The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Hidely ho Neighborino
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following table shows the percentages of Americans who say they would not like to have as neighbors the following people:

Group NoNeighbor
Drug addicts 88.3%
Heavy drinkers 68.9%
Homosexuals 20.4%
Immigrants 13.6%
AIDS 13.4%
Speak a different language 12.9%
Cohabitating couples 6.6%
Of a different race 5.6%
Of a different religion 3.4%

The data, though the most recent the WVS has on offer, are from 2011, before the Great Awokening. Race hardly comes up at all. And even in those dark ages, blacks and Asians were more ‘racist’ than whites and Hispanics–the majority of whom racially identify as white–were:

Because there are a lot more whites (including Hispanics) than blacks or Asians, the latter should be more–not less–resigned to living among people of a race different than their own than white people are, yet there it is.

The relatively high immigrant figure probably functions as a duplicate for neighbors who speak a different language.

The civnats are right–America is hardly a racist country at all! Americans are more concerned about an engaged couple moving in next door than they are about a black family doing so.

Okay, so what people say and what they do are not necessarily the same. Nowhere is this more true than on the subject of race. People may claim to want to live on rainbow road but their revealed preferences show otherwise. This ranking might be better thought of as an exposition of who it is most and least acceptable to dislike.

WVS variables used: V37, V254

Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thomm says:

    Speaking of race, I have a new song out :

    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!
    When we boink, it outta sight!

    I is black, and she is white,
    One becomes the other like day and night!

    WN wiggers, be quaking with fright,
    But after a while, just burn with spite.

    Together, we set the stage alight!
    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!

    • Replies: @Truth
  2. What’s with the relatively high homophobe number? Are people afraid their digs will be outshone by the gay guys next door?

    BTW, by how much is the 5.6% the result of the Bradley or Wilder effect?

  3. I’m surprised how low religion ranks, even more so than race because I would have assumed there was quite a few people who wouldn’t want a Muslim next door.

    I’m also surprised that quite a few people think it’s acceptable to be anti-gay, but not racist or “religionist”. Also surprising how people are more accepting of AIDS than homosexuality because surely isn’t dislike of homosexuals to a large extent based on the fact they disproportionately have things like AIDS? If I had a neighbour with AIDS, I would assume he was a homosexual (if a man) or a drug user.

  4. Which “Hispanics” are we talking about anyhoo? The diary workers who speak no English and fairly shitty Spanish, or the woman I built an addition for who had a Spanish translation of Ford’s The International Jew on her bookshelf and complained to me about “all these dirty new immigrants”? It may have an effect on the results.

  5. Nodwink says:

    Try living next door to Sunni (Pakistani) Muslims.

  6. neutral says:

    Almost nobody wants their neighborhood to become black, no amount of being afraid to tell the truth in surveys can change this fundamental fact.

    • Agree: jim jones
  7. Thomm says:

    It seems that the 7.5% of blacks who don’t want a neighbor of another race are the 7.5% of blacks who vote Republican, and rightfully fear for the safety of the non-black neighbor from all of the other black neighbors.

  8. “Because there are a lot more whites (including Hispanics) than blacks or Asians, the latter should be more–not less–resigned to living among people of a race different than their own than white people are, yet there it is.”

    Proof that blacks will go to great lengths to “keep it real” (aka: lying to save face with the possibility of being an Uncle Tom), even in an anonymous survey, because blacks as a group love moving into white neighborhoods (shit be clean!) but it shouldn’t be a surprise that they won’t admit it.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  9. @The Alarmist

    “Homophobe” is a fake word as there is no irrational fear of living next to homosexuals. There is however, an unspoken understanding that homosexual men are sexually deviant and like to prey upon young males.

    I don’t really want to live next to a house filled with pit vipers for obvious reasons either; it doesn’t make me a snakaphobe.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  10. J1234 says:

    Okay, so what people say and what they do are not necessarily the same. Nowhere is this more true than on the subject of race.

    It would be hard to find a statement that sums up the facile morality of America better than the one above. I say this, not because of my personal focus on race at times (which exists only because of the absence of any meaningful broad public discourse on the subject,) but because of our society’s radical elevation of racial egalitarianism as the preeminent value of all time and all humanity; above all other values (regardless of how many thousands of years they’ve been in existence) and religiously guarded against any and all scrutiny and competing ideas.

    This level of sacralism, especially over the course of a few decades, can’t help but create a false moral veneer that will destroy a society. Moral values, while sometimes difficult to live up to as individuals, are very important and can’t be fundamentally superfluous in our collective life. If you ever wonder why corporations have jumped onto the social justice bandwagon over the last few years, it’s because it’s a morality that’s profoundly easy to affect – You just talk the talk and don’t walk the walk. Nike can preach social justice today, when they built their huge business on sweatshops just a few short decades ago…and very few people call them on it. What business wouldn’t want to become a part of that?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  11. Rosie says:

    “Homophobe” is a fake word as there is no irrational fear of living next to homosexuals. There is however, an unspoken understanding that homosexual men are sexually deviant and like to prey upon young males.

    What is one even allowed to say to sons about homosexuals anymore?

    What does “the talk” look like for mothers of attractive young boys?

    “Son, my pride and joy, don’t repeat this or your father’s livelihood could be in jeopardy, but the men across the street are homosexuals and may want to bugger you. Keep your distance!”

    It’s hard enough to broach the subject of regular old PIV sex with your kids, let alone something like that.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Anonymousse
  12. LAQ neighborhood rules:

    No drug addicts, no coloured people, no homosexual, no liberals, no non white immigrants, no Jews, no drinkers, no gamblers.

    Exceptions can be made for brown girls who like to ride white dick. But they have to live down at the far end of the street.

    • Troll: Audacious Epigone
  13. @The Alarmist

    It is a reasonable response to protect your children from homosexual pedophiles.

  14. Anon[405] • Disclaimer says:
    @Europe Nationalist

    Muslims in the US are generally OKish sorts of people, not like Muslims in Europe.

    Also people probably see “of a different religion” as meaning just “somebody of some other religion than mine” which probably causes Catholics to leap to mind with Protestants and vice versa. If you asked specifically about Muslims or Mormons or Lubavitchers you might get stronger aversions.

  15. @Europe Nationalist

    Respondents with children are significantly more likely to not want a homosexual neighbor than respondents without children.

    • Replies: @Talha
  16. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Fear and dislike are separate sentiments.

    I fear tigers but I do not dislike them.

    I dislike flies but I do not fear them.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  17. @Audacious Epigone

    The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear. Fearing predatory homosexual behavior regarding children is not irrational, therefor it is not a phobia. The invocation of the word phobia is a rhetorical and wrongly defined device used to label the target of that accusation as an irrational or bigoted person.

    I never used the term dislike, so I’m not really sure why you’re making the clarification.

  18. indocon says:

    BTW AE, the regular media is starting to get into the black democratic primary vote thing.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  19. Talha says:

    What is one even allowed to say to sons about homosexuals anymore?

    It seems fairly straightforward at least to me about teaching them that this is a morally repugnant lifestyle and something they should avoid. Fairly easy to justify using religion as the backdrop.

    I already had a talk with my older two boys about this; namely to avoid these people in social situations as much as you can, definitely avoid them as friends and to avoid insulting them and treat them with a general level of dignity accorded to any human being.

    I’ve found that talking to them about this before others do helps quite a bit. Also, in my experience, it’s a lot easier and straightforward with boys than girls.


    • Replies: @jim jones
    , @jim jones
  20. Talha says:
    @Europe Nationalist

    I’m surprised how low religion ranks, even more so than race because I would have assumed there was quite a few people who wouldn’t want a Muslim next door.

    Yeah, but it didn’t say “Muslim”, it said “different religion”. So maybe plenty of people that would have said no specifically to “Muslim” said yes when keeping in mind something like “atheist” or “Mormon” or “Jew”, etc.

    It would be great to get a breakdown by religion to be honest, as well as where the immigrant would be from. I’m guessing Australia, Bolivia, India and Libya don’t necessarily get the same responses.


    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  21. Talha says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Totally makes sense. The more children, the more likely to be traditional as well.


  22. SafeNow says:

    I wonder what the percentage would be for “owns a gasoline-powered leafblower.”

    Also, the opposite survey would be interesting, that is, “People you would MOST like to live next door.” Asian dentist, wife a pharmacist. Or perhaps, Military police, retired.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  23. Twinkie says:

    AE, I consider that graph a reflection of stated preferences. Actual residential data (revealed preferences) are different.

    • Agree: Hail
  24. Twinkie says:

    Mormons make great neighbors. They are generally kind, helpful, traditional, thrifty, and pretty attractive and fit, to boot. And they are often well-prepared for emergencies.

    Of course, no one is perfect. The negatives are 1) their religion is weird and is a perversion of Christianity and 2) when they are the majority, they run a polity as a theocracy and exclude non-Mormons.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  25. @Twinkie

    And you can always count on a Mormon to have an extra wife lying around the garage that you can borrow.

    Don’t forget to return her when you’re done though. It’s not neighborly.

  26. Gay men who bother little boys are no more representative of homosexuals than straight men who rape little girls are representative of normal heterosexuality. Molesting children is a crime, not a sexual preference.

    Funny how an organization that represents itself as a moral authority, oh, let’s say, the Catholic Church, condones and protects child molesters while condemning adults in committed, same-sex relationships. Which pretty much defines the kind of “values” that inform the sort of people I would not want to have as neighbors.

  27. jim jones says:

    Catholics support the LBGT movement ever since the Pope came out in support of homos:

  28. jim jones says:

    Catholics support the LBGT movement ever since the Pope came out in support of homos:

  29. @jim jones

    Catholics are thoroughly cucked.

    Very creepy. Any catholic building now feels like a pedo lair. The radical left, catholic and Muslim globalist alliance now makes sense as we realize they both play on the same team when it comes to pedophilia.

    I went to a catholic mass last week. Really gay music being played too; basically evangelical type songs but with a choir singing and traditional instruments.


  30. @Observator

    Thank you for this comment – it encapsulates perfectly the mind of an individual who has lapped up every bit of mainstream pro homosexual dogma available and asked for seconds.

    “Gay men who bother little boys are no more representative of homosexuals than straight men who rape little girls are representative of normal heterosexuality. Molesting children is a crime, not a sexual preference. ”

    Homosexual men (you don’t get to appropriate the word gay) are attracted to young males from puberty to late teens. These are not pedophiles, they are defined as hebephiles and ephebophiles. So called “grooming” is a process were homosexual men condition pubescent males into accepting a sexual relationship with them, through flattery, manipulation, etc. Dennis Hasbert and Jerry Sandusky are textbook examples of this behavior. This is also the operating model of the group Nambla – an organization that promotes sexual relationships between adult male homosexuals and pubescent and post pubescent males.

    “Funny how an organization that represents itself as a moral authority, oh, let’s say, the Catholic Church, condones and protects child molesters while condemning adults in committed, same-sex relationships.”

    The mistake the Catholic made that it may never recover from was allowing homosexual males into the priesthood, which is what lead to the egregious scandal that followed. But make no mistake, this scandal was, at the ground level, homosexual men using their power and influence as priests to coerce choir boys and other troubled teenage males into sexual relationships. Look up the data – something like 85% of the victims were males between 11 and 18.

    So the Catholic Church wasn’t protecting “child molesters,” it was protecting homosexual men (and its own reputation with the coverup). So while your criticism of the CC is valid, your understanding of the horrific nature of the crimes is laughably off base. Further, the idea of the “committed same sex relationship” is largely a media created myth. Homos want access to spousal benefits to pay for their HIV and Herpes treatments so they can continue to frequent the glory hole scene.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  31. Talha says:
    @jim jones

    That’s too bad, we need as many allies to push this thing back as possible.


    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RSDB
  32. @Rosie

    Parents need to convey that we now live in a country in which we are an officially repressed population and that we face consequences for speaking out. So it must be a standing principle to be careful of what is said outside the designated circle of trusted family.

    If you’re not homeschooling, ARE YOU STUPID YOU SHOULD BE HOMESCHOOLING. If you’re homeschooling the danger to the family from a child accidentally speaking the truth is minimized. The minimal risk has to be accepted though… the alternative is FAR worse

  33. RSDB says:

    I don’t like to criticize the Holy Father in print when I can reasonably avoid doing so, so I won’t in this comment, but I’d like to point out two things:

    a) Doctrine on sodomy has not changed since the Church came into existence in 33 AD


    b) The paper calling itself the “National Catholic Reporter” is anything but– linking to them to prove a point on something Catholics actually believe is like linking to these folks on Islamic doctrine:

    • Replies: @Talha
  34. Talha says:

    Well that certainly is more hopeful. Thanks!


  35. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Given the propensity of Ballsy Fordism, implicit in which is the proposition that anent issues of sex, women who traffic in legal feminism should be presumed prevaricators, my hypothesis is that a very high percentage of the complaints “reported” by females were occasioned by:

    (1) “recovered memories” and / or

    (2) pure fabrication and / or

    (3) isolated consensual play by and between one who covenanted herself to the convent and an inquisitive, adventurous sylph who, while matriculating her “women’s studies educational” ball down the field became a Hildebeast, Michelle Goldberg, Rosie, Mazie Hirono, Mattress Girl composite and / or

    (4) longer-term consensual lezzie love affairs where the non-cloistered “victim” experiences her “Spartacus Moment” and demonstrates her #metoo bon-a-fides by retaining an abuse ambulance chaser.

    • LOL: Rosie
  36. 216 says: • Website

    while condemning adults in committed, same-sex relationships.

    This is a myth. The number of gay couples that practice celibacy before “marriage” and monogamy within it, is probably a rounding error.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  37. 216 says: • Website
    @jim jones

    Undoubtebly the Pope is a cringeworthy liberal.

    What we still must reckon with is that the vast majority of society despises the traditional teachings on sexuality. The faintest hint of judgementalism brings down the hounds of Woke faster than you can say “gay pride”.

    The only acceptable method is to practice the traditional teaching privately, such that we are better examples, ideally causing gays to humble themselves without coercion and repent.

  38. @The Alarmist

    Maybe they’re worried about coming home and finding their houses redecorated.

  39. @indocon

    Nice. It’s increasingly looking like they’re going to have to face it in a few months anyway, but maybe they’re hoping to push Biden out by then. The article asserts that the Biden campaign is arrogantly bragging about their black support. That sounds libelous to me–I haven’t heard or read anything like that, anyway.

  40. Twinkie says:

    I see a lot of nonsense about the abuse by Catholic clergy is being bandied about here.

    I happen to side with the reformist faction led by Cardinal Schoernborn (önborn#Response_to_the_sex_abuse_scandal) and believe that priests must be above reproach.

    But let’s look at some data here:

    You would never know it from the media’s lurid and obsessive coverage, but the vast bulk of reported cases of abuse stem only from a historical anomaly, as most allegations occurred during only a small sliver of time during the Sexual Revolution from the 1960s to the early 1980s. And despite media suggestions of dark conspiracies and cover-ups, the Church – like every other institution at the time – simply followed the then-prevailing view of experts in the field that offenders could be successfully rehabilitated and sent accused priests off for treatment.

    Notwithstanding the media hysteria over sex abuse in the Catholic Church, priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males. While even one case of abuse is too many, approximately only 4% of all active priests between 1950 and 2002 were even accused of abuse – a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.

    Much of the media coverage is driven by the desire to bring down an institution that is opposed to abortion, divorce, homosexual “marriage,” and trans rights.

  41. Talha says:

    If that graph is accurate then they really have done a commendable job of rectifying the issue – that’s always good news.

    And I agree that the liberal media would love to bring down or marginalize the teachings of the traditional church on these issues.


    • Replies: @Twinkie
  42. Feryl says: • Website

    The black number is only 2% higher. If anything blacks, having less guile or shame than the average white, are more likely to blurt out their true feelings. The reality is that in post-1990 America people are a lot less ethno-centric than they used to be. America’s empire is inherently multi-racial; most people, in the modern Neo-lib West, don’t honestly think that a mono-racial society (or even a neighborhood!) is all that desirable or even practical. The white West used to be so white that many neighborhoods were mono-racial by default; as recently as 1990 Minnesota and Washington state were about 90% white.

    Hispanics mostly have no memory at all of America’s traditional demographics, so it’s no surprise that they have the most liberal views. I would expect most of the people who arrived after circa 1980 to be bigger supporters of multi-cult imperial America than either whites or blacks who remember the New Deal era as the American ideal.

    • Replies: @216
  43. Feryl says: • Website

    Interest in child victimization is cyclical and doesn’t necessarily correlate to contemporary behavior patterns. You are correct that social concern over sexual abuse declined dramatically in the 1960’s and 70’s, went up slightly in the early 80’s, and then soared in the late 1980’s. The topic became less popular in the late 90’s, but was then revived again in the early 2000’s, which is precisely when the “predatory Catholic priest” meme became a cliche and club with which to beat Catholics.

    “Social” forms of sexual excess (e.g. swingers clubs, streaking, nudity on mainstream album covers and movie posters, and gay bathouses) all became increasingly popular from the 1960’s-late 1970’s, and then gradually petered out through the 1980’s and 90’s. However, familial child abuse, according to researcher David Finkelhor, rose from the early 1970’s-early 1990’s, and then began declining in 1995, and it’s been declining ever since. Methinks that preying on strangers, students, “friends” etc. was part of the “don’t be a square” trend of the 60’s and 70’s, but then the overt seediness of the culture diminished a lot in the 1980’s (esp. the late 80’s), which drove the perverts to prey on more “convenient” targets instead (e.g. family members).

    Drug use and binge drinking also declined a lot starting around 1986. Car crashes peaked in the 1970’s. In all likelihood, risk taking of all kinds has by many indicators been declining since the late 80’s. This rather briefly had the unintended consequence of making familial child abuse a major problem in the 80’s and early 90’s (because remember, perverts no longer had as many public/social outlets to express deviance, quite a change from the late 70’s when several Western pro-pedophile organizations started with some individuals doing public advocacy on their behalf), but even that sort of heinous behavior began diminishing a lot in the late 90’s.

    I also wonder if later generations of kids were socialized to be less trusting than earlier generations, which has lead to Millennials and Gen Z avoiding predators they can easily get away from (e.g. teachers, priests, strangers, etc.). Of course, you can’t avoid the people you live with. So Millennials in the 1990’s generally were safe from say, priest abuse. But they did get abused far too often by family members. Fortunately Gen Z is not getting abused either within or without the home.

    There isn’t going to be some future wave of large numbers of Millennials or Gen Z claiming that they were abused by non-parental authority figures or strangers. These are generations who grew up with “stranger danger”, and were socialized to squawk about people who had hurt them. But Millennials and Gen Z have, for the most part, not been hurt by strangers to begin with. If this were not the case, they would’ve told us by now. Hell, even later Boomers and Gen X, who were socialized to accept a certain level of risk taking and abuse as “normal”, did eventually acknowledge that they were harrased/beaten/molested etc. at an alarming rate by strangers, “friends”, and non-familial authority figures. We’re just not seeing Millennials or Gen Z report a similar “background”.

  44. 216 says: • Website

    Does the fundamental immorality of this not bother you?

    Liberals owe us the traditional society back. They had zero right to subvert us out of every one of our countries.

    The fruits of military conquest can only be legitimately won on the battlefield.

    We have been made to fund our own dispossession.

  45. Marty T says:

    There’s no way the AIDS number is really that low.

  46. Change “to have as neighbors” to “my child to date” for each question. Then you will really see what people dislike.

  47. @Twinkie

    I’ve heard as a rhetorical counterpoint that public schools in the US have a worse record on the sexual abuse of children than the Church does, but I’ve never tried to look into it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  48. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The sexual abuse rate at public schools is reputedly 100 times higher (!) than that at Catholic Church and, moreover, teachers who confessed (let alone accused) are frequently recycled to other districts and rarely, if ever, are censured. But reports of the same are briefly mentioned in the media and quickly buried.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  49. Twinkie says:

    Thanks to the media-fueled hysteria, Catholic Churches are now some of the safest and least abuse-prone of the institutions in America.

    The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), the independent research organization out of Georgetown University, has been tracking abuse data regarding United States Catholic clergy for several years. CARA issues annual reports through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

    According to CARA, here are the numbers of accusations involving a current minor that have been deemed “substantiated” each year from 2005 to 2017:

    Year / # of accusations
    2018 3
    2017 6*
    2016 2
    2015 5
    2014 6
    2013 7
    2012 6
    2011 7
    2010 8
    2009 6
    2008 10
    2007 4
    2006 14
    2005 9

    Meanwhile, according to government numbers, in the single year of 2010 alone, there were some 63,527 reported cases of child sexual abuse in the United States – an alarming societal problem that has received very little media attention.

    (* – Of those 6 contemporaneous accusations in 2017, four of them were against the same priest.)

    Not only are younger priests (<50 years old) more conservative, orthodox, and upright than the products of the 60’s, there are many strong safeguards in place for children at Catholic Churches now. When I was late picking up one of my kids at a Catholic event once, multiple adults, including several lay members and moms, had to stay behind to keep her company until I arrived. It’s almost ridiculous now, the amount of rules in place.

    • Replies: @Talha
  50. Talha says:

    It’s almost ridiculous now, the amount of rules in place.

    Better to be safe than sorry. I am also part of a religious after school program at our local mosque. We have cameras everywhere and the procedures for pick-up/drop-off are very tight. That’s just how it is unfortunately; the safety and mental health of the community’s children is worth it.

    Again, glad that the Catholic community has got things under control – we all benefit from having less-damaged and unstable human beings around. May God protect your community from further transgressions by any foul people in your midst.


  51. @Twinkie

    So you’re saying that JJ is getting into her va-jay-jay?

    • Replies: @Anon
  52. Anon[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike Zwick


    I’m sorry but I have really no idea what this comment means. Maybe the person you were addressing does, but I doubt it.

    • Replies: @Mike Zwick
  53. @Twinkie

    Wow, perfect. Thanks very much for this.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  54. Truth says:

    I can kind of hear the song in my head with a calypso beat…

    • Replies: @Thomm
  55. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    You are welcome. Here is a study if you are interested:

    “In an early [1994] study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities.”

    All these bits of information are from the link I provided in the earlier comment.

  56. Thomm says:

    I can kind of hear the song in my head with a calypso beat…

    Haha! Indeed!

    I may lengthen the song a little, but the flow seems pretty smooth and rhythmic.

    The Library of Congress will eventually designate it as ‘historically, artistically, and culturally significant.’

  57. @Anon

    I replied accidentally to the wrong comment, sorry!

  58. @Observator

    I like how these pathetic homophiles constantly appeal to the mythical homosexual “committed monogamous relationship”. You think perverts fucking eachother in the ass is equivalent to people joined in the bonds of holy matrimony conducting the procreative act, on what grounds can a freak like you look down on polygamy?

  59. @Observator

    Get a brain.
    Homosexual preference for younger men, often below the age of consent, and children has been well studied.
    Put your pc crap down and wtf up.

  60. anarchyst says:

    I grew up in Detroit and can relate to the “changes” that occurred during my residency.
    Blacks WERE a major problem in 1970s and beyond Detroit.
    I was able to keep up my property with no difficulty, painting the house (outside) on a regular basis, mowing the lawn and keeping the shrubbery trimmed-normal maintenance for any homeowner.
    Contrast my maintenance efforts and results with my black “neighbors” who did not keep up their property. You see, in the 1970s HUD had “special programs” to move blacks into single-family housing, without requiring these blacks to have any “skin in the game”.
    Of course, being white, I did not qualify for any of these programs.
    The liberal “urban studies” folks at Wayne State University have always made excuses for blacks and their inability to maintain their homes due to lack of “upkeep” (normal everyday maintenance) on their homes. Their main excuse was that “the homes were old”…never blaming the black residents themselves.
    On almost every block, whites (mostly elderly Polish) who could not afford to move STILL kept up their homes–freshly cut grass, well-maintained exteriors, etc. despite their homes being just as “old” as those owned by blacks. No matter where you went in Detroit, one could always tell where whites lived. Neatly manicured lawns and well-kept-up houses were the norm.
    I finally left Detroit after a number of burglaries and little or no police response. The police KNEW who the criminals were but did nothing about it. You see, blacks were “oppressed” and were “untouchable”.
    Another situation was the “code enforcement” harassment that us whites endured. We always used the city-supplied trash containers (one for every two residences). Our black “neighbors” were too lazy to put their trash in the containers, strewing their trash throughout the alleys. Guess who got repeatedly ticketed for “improperly disposed of trash”? It wasn’t the blacks who improperly disposed of their trash–it was us whites. It was as if they (the black-run city government) wanted us to move…
    No, the old liberal excuses that poverty was instrumental in the destruction of Detroit is totally false.
    All one has to do is ask the party (liquor) store owners why they put up with the likes of blacks. The Detroit “ghetto” was (and is still) quite a “gold mine” for businesses that sell liquor, lottery tickets and junk food.
    I grew up in Detroit and personally witnessed the marginalization of whites along with the destruction by blacks.
    It’s CULTURE, not “poverty”.
    The “elites” need to stop making excuses for black culture and black aberrant behavior.

  61. anarchyst says:

    From my personal experiences…
    I lived in Detroit and had what I considered to be “good” neighbors. Mind you, not “good black” neighbors, but just good neighbors whose skin color did not matter. We helped each other, whenever possible, looked out for each other, and had friendly relations, shared family events, barbecues and other social events.

    The “troubles” started when my “good neighbors” invited their “ghetto rat” relatives to their parties. I restored an old car to near showroom condition and parked it in my driveway. The “ghetto rats” decided that my car would be a good place to sit (on the hood). Asking them to remove themselves was met with responses of f#ck you” and other derogatory responses.

    Upon discussing the situation with my “good neighbor”, he pretty much told me that “boys will be boys” and to “suck it up” and “get over it”. My friendly relations with that neighbor cooled, as he was not willing to straighten out his “ghetto rat” relatives. Soon after, these “ghetto rats” found new avenues in which to ply their criminal “stock in trade”- breaking in to and ransacking houses–easy (white) targets…

    I soon moved to an all-white enclave after that, giving up on the city of Detroit, the criminality, harassment, and civic abuse, and have never been happier.
    “It’s why it’s perfectly legitimate for whites to not want the nice black couple to move into their neighborhood”.

  62. This is the opinion survey that casts doubt on all opinion surveys.

    Seriously, we should doubt if any of that GSS or Gallup data has any value whatsoever. It seems like lies and self-delusion are the norm.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS