t the criteria nor is the desire to
          oppress poorer whites.

          What is the criteria is the fact that 3rd world people are cheaper, thus they wouldn’t have to higher white workers. Yes, the whites workers being unemployed is indeed a result but not the core purpose, rather it would be more wealth on the employer’s end.

          Whether it’s IQ or some other means, that isn’t the rationale to manipulate but it’s wealth.

        • *higher
          I meant hire.

  2. Jason Y

    I think race realism is relevant to this article, because the theme is the fact that Robert is for egalitarianism, and neo-liberal capitalism, aside from hypocritical PC remarks coming from some capitalists, clearly is not.

    However, if you look any Latin American right wing creep, then you can see he is always a race realist to some degree. Whole groups of third world tyrants and other capitalists support race realism cause it gives justification for thier obviously wicked ways.

    I mean, how can you really support the “Divine Right of Kings (or the rich)” theory nowadays. Obviously, the whole God idea has lost favor with the masses, so why not turn to science to back the theory. In other words, claim science supports a master race which deserves all it has simply due to nature. And of course, this master race is always the one who has the most people who are also capitalists.

    • Jason Y

      Granted, race realism gets in the way of some Left ideas, but most of us have never said everyone was equal or everyone had to be equal anyway. This is one the big lies about the Left. The Left believes in relative equality especially in incomes and economics. We oppose excess inequality especially in incomes and economics.

      Well, aside from some obvious cases of severe mental retardation, a lot of people might thier own mental backwardness was caused by the environment, not genetics. An IQ of say 80 or 90 might swing up or down due to the environment.

    • “I think race realism is relevant to this article, because the theme is the fact that Robert is for egalitarianism, and neo-liberal capitalism, aside from hypocritical PC remarks coming from some capitalists, clearly is not.”

      Except that’s not how you phrased the connection earlier. You said,

      “Again the race realist, capitalist etc.. wants to blame either the person’s behavior for his poverty, and/or blame his ethnic background. Either way, there is no room for left wing politics.”

      When I brought up that scapegoating had little relevance to the article.

      “However, if you look any Latin American right wing creep, then you can see he is always a race realist to some degree. Whole groups of third world tyrants and other capitalists support race realism cause it gives justification for their obviously wicked ways.”

      Except that this is talking about Neoliberalism and Globalization, where that kind of race-oriented think isn’t present as I’ve pointed out with immigration.

      “I mean, how can you really support the “Divine Right of Kings (or the rich)” theory nowadays. Obviously, the whole God idea has lost favor with the masses, so why not turn to science to back the theory. In other words, claim science supports a master race which deserves all it has simply due to nature. And of course, this master race is always the one who has the most people who are also capitalists.”

      That’s different from scientific race realism, what you are should be comparing is social darwinism. While it’s implication such as in the past had it negatives, the concept itself in terms of the nature of inequality wasn’t incorrect.,

      “Well, aside from some obvious cases of severe mental retardation, a lot of people might their own mental backwardness was caused by the environment, not genetics. An IQ of say 80 or 90 might swing up or down due to the environment.”

      Except that

      A. Genetics contribute to what a person is especially in terms of SES attainment whether it’s IQ or personality.

      B. Unless you mean environmental depravity, environmental surpluses only have effect at youth, and becomes more and more irrelevant as they grow older.

      And when you get down to it no Jason, it isn’t relevant. You narrowed down to was the connection of capitalist in societies like Latin America and race realism , while this article talks about the hypocrisy of Neoliberalism in what it advertises versus how it delivers. Capitalists in this scenario mislead masses as for the actual results of their endeavors that are by nature contradictory to their alleged philosophy, Race realists are up front about inequality and how genetics contribute to it.

      You then muddied this distinction by bringing up cases where the two are intertwined but those cases aren’t interchangeably representative.

      Latin American elites in this case are just a Neolibrel subgroup that are concealed race realists, not the typical upfront ones so the theme of hypocrisy doesn’t apply.

      • phil-
        Jason has the issue of skirting truths that he doesn’t like, and attempting to give some philosphical response to cold hard evidence (a “schizoidal” HBD denier, like pumpkinperson talks about)….
        I do that too sometimes but Jason takes it to a whole new level. 🙂

        and it’s okay, Jason. People who hold on to the evidence rigorously without context are autistic minded.

        Also, I understand that Scientific Race Realism and Social Darwinism aren’t one and the same, but an interpretation of facts surrounding Scientific Race Realism is used to back up the Social Darwinist ideology.

        One good response to Social Darwinism within the HBD sphere is how a more linear Lorenz curve (Gini coeffcient), meaning a more equal distribution of wealth, is perhaps the best indicator of average National IQ.

        • EPGAH

          But how can you expect to have that when you let in a bunch of low-IQ mega-breeders, who can’t help but drag down not only national IQ, but more immediately relevant, national Standard of Living, whether you measure it by raw income or by less tangible measures like “safety”?

        • Part of why the Alt-Left exists to begin with.

          The mainstream left is oxymoronic in the regard you were talking about.

        • Jason Y

          A lot of the low IQ are also white, as I mentioned in other threads, but some WNs are content to constantly bash non-whites. Also, the majority of the prison population is white, even though it is true NAMS constitute a greater percentage in relation to their numbers.

        • Jason Y

          Apologists like Jason here say that if whites just got a college degree, they’d magically get a job at the other end, rather than saddled with a lifetime of debt. But that’s the load we were given when the savages first started pouring in: They’d free us up for the Better Jobs if we let them steal a Better Life from us. Those Better Jobs not only haven’t materialized, but have largely been outsourced.

          But don’t incoming college students understand supply and demand? If they are so naive to think a degree in history will get them a job, even one teaching at a school (competition is fierce), then well, they only have themselves to blame as they are adults. and high IQ ones at that (or they wouldn’t be admitted to a university).

        • Jason Y

          Again how people will succeed depends on thier choices, but more choices exist than what WNs claim. OK, there are jobs in the medical field, there are jobs working with old people, though you might have to clean poop, there are jobs in the military, there are jobs in certain blue collar field, there are jobs in computers and math and science, though computers are under some competition from India..

          Note, since young people who go to college are generally intellegent adults, then why don’t they research this stuff, or are they so naive to simply think the world is The Wizard of Oz or something where all their dreams come true. Get Real. 😆

        • Jason Y

          Though this might seem like apologetic crap to some people, there is an element of truth:

          If people don’t have the willingness to go the extra mile, to be more aggressive, then they might not be able to do much. OK, they might have a degree, maybe a degree in anything, but whatever it is, it will be the alpha go-getters who will land the jobs…

        • Jason Y

          Again, and my Physics professor gave this speech the other day. He said, “They don’t care about a C GPA, and there is always a better candidate to replace you. (in reference to engineering).

          Actually that idea can be applied ot practically any college major, blue collar thing, self employment thing, rock band dreams, anything….

          But yeah, there is some vicimization, but the cold hard fact is it’s a world where only alphas win, at least in regards to employment…

        • Jason Y

          I mean to say employers don’t want a C GPA, and there is always someone in line who is better.

        • Jason Y

          The mainstream is not oxymoronic. The elites live in their own little world, ideologically and geographically, separated from the reality people like me live in by Gates, Gaps, and Goons. Inside those walls, it’s 1954, and the sun is always shining. Because they are not touched by these scum, they can’t understand our objections to them, so we must be “racist”.

          Normally people choose to live near “bad” non-whites they complain about. Either they are trying to make money off them, or often they aren’t any different than them. People, aside from kids born into families that force them to live there against their will, generally can move away from “bad” non-whites or even “bad” whites very easily.

        • “Normally people choose to live near “bad” non-whites they complain about. Either they are trying to make money off them, or often they aren’t any different than them. People, aside from kids born into families that force them to live there against their will, generally can move away from “bad” non-whites or even “bad” whites very easily.”

          Except when they lived in Neighborhoods first like in cases like Detroit.

          “If people don’t have the willingness to go the extra mile, to be more aggressive, then they might not be able to do much. OK, they might have a degree, maybe a degree in anything, but whatever it is, it will be the alpha go-getters who will land the jobs…”

          So you’re all survival of the fittest with whites but when the same applies to non-whites you’re all defensive. Nice consistency there Jason.

        • Jason Y

          Note ep-gah is referring to elites in gated communities seperated from the non-white or maybe white mass of low IQ by gates, gaps, and goons. However, another question arises, “Who are these elites and what made them that way.”

          He is not talking about just Bill Gates, but probably just regular people of any race who are simply winners. These people studied in school and/or worked hard at some blue collar thing or something. In this case, they would probably be living in a community where bad elements wouldn’t be able to afford the rent, or otherwise would be pushed away by the police.

          My brother would be one person who would be in this elite, so to speak. He makes between 100,000 to 200,000 a year. However, though he makes naive comments sometimes, I don’t think he’s think naive.

          He knows trailer parks and inner city govenment housing exists and it’s full of some bad people. I suppose his answer is simply that truly good people who may not have the advantages he has, can still move to a better neighborhood, but often, as I explained, they don’t want to.

          Think about it. Someone as dedicated as ep-gah is to this idea that certain people are scum would surely move out, unless he was a complete idiot. Obviously ep-gah isn’t a wigger or a white trailer dweller. He isn’t one of them, so what he doing in such neighborhoods?

          It always seems the prejudiced whites saying the n word and hypocrites in that they choose to be around those they hate. To them it’s some sadistic show where they get off on. True cucks, as some have called me.

          Neil Young, the godfather of cuck, was so right in the song Southern Man, where he truly showed the white racist as a hypocrite who keeps the NAMS around for sadistic pleasure.

        • “Think about it. Someone as dedicated as ep-gah is to this idea that certain people are scum would surely move out, unless he was a complete idiot. Obviously ep-gah isn’t a wigger or a white trailer dweller. He isn’t one of them, so what he doing in such neighborhoods?”

          You’re assuming moving is easy, did you consider

          A. How that would impact their Job?
          B. How that would effect connections with Family?
          C. The actual moral behind moving?

          At point C I mean most whites who moved were likely part of White Flight, those who stayed were those who wouldn’t be intimidated (probably genetics involved in this as well).

          And when you get down to it considering it was their Neighborhood originally and sociological factors rise from the influx of a minority percentages and the problems aren’t dealt with then they are just to complain.

        • Jason Y

          A. How that would impact their Job?
          B. How that would effect connections with Family?
          C. The actual moral behind moving?

          The place is a shit-hole 😆 Even blacks, given enough money, don’t want to live there.

          Family? Well, someone with enough cash can always easily visit family. It’s not like they are moving outside the USA.

        • “The place is a shit-hole😆 Even blacks, given enough money, don’t want to live there.”

          “The”? Their must be some confusion, as I’m referring hypothetically to situation where people do live next to the criminal tendencies of Minorities.

          “Family? Well, someone with enough cash can always easily visit family. It’s not like they are moving outside the USA.”

          Again, assumptions about economic ability. This would also have considered along with the actual trouble of being run out of their homes and nearby family and how much those things are valued by them. Some people aren’t going to be intimidated and will seek what they view as just in their communities.

  3. Jason Y

    So you’re all survival of the fittest with whites but when the same applies to non-whites you’re all defensive. Nice consistency there Jason.

    Well, I don[t necessarily agree with “survival of the fittest”, but it’s just a fact of life and goes for any race.

    Except when they lived in Neighborhoods first like in cases like Detroit.

    Note the blacks moving in at the time were not that dangerous. In fact, the booming economy of Detroit made the blacks more “white-like” so to speak. The blacks had more money, so everything about them was better.

    However, it was the whites who were prejudiced assholes, going into a rage at the though of having any blacks in the neighborhood.

    Actually the blacks often rioted because they were trying to move up in life, but the whites just kept seeing them as porch monkeys… as was common in the 1940s to 1970s.

    • Jason Y

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_race_riot_of_1943

      The NAACP identified as causes longstanding problems in the city of housing and job discrimination, lack of minority representation in the police, and police brutality.

      By 1920, Detroit had become the fourth-largest city in the United States, with a boom driven by expansion of the automobile industry.[2] In the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan had established a substantial presence in Detroit in its 20th-century revival,[3] which was concentrated in midwestern cities rather than exclusively in the South.[2] It was primarily anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish, in an era of high immigration from southern and eastern Europe, but it also supported white supremacy. It contributed to the city’s reputation for racial antagonism, and there were violent incidents dating from 1915.[1] The lesser-known offshoot, Black Legion, was also active in the Detroit area; 48 members were convicted of numerous murders and attempted murder in 1936 and 1937, ending its run. Both organizations stood for white supremacy. Detroit was unique among northern cities by the 1940s for its high percentage of Southern-born residents.[4]

      White migrants came largely from agricultural areas and especially rural Appalachia, carrying southern prejudices.[5] Rumors circulated among ethnic white groups to fear African Americans as competitors for housing and jobs. Blacks had continued to seek to escape the limited opportunities in the South, exacerbated by the Great Depression and second-class social status under Jim Crow. After arriving in Detroit, the new migrants found that bigotry existed there, too, and that they had to compete for low-level jobs with numerous European immigrants, in addition to rural southern whites. They were excluded from all of the limited public housing except the Brewster Housing Projects. They were exploited by landlords and forced to pay rents that were two to three times higher than for families in the more spacious white districts; and, like other poor migrants, they were generally limited to the oldest, substandard housing.[6]

      • Jason Y

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot

        In the postwar period, the city had lost nearly 150,000 jobs to the suburbs. Factors were a combination of changes in technology, increased automation, consolidation of the auto industry, taxation policies, the need for different kinds of manufacturing space, and the construction of the highway system that eased transportation. Major companies like Packard, Hudson, and Studebaker, as well as hundreds of smaller companies, went out of business. In the 1950s, the unemployment rate hovered near 10 percent. Between 1946 and 1956, GM spent $3.4 billion on new plants, Ford $2.5 billion, and Chrysler $700 million, opening a total of 25 auto plants, all in Detroit’s suburbs. As a result, workers who could do so, left Detroit for jobs in the suburbs. Other middle-class residents left the city for newer housing, in a pattern repeated nationwide. In the 1960s, the city lost about 10,000 residents per year to the suburbs. Detroit’s population fell by 179,000 between 1950 and 1960, and by another 156,000 residents by 1970, which affected all its retail businesses and city services.[51]

        By the time of the riot, unemployment among black men was more than double that among white men in Detroit. In the 1950s, 15.9 percent of blacks were unemployed, but only 6 percent of whites were unemployed. This was partially due to the union seniority system of the factories. Except for Ford, which hired a significant number of blacks for their factories, the other automakers did not hire blacks until World War II resulted in a labor shortage. With lower seniority, blacks were the first to be laid off in job cutbacks after the war. Moreover, African Americans were “ghettoized” into the “most arduous, dangerous and unhealthy jobs.”[52] When the auto industry boomed again in the early 1960s, only Chrysler and the Cadillac Division of General Motors assembled vehicles in the city of Detroit. The blacks they hired got “the worst and most dangerous jobs: the foundry and the body shop.”[53][54] A prosperous black educated class had developed in traditional professions such as social work, ministry, medicine, and nursing. Many other blacks working outside manufacturing were relegated to service industries as waiters, porters, or janitors. Many African-American women were limited to work in domestic service.[55] Certain business sectors were known to discriminate against hiring blacks, even at entry-level positions. It took picketing by Arthur Johnson and the Detroit chapter of the NAACP before First Federal Bank hired their first black tellers and clerks.[56]

      • EPGAH

        Great, Wikipedia using the NAACP as a source…You DO realize, they won’t exactly be unbiased, right? And Police Brutality was ENCOURAGED until recently, because beating or shooting criminals got results. Plus, remember the STRESS Units kept the streets so peaceful my own Mom could walk down the streets at age 9, unarmed and unharmed!

        “As a result, workers who could do so, left Detroit for jobs in the suburbs.”
        You’re bitching that the whites are following your Great Plan (Such as it is): MOVING AWAY!? The area they abandoned to the Blacks turns into a ghetto, and they don’t go back there to do their shopping. Do/Would YOU go to a ghetto to do your shopping?
        This is the side-effect of the good people moving away when the bad move in: The neighborhood turns bad–turns to a ghetto.

        As to not hiring Blacks, why should they? The riots had already proven that Blacks were violent and impulsive troublemakers. This wasn’t some theory on the Internet (Because the Internet didn’t exist), this was proven historical fact! Businesses avoid trouble, and hiring troublemakers would be letting it in. Most jobs nowadays force you to get a background check.
        Some even force YOU to pay for your own background check!

        And you keep saying they were “exploited”, but no, you can’t exploit the eager: If they’re pouring IN, they must not be as horribly treated as all that.
        Why do nonwhites pour into a white area to begin with, if we treat them so horribly?

    • “Well, I don[t necessarily agree with “survival of the fittest”, but it’s just a fact of life and goes for any race.”

      Well consider how genetics contribute, how averages and varaiton differs between races, and their consequences in a sociological context.

      “Note the blacks moving in at the time were not that dangerous. In fact, the booming economy of Detroit made the blacks more “white-like” so to speak. The blacks had more money, so everything about them was better.”

      Proof?

      “However, it was the whites who were prejudiced assholes, going into a rage at the though of having any blacks in the neighborhood.”

      So you think crime didn’t escalate with an influx of blacks that would agitate them depsite that being the case in pretty much any historical event except for skilled immigrants.

      “Actually the blacks often rioted because they were trying to move up in life, but the whites just kept seeing them as porch monkeys… as was common in the 1940s to 1970s.”

      Again, proof?

      “By 1920, Detroit had become the fourth-largest city in the United States, with a boom driven by expansion of the automobile industry.[2] In the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan had established a substantial presence in Detroit in its 20th-century revival,[3] which was concentrated in midwestern cities rather than exclusively in the South.[2] It was primarily anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish, in an era of high immigration from southern and eastern Europe, but it also supported white supremacy. It contributed to the city’s reputation for racial antagonism, and there were violent incidents dating from 1915.[1] The lesser-known offshoot, Black Legion, was also active in the Detroit area; 48 members were convicted of numerous murders and attempted murder in 1936 and 1937, ending its run. Both organizations stood for white supremacy. Detroit was unique among northern cities by the 1940s for its high percentage of Southern-born residents.[4]

      White migrants came largely from agricultural areas and especially rural Appalachia, carrying southern prejudices.[5] Rumors circulated among ethnic white groups to fear African Americans as competitors for housing and jobs. Blacks had continued to seek to escape the limited opportunities in the South, exacerbated by the Great Depression and second-class social status under Jim Crow. After arriving in Detroit, the new migrants found that bigotry existed there, too, and that they had to compete for low-level jobs with numerous European immigrants, in addition to rural southern whites. They were excluded from all of the limited public housing except the Brewster Housing Projects. They were exploited by landlords and forced to pay rents that were two to three times higher than for families in the more spacious white districts; and, like other poor migrants, they were generally limited to the oldest, substandard housing.[6]”

      You know what’s funny, they mentioned poor migrants of other ethnicities that faced the same prejudices however THEY didn’t result in rioting.

      “In the postwar period, the city had lost nearly 150,000 jobs to the suburbs. Factors were a combination of changes in technology, increased automation, consolidation of the auto industry, taxation policies, the need for different kinds of manufacturing space, and the construction of the highway system that eased transportation. Major companies like Packard, Hudson, and Studebaker, as well as hundreds of smaller companies, went out of business. In the 1950s, the unemployment rate hovered near 10 percent. Between 1946 and 1956, GM spent $3.4 billion on new plants, Ford $2.5 billion, and Chrysler $700 million, opening a total of 25 auto plants, all in Detroit’s suburbs. As a result, workers who could do so, left Detroit for jobs in the suburbs. Other middle-class residents left the city for newer housing, in a pattern repeated nationwide. In the 1960s, the city lost about 10,000 residents per year to the suburbs. Detroit’s population fell by 179,000 between 1950 and 1960, and by another 156,000 residents by 1970, which affected all its retail businesses and city services.[51]

      “By the time of the riot, unemployment among black men was more than double that among white men in Detroit. In the 1950s, 15.9 percent of blacks were unemployed, but only 6 percent of whites were unemployed.”

      And considering the discrepancy in modern times combined with AA, How much can this be attributed to the high discrimination there?

      “This was partially due to the union seniority system of the factories. Except for Ford, which hired a significant number of blacks for their factories, the other automakers did not hire blacks until World War II resulted in a labor shortage. With lower seniority, blacks were the first to be laid off in job cutbacks after the war. Moreover, African Americans were “ghettoized” into the “most arduous, dangerous and unhealthy jobs.”[52] When the auto industry boomed again in the early 1960s, only Chrysler and the Cadillac Division of General Motors assembled vehicles in the city of Detroit. The blacks they hired got “the worst and most dangerous jobs: the foundry and the body shop.”[53][54]”

      Well this could’ve been so due to

      A. Better Jobs already being taken
      B. Whites in these positions being overall more productive if you remember an AA case I believe somewhere in the SouthEast.

      “A prosperous black educated class had developed in traditional professions such as social work, ministry, medicine, and nursing. Many other blacks working outside manufacturing were relegated to service industries as waiters, porters, or janitors. Many African-American women were limited to work in domestic service.[55] Certain business sectors were known to discriminate against hiring blacks, even at entry-level positions. It took picketing by Arthur Johnson and the Detroit chapter of the NAACP before First Federal Bank hired their first black tellers and clerks.[56]”

      Granted this could be a legit form of perception going over merit, this can be due to these black being part of the right side of the bell curve variation. In other words, not quite comparable from a genetic standpoint.

    • EPGAH

      As to why we keep them around, if sadism IS involved, it’s not our own. (If we did that to ourselves, it’d be called masochism anyways, not sadism.) It might be sadism on the part of the Government, who refuse to let us kill criminals–and lately even refuse to call in the National Guard to end riots sooner! And of course, the Government in most places refuses to cut off benefits to the rioting scum! BUT that is being done TO us, not BY us. Call your Congressman and demand the minimal reform of Welfare: Stop funding those who try to rob us, burn our businesses, and kill us.

      Moreover, Section 8 keeps spreading “Those Neighborhoods”. Even if moving was a Free Action like you seem to believe it is, we’re running out of places to run TO.

      It’s not prejudice but survival to not want a group known for crime in your neighborhood. Indeed, as even you admitted nonwhites who can afford it don’t want to live in the areas their ilk have already trashed, why would we let them trash a new area–OUR area?

    • EPGAH

      You bitch a lot about white meth-heads, would you be a “Prejudiced Asshole” to do everything in your power to kick/keep meth-heads out of your neighborhood? Or would you just take your own advice and move away when enough meth-heads invaded what was formerly your neighborhood?

      Would you accept that any crime by meth-heads was because the meth-heads were “Just Trying To Move Up In Life” or would you keep seeing it as just petty violence committed by worthless druggies?

    • EPGAH

      You’re already in a rage about meth-heads, how much MORE of a rage would you go into if more moved into “your” neighborhood?

      And how cheap is moving to you? How easily can you sell your old house and at what kind of loss?

  4. Actually Pretty Funny

    Robert, I don’t really understand what you think about Free Trade, but Free Trade has lifted billions from absolute poverty aka living in a hut somewhere to a better life.
    Look at Japan, before Free Trade, they ate what? Seaweed. Seaweed! And peasants(serfs) caught eating fish or meat risked being beheaded by the Samurai, the ruling class.
    Korea? They increased 13cm in height in the last 50 years. Now South Koreans are 12 cm taller than their Northern, ahem, brethren.
    Vietnam is the third or fourth shortest country in Asia, right now, in term of human height, right behind Laos and Cambodia(Capitalistic countries?).

    Do you know how Vietnamese people dealt with rabbit epidemic before Free Trade? They(We) literally killed every single dog in the affected area, at the beginning of the 1980s. No spare medicine for dogs. Even human doesn’t have that much vaccine.

    How North Vietnam “liberate” South Vietnam? They didn’t care about whatever colateral damage they cause, because they had nothing. NOTHING! People living in huts liberating people living in barrios, and turned the whole country into huts.

    Right now, if there were no Free Trade Vietnam and Cambodia would lapse back to feudalism, or Revolution. The Communist leadership needs China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and even Thailand to invest into the textile industry which demands huge work force at a lower cost, else the people would revolt.

    • There is no free trade in that region. That’s what the TIPP is trying to put in.

      Japan and South Korea did not build themselves up by free trade. They had massive trade barriers and tariffs to protect their domestic industries. Both nations still have considerable trade barriers up to protect their industries.

      You are not allowed to promote free trade on here. That’s rightwing economics. You can’t promote rightwing economics on here. I ban on that. It’s in the Comments Rules.

      • Actually Pretty Funny

        Communist Free Trade: Any exchange between individuals or organizations without the consent from the Government, the Party.
        Capitalistic Free Trade: “Japan and South Korea did not build themselves up by free trade. They had massive trade barriers and tariffs to protect their domestic industries. Both nations still have considerable trade barriers up to protect their industries.”

        You are a capitalist. You define Free Trade from a capitalistic viewpoint.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s