Comments:

Posted by Doug on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:17 | #

Used to be a great modern city, now in ruins.

Posted by Tom on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:32 | #

Could someone please explain Bowery’s follow the money comment? I’m naive.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:40 | #

Tom, Detroit is one of the most “generously”-governed cities in the Western hemisphere.

Posted by BOMBkangaroo on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:46 | #

03:00 - What language is that supposed to be?

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:58 | #

Could someone please explain Bowery’s follow the money comment? I’m naive.

Not sure what Bowery meant but it’s well known insurance fraud in the form of arson is commonplace in the Motor City. It has been since the 1967 riots.

Prior to 1967, Detroit was a nice place to live and raise a family.

Detroit (1965) Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUbsw28PCpA

Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evxDI7ce6Z0&feature=related

Posted by wmbutler on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:03 | #

Not exactly sure what Bowery means either. Maybe he’s trying to point out that this chaos is what we can expect once the money stops flowing. Or perhaps that bankers, developers, money men, etc. are behind the fires to clear the blacks out and grab the land.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:18 | #

One way or another, money will be thrown and the “victim class” will be rewarded for its ineffably easy, indeed inevitable, victimhood.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:47 | #

It’s called “moral hazard”:

Moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk behaves differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Think “community organizer” when an entire “community” is “insulated from risk” the way GW describes.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:53 | #

Obviously, James was not being very precise when he posted this entry.

Aside from following the money, how could there possibly have been a Holocaust in a neighborhood which housed no members of the self-combusting tribe?

Posted by john on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:22 | #

Sure it’s a holocaust. It’s an offering to the gods - asking for more money fromthe white man.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:34 | #

He was precisely not not precise. Openness to interpretation is not lack of precision.

Precisely. I was just angling for a way to reference the Combustionites.

Did you happen to catch the link I posted in my comment to Gorboduc on Music, freedom, revolution?

Posted by danielj on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 04:46 | #

members of the self-combusting tribe

Absolutely fantastic!

Posted by PF on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:41 | #

The Detroit museum of history doesn’t have any exhibits which go later than 1965. Amazingly, it doesn’t have any exhibits dedicated to the riots or even the rise of black power. Its as if this central event never happened.

You walk through the museum chronologically, so it starts off with Cadillac in the 1700s and there are all sorts of details of the various eras, which follow each other quite nicely: 1750-1800, 1800-1850, 1850-1900, 1900-1950. Then you get to a garbled 1960s section where they begin to merge the history of the city with the history of the various auto companies that are headquartered there. This way they can talk about the 60’s mostly in terms of auto companies thriving. After that you can go into some kind of auto-shop recreation of an old car assembly line.

The abrupt end of the chronological-history-theme is quite obvious and no reasons are given. After that it becomes a car museum.

Posted by Charles on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:49 | #

Here is a related discussion: <a >The Slaughter of Cities</a> by E Michael Jones

Jones is a catholic theologian, not a WN, but his discussion has interesting racial implications.

Basically, Jones claims that the displacement of working class whites from America’s cities was an engineered undertaking meant to prevent working class Catholic immigrants from forming a cohesive political block.

I don’t care much for that argument, but displacing whites from the urban centers had other deleterious effects. Political power in the cities aggregated in the hands of blacks. Black mayors were elected and they used their political clout to hand over local civil service jobs to their fellow black constituents. Mayors of cities are also well positioned to direct revenue flows coming from state and federal bodies to the cities.

Another way of looking at it is that middle and upper middle class whites would surely exert more political power if the major urban centers were dominated by whites. I mean who wields more political power, the mayor of a city or atomised municipal councils in the outlying suburbs?

Posted by john on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:25 | #

Jones is correct about the the protestant/catholic conflict. It’s well documented. Rothbard wrote about it. It was straight foreward ethnic cleansing.

Posted by one on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:18 | #

The founding Americans were displaced and dispossessed by Catholic and Jewish ethnics.

Posted by GoyAmongYou on Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:47 | #