Conversation
Notices
-
That's not the excuse they use though. The excuse is the right to access the benefits of affluent places in the name of equity and inclusion. But you are correct about the goal, it's the destruction of those spaces, though I'm not convinced it's to lower property values per se or to make housing more affordable. It's to sew chaos and discord in furtherance of the socialist state they want. They want shit to get so bad that everyone both blames the government and looks to it for solutions. They want to make all housing public housing, and they need a sufficient number of poor people spread out geographically for that too occur. They want to have foot soldiers in every town who can riot when the political winds are at their backs.
- Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think: likes this.
-
@Humpleupagus You're correct, but you misunderstand my point. Government and media will use the excuse of unaffordability in the housing market overall to pressure the densification of land - and the land that the have-nots will agree is most suited to densification is white enclaves. "They deserve it". They don't need to devalue anybody's land in the short term, they just need to garner enough political will to forcibly begin busting up suburban and affluent low density areas in the name of making things more affordable for the Average Pajeet.
-
Every leftist loves niggers and diversity until they move into their neighborhoods. I live out here. I can't express how often this happens. I know liberals who moved out of California because California law moved niggers, immigrants, homeless, etc. into their leftist, upper-middle class enclaves, only to hear them complain about all the rednecks and conservatives in the states they moved to. SMFH.
-
Also property values are not an issue. NGOs will buy expensive properties in affluent areas just to build urban housing in order to block bust the towns. This is a political war.
-
The state effectively took over local zoning last year via statute. Local cities can no longer control or regulate the influx a high density housing or the riff raff that it brings. These people voted blue, and are now reaping their rewards. Fuck them.
-
@Humpleupagus On an individual level, they deserve diversity. On a societal level, unless the NIMBYists win, we can expect permanent destruction of white enclaves as a matter of policy.
This is why the hot topic is suddenly "housing affordability", not land supply or immigration. You can't target white suburbs for land supply - "We already live here!" You can't effectively target them with immigration or point blame at them for directly influencing immigration levels.
But you CAN tell them that their land is unaffordable, and that they need to accept land policy and development that devalues their spaces.
-
It's amusing seeing NIMBYism shatter the left/right dogshit political duopoly where pro-immigrant libshits are revolting against the even more pro-immigrant libshit elite, but what we're seeing here at its core is a disgusting hack journalist gleefully celebrating the breaking up of white ethnic enclaves because he's an an ideological goblin (edit: a jew).
NIMBYism itself is often irrational and detrimental to good decision making, and it's nice to see NIMBY retards get their comeuppance and reap the rewards of their own foolishness, but the interplay between NIMBYism and cultural and racial community building and gatekeeping is unavoidable.
Bad actors use the phrase to describe their opposition as snobs and "Karens" who are utterly selfish and despicable people because they themselves have an entirely different and deracinated view of what "community" is. Safe, known and familiar neighbourhoods free of incompatible social factors does not compute with the neoliberal ZOG regime. You MUST be denied uniformity. You MUST have zero commonality with your neighbours. You MUST accept proximity to society's have-nots.
(Edit: Lmao, I got ahead of myself and wrote this before i hit that early life check. EST. No exceptions.)