Ancient Israelites did not intermarry much with ANYBODY outside other Hebrews, but nevertheless some mixing did occur. Moses the Lawgiver is only the most notable example, and his existences just as credible as any number of historical figures. We accept that Plato existed for example based on the testimony of other people who said he existed. Same with Moses- nothing unusual there.

Numerous other examples of marriage to outsiders occur such as Abraham and Keturah, or Judah and Shu’a the Canaanite. There is Joseph who marries Asenath, daughter of the Egyptian priest Potiphera. And the kings of Judea married all sorts of foreign princesses. It is true that in books such as Ezra, foreign spouses were frowned upon specifically, but this is based on SPIRITUAL grounds, not racial ones. It is specifically said that the foreign spouses sometimes led their Israelite spouse away from worship of Jehovah. This was the problem with Solomon and his many wives- not that they may have been of a different race, but that they did not follow the Jewish religion or mixed it with non-Hebrew traditions.

King David was the son of a Moabite- Ruth- and Solomon himself was the son of a Hittite. No Biblical disapproval is voiced about the fact that he built a house for one of the Egyptian princesses he married. Indeed the Talmud also gives some evidence of intermariage between Hebrews and outsiders. It was not a massive phenomenon, but it was not unusual at all.

This is one key reason why today’s white nationalists, pace the Fuherer condemn the “Jewish menace,” holding like Hitler, that said Jews are of inferior mixed stock, having absorbed tainted “Negro blood” during their long stay in Egypt and Palestine. Indeed a “mixed multitude” is recorded in the Bible as having gone up out of Egypt with Moses during the Exodus period.

This whole idea of “moving for a better life” is not some sort of moral right. It’s greed. And to the extent greed is good, it’s fine. But it’s just a synonym for greed or selfishness. We all have to be greedy for ourselves and our families. But how much?

Rather dubious. Why is it “greed” and “selfishness” that the immigrants would want to move for a better life? Would you say the same of millions of hard-working Italians, who produced the largest single surge of immigration to the United States in the early 20th century/late 19th? Between 1890 and 1924 over 4 million Italians immigrated to the United States, in just that brief 34 year period. So all these paisanos came due to “greed” and “selfishness”?

But these prospective immigrants have to be quite a bit higher than average before their immigration benefits the average American. The job that our Good Immigrant is taking could be filled by some American, the “marginal” American who would otherwise be called upon to do the job.

Not necessarily. They just have to be a bit above average, or even merely average, because they can add more value down the line. If the foreign programmer or engineer can turn out product more cheaply than the US counterpart, the value he produces may be more than enough. You say:

“That 10% increase from our good immigrant has to be larger than the salary that the immigrant is taking away from an American.”
———————————————————

But its not just a salary in question- it could also be benefits which the company may not have to fully pay on the foreigner, and also the sheer doggedness, and hard-nosed immigrate outlook of many foreigners on the job- working extra hours to get the job done, sometimes “off the clock”, in a way the typical Americans may not be willing to put out. Your hypothetical 10% may not be that at all but double that in favor of the immigrant- which is why companies keep on hiring them. At the lower end of the scale- low wage Mexican and Caribbean farm workers will put out harder effort to a degree the typical American will not at the wages offered.

I live in a fairly diverse area- Black and Hispanics below 20% total population, a quarter of which perhaps are on poorer lines. It is mostly middle class, with a majority white population. Blacks and Hispanics are about as well represented proportionately in the technical jobs and professions there, especially government. Nothing surprising there. Prior to WW2, a full one-third of the white Irish at one time were in government employment, a pattern that has lessened but still continues to the present day.

Blockading is an apt term to use for that has been the policy of whites- to blockade blacks into less desirable, poorer areas, thus ensuring higher white profits and wealth and status due to: (a) forcing backs into poorer areas with worse housing stock with less values thus ensuring blacks could not build the degree of home equity wealth as whites than if they were given a fair shot in the market and (b) blockading them also meant higher prices and profits for whites as the poorer housing stock is unloaded on blacks with fewer options.

You are correct. Sowell did show that “black flight” preceded the better known “white flight.” Black residents moved out when the oft drunk and violent white Irish moved in.

You are on to something about rent control. Rent control provides an incentive for landlords to lessen maintenance on their housing stock, since they get no rent increase by significant spending to improve. There are adjustments and variations but this is the general economic effect. If the property in question is a slum, landlords have even less incentive to do much with it. Re gentrification, landlords are eager to push low income residents out of rent controlled properties, so they could be rented at higher rates to more affluent white yuppies. This has been happening in parts of Harlem for quite some time.

I know this is the story of these days, anything bad that ever happened in New York was the fault of Robert Moses and his set, but it’s just so silly when you actually look at it. Stuyvesant town has the exact same design as most of those housing projects that are thought to be so destructive, despite staying middle-class and desirable for about 50 years.. Stuyvesant town has the exact same design as most of those housing projects that are thought to be so destructive, despite staying middle-class and desirable for about 50 years.

But the thing is Robert Moses and his bulldozers DID carve a swathe of destruction on Bed-Sty as well as numerous other New York areas where mostly blacks lived., though resident opposition in Bed-Sty in the 1960s and 1970s to some extent limited the damage. I agree with you though that “Moses as the devil” is a simplistic answer to the overall picture.

Besides, places like Bedford-Stuyvesant or Harlem were, as Steve pointed out, very convenient to Manhattan jobs while boasting really nice underlying housing stock.

As already noted by cited scholars, government regimes only replaced a fraction of the housing they destroyed. The fallout was to corral even more displaced black families into designated ghetto zones, packed with declining and dilapidated, OR older, less valuable housing stock. Meanwhile white corporate interests gained prime property near to Manhattan facilities etc etc. Even better, the blacks paid higher prices than a white would pay for the older housing in the ghetto zone- which could be unloaded for enhanced white profits.. Sweet! In more recent times white yuppies have capitalized on “gentrification” schemes to profit from the displaced in Bed-Sty.

You can say that it’s because it’s obviously all recent Latin American immigrants living in the area,but the underlying housing housing stock not to mention accessibility to Manhattan just isn’t there. Maybe someday it will get gentrified, but unlike Harlem or Bed Stuy or Crown Heights, it doesn’t happen merely because the threat of violence is removed.

What you say confirms that the simplistic one dimensional notion of violence is off-base. Violence is one factor sure, but as you yourself say, proximity to desirable locales like Manhattan is another. And violence is in part, a product of the blockading practices used by whites to corral blacks into designated ghetto areas. Same thing happened with the white Irish, and their violence, makes today’s ghetto violence look like a tea party. As Thomas Sowell often points out, all the ghetto riots of the 1960s did not yield a body count that even begins to approach one of several routine white Irish riots. (Sowell – Ethnic America etc)

This isn’t just for picturesque brownstones either. Lots of the huge public housing projects on the FDR drive in the lower East side have been quietly converted to million dollar co-ops, again the instant crime went down. These were exactly the “Garden City “design that Jane Jacobs urbanists constantly rail about as destroying neighborhoods and creating crime, but they are plenty safe and desirable now, thanks largely to various illegal police tactics and the “excesses of the carceral state,” as they say.

Fair enough, but government regimes have been abusing their “eminent domain” powers to confiscate the value of individual white property owners to white corporate interests can benefit. The case of white property owner Susette Kelo gives a picture in part, of what black families have had to live through for decades.
http://ij.org/case/kelo/

It wasn’t urban renewal that did it, it was the people urban renewal brought in, the malfunctional culture that mass cash welfare encouraged, and the unwillingness to throw everybody who broke the law into jail.

But urban renewal did not bring IN said families. Its general effect was rather the OPPOSITE. This is why in some cases, conservatives cheered it on. It was black families getting pushed out, so white corporate interests could snap up valuable urban property. White politicians happily pocketed corporate cash contributions to continue doing the same. Some critics say conservatives only became concerned about government abuse when it was white families that began to be pushed around.

This may not be strictly true. In some cases Republicans together with such unlikely partners like the NAACP joined together to fight against “renewal” albeit from different perspectives. The Republicans opposed federal interference via federal dollars to destroy, er, “renew” areas, and the NAACP fighting alongside to prevent black families from being displaced. Ironically while some conservatives rail against “distant bureaucrats” in Washington, it is white state and local regimes, supposedly “closer to the people” that have carried out some of the worse abuses. It was a local white city government for example that shafted Susette Kelo.

Are whites unreasonable for not wanting to live near underclass blacks? At one level, no. Hell even the white urban underclass, like the white Irish for quite a white were shunned by “the better folk.” In fact, many black middle class families do not want to live near underclass people either. Like other Americans they want decent schools and neighborhoods. The problem is that whites have historically, and still to a more limited extent at present, made no distinction between underclass blacks and middle/upper class blacks. Both groups have been sandbagged and blockaded by whites, in order to increase white benefit and profit. The problem is a white hypocrisy that talks about “free markets” but then manipulates both markets and government regulations of such to deny or blockade blacks from enjoying “free markets.” This manipulation and hypocrisy affects all blacks not just the underclass.

Restrictive covenants for example, which many white conservatives sigh about wistfully, hit ALL blacks. “Urban renewal” hit upwardly mobile black neighborhoods as well as the lower class ones, destroying housing that in many cases was not replaced, so white people could get easy transport to the suburbs, and white corporate developers could take over “renewed” land to build profitable high end stores, apartments etc. Some white conservatives complain about heavy-handed government regimes using eminent domain and such to seize land for corporate interests., but they cheer along the same heavy-handed government regimes when its black families getting pushed around.

Whites have deliberately corralled blacks into specific zones to increase white wealth and profit. Pushing blacks into ghetto zones for example means that they pay higher prices for less desirable or substandard housing- more white profits. Sandbagging blacks into these zones also means that better housing, with more rising property values flows mostly to whites. Housing is the single largest source of wealth assets. Whites can build home equity and wealth in areas with more increasing property values while blacks are blockaded in areas which, relatively speaking, have worse housing stock, and declining, static or lower property values. Even if these values over time fluctuate- the basic blockade pattern remains.

All this is by deliberate white design. Until the early 1970s whites were quite open about the above. It was only after various civil rights laws and lawsuits started exposing white hypocrisy and manipulation that they have enacted more subtle methods- using various covers, behind which, the same pattern is maintained. And even the civil rights laws were watered down. The Fair Housing Law of 1968 for example had few enforcement mechanisms with teeth. Plaintiffs often had to go to court and fight laborious and expensive battle one by one, in city by city, state by state. It took 20 years, until 1988, before Congress finally got around to adding stronger enforcement mechanisms. But even then, conservatives found ways to circumvent things. As already noted above, the Reagan regime neglected serious enforcement of housing anti-discrimination, gutted federal funding for public housing, and declined to collect statistics by race, which would have revealed ongoing patterns of discrimination. Since there were no statistics, conservatives could make the problem “disappear” to some extent, and cheered along the Reagan regime for doing such.

The pockets of blacks in good housing these days happened in spite of such opposition, taking a combination of civil rights laws and lawsuits, working in combination with blacks willing to pay higher prices than whites for the same housing.

Well, not exactly. A more accurate way of looking at it is that blacks acquired a number of close-in neighborhoods — Harlem, most of Washington DC, the south lakefront of Chicago, a huge swathe of Los Angeles between the beach and downtown, etc. — and then held onto them longer than would have happened if they had been less violent.

Not exactly. Blacks acquired said areas and stayed in them “longer” because whites used a variety of mechanisms to corral blacks there, from “redlining”, to restrictive covenants, to white racist violence. Areas with very few blacks were “redlined” off by banks, real estate agencies and even the federal government itself, simply because the handful of blacks happened to be there. In fact HUD documents on into the 1960s show that the presence of a mere one or two blacks in an area of hundreds of whites sometimes sparked the exclusionary “redline” machinery.

Black crime allowed blacks to afford otherwise desirable urban neighborhoods for longer than less violent groups, who got economically or ethnically cleansed from their neighborhoods with little muss or fuss.

Not at all. As Thomas Sowell has demonstrated, there is no “correct” amount of time American ethnic groups are “supposed” to stay in one location or another. And what “cleansing”? Whites moved out for a number of reasons- not simply black crime. Other key factors include the destruction of numerous lower class white neighborhoods by “urban renewal”- though that destruction was a lot less than that wreaked on black areas, the wide expansion of numerous new highways that facilitated white movement to suburbs, and the simple pressure of black dollars that outbid white dollars for property. As Sowell has shown, whites were in numerous places outbid by blacks who wanted and needed more living space. The blacks paid higher prices for older, less attractive housing stock in many cases- older stock that some whites were eager to unload on them for a profit.

And blacks themselves have been pushed out of numerous neighborhoods in Los Angeles in the late 1980s and 1990s without much “muss or fuss.” They have also been SPECIFICALLY victims of direct “ethnic cleansing” by Hispanic gangs.
http://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/latino-gang-members-indicted-racial-attacks

The Obama Administration, going back to its Chicago roots, has close financial ties to urban real estate interests, such as the Pritzkers.
Agreed, and white urban real estate interests in Chicago have long manipulated markets and laws to blockade blacks into certain areas, and when it suits their profits, oust them from targeted areas as well.

. For example, the Obama Administration has been at war with Dubuque, Iowa over its resistance to Chicago plans to relocate Chicago’s poor, violent blacks to Dubuque. Obviously, the liberal Democrats running Chicago are liberal Democrats so they can’t be racist in their desire to pawn their troublesome Chicago blacks off on the small city losers of Dubuque, who are no doubt vicious racists, just look at them.

Actually detailed HUD investigations shows that Dubuque violated federal fair housing laws by manipulating application rules and other regulations to disproportionately exclude black people seeking housing. The rules were interpreted differently though when white people showed up, to favor them.

My position on all this is that poor blacks will always be a hot potato that powerful interests are plotting to dump on less well-connected Americans. That’s always going to happen, but at least we can have fair arguments about the machinations if we all lay our cards on the table and publicly criticize each other in open debates.

Agreed- the poor, particularly the black poor will always get shafted more. But many conservatives have been anything BUT willing to put all the cards on the table and engage in open debate where housing is concerned, maintaining a propaganda barrage about how housing discrimination is a minor problem that does not need much government scrutiny, when in fact, it still remains a major problem for African Americans. Conservatives have also used several deceptive covering methods to sidetrack open debate- such as making statistics “disappear.”

As one scholar shows for example -quote- “At a time when the number of housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD doubled, the Reagan Justice Department neglected nearly every serious complaint… The administration also used the Paperwork Reduction Act as an excuse to stop HUD from gathering data on the racial identities of participants in its housing programs.21 By refusing to gather data on true discrimination, the Reagan administration strengthened resistance to fair-housing laws to the point of encouraging outright refusal to obey them.” Reagan appointees also sharply slashed federal funding for subsidized housing – reducing it some 80% between 1981 and 1985 (–Lipsitz 2007, The Possessive Investment..)