Post: #26

Stupid program, but there is a "silver lining." Now, the white, liberal enclaves may feel the pain of their social policies formerly experienced only by poorer people (white or otherwise). How about some Section 8 vouchers in Bethesda, Potomac, and/or Chevy Chase? What about some diversity in Portland or Seattle? How about Malibu? How long do you think such a program will last when wealthy liberals have some flavor up in their business? I don't know, but I'm curious.

Post: #27

(12-21-2015 01:28 AM)Direct or subtle Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:11 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  A similar thing happened when I was in middle school. They bussed us white kids from suburbia into inner city schools in order to balance their districts. Instead of going to a school very close, my bus ride was nearly an hour.

Almost everyone from the burbs were put in advanced classes, cloistered away from the locals. We had a police escort every time we went to the school's park. I was mostly oblivious to what was going on, and my memory of that time isn't great. I just remember being scared shitless to drop a deuce in the bathroom because i got fucked with constantly. I was a scrawny kid.

And your parents couldn't do anything to keep you in the good school nearby, the bussing was mandatory? Mandatory bussing of white children to a far-away and violent school : It's on a stalinian (or Orwelian) procedure level!

By the way, if you were traumatized and hunted and bullied as a white boy, I don't even want to imagine what white girls must have endured, in this inner city school.

They might have been able to. My memory is foggy about this. I had an undiagnosed issue at the time that contributed to my scrawniness/weakness then, and I constantly felt afraid to tell them how it was. I would get taken home sick somewhat frequenty, and sometimes my mother saw what it was like. I was pretty clueless because I was overwhelmed by my own situation.

Elementary school was just down the road. I was proud, obnoxious, and confident then. I am not sure how different it would have been if I went to a closer school that wasn't in the inner city. There were middle schools much closer. The bus I was on would pick up about 10-15 of us and then drive for 20 minutes or so, then pick up about 40 kids in one stop near the school in the city. Took about 45 minutes to get to school.

The only actual choice we had other than moving or protesting through the bureaucracy of public schooling, that I remember, was going to an IB school. But, that wasn't an option for middle school from what I remember.

Post: #28

I first heard about this back in July. Such bullshit.

It's quite obvious what they're doing. Whites cannot even be allowed to have their own neighborhoods anymore. They aren't even trying to hide this.

This is going to fuck with real estate commissions too. So the government is taking yet more money out of my pocket in a stealth tax to fund their multicultural bullshit.

On the plus side, I believe this is an executive order, so if Trump gets in he can stop this with his own stroke of the pen, and given that he's a real estate magnate, he'll absolutely know what effect this is going to have on property values, which are typically the only asset the average American even has anymore.

I also see this being similar indeed to the busing program from the 60's and 70's, and that was ruled unconstitutional, so if this gets taken to court I can see that happening too.

Post: #29

(12-21-2015 12:34 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I first heard about this back in July. Such bullshit.

It's quite obvious what they're doing. Whites cannot even be allowed to have their own neighborhoods anymore. They aren't even trying to hide this.

This is going to fuck with real estate commissions too. So the government is taking yet more money out of my pocket in a stealth tax to fund their multicultural bullshit.

On the plus side, I believe this is an executive order, so if Trump gets in he can stop this with his own stroke of the pen, and given that he's a real estate magnate, he'll absolutely know what effect this is going to have on property values, which are typically the only asset the average American even has anymore.

I also see this being similar indeed to the busing program from the 60's and 70's, and that was ruled unconstitutional, so if this gets taken to court I can see that happening too.

The court has already ruled in favor of this - and so vaguely that even Trump's executive order can't change it.

The current ruling (citied in the article) says any situation that creates a discriminatory impact is unconstitutional, regardless of intent.

So white neighborhoods have been made unconstitutional.

Post: #30

(12-21-2015 12:03 PM)Menace Wrote:  Stupid program, but there is a "silver lining." Now, the white, liberal enclaves may feel the pain of their social policies formerly experienced only by poorer people (white or otherwise). How about some Section 8 vouchers in Bethesda, Potomac, and/or Chevy Chase? What about some diversity in Portland or Seattle? How about Malibu? How long do you think such a program will last when wealthy liberals have some flavor up in their business? I don't know, but I'm curious.

They'll find a way to exempt wealthy liberal white separatist enclaves from this.

Post: #31

(12-21-2015 12:47 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  The court has already ruled in favor of this - and so vaguely that even Trump's executive order can't change it.

The current ruling (citied in the article) says any situation that creates a discriminatory impact is unconstitutional, regardless of intent.

So white neighborhoods have been made unconstitutional.

Do you mean the Thompson case or something else?

Because the Thompson case was not a supreme court decision.

Edit: Nevermind, just saw the court ruling. Simply reaffirms my position before I suppose. The governments of the West no longer have any legitimacy.

More info here: http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-oba...ghborhoods

Post: #32

(12-21-2015 12:34 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I first heard about this back in July. Such bullshit.

It's quite obvious what they're doing. Whites cannot even be allowed to have their own neighborhoods anymore. They aren't even trying to hide this.

This is going to fuck with real estate commissions too. So the government is taking yet more money out of my pocket in a stealth tax to fund their multicultural bullshit.

On the plus side, I believe this is an executive order, so if Trump gets in he can stop this with his own stroke of the pen, and given that he's a real estate magnate, he'll absolutely know what effect this is going to have on property values, which are typically the only asset the average American even has anymore.

I also see this being similar indeed to the busing program from the 60's and 70's, and that was ruled unconstitutional, so if this gets taken to court I can see that happening too.

Precisely. Our existence is literally being outlawed.

Post: #33

The great irony of these programs, which totally reveals their intellectual bankruptcy, is that the reason Blacks even live in ghettos in the city is because of programs back in the 1960's which were to end racism and discrimination (blah blah blah) by importing poor Blacks into rich cities where "they would have a chance."

Instead, the Blacks were forcibly moved to the cities, robbed and raped all day long, and Whites left the areas creating the modern city ghetto.

Now, after decades of White flight, the government wants to move Blacks back out of the cities and into the same suburbs they used to live in the 1960's.

The retardation involved, and amounts of denial, is so high not even every special-education teacher in America could handle this.

I'm with Black Knight - the only way forward for Black welfare communities is to implement mandatory birth control for any single mother until she gets married. This is the only way to prevent the abuse of the system, and to prevent more children being born into hopeless situations and growing into criminals.

Post: #34

I fear for the future of whites in America. This is absurd.

Post: #35

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Which is why I am hesitant to jump in.

OP wants experts to chime in. I do have expertise in this.. but its set up like a bad move from the jump.

Post: #36

(12-21-2015 06:44 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  This is part of the government's plan to depopulate the inner city ghettos for the sheer purpose of gentrification.

Big east coast ghettos have some of the best inner city living. Close to public transit links, lots of small store fronts, and mostly buildings that came up in the 1950s-60s which are way better built than some of the junk being built today. The buildings are easily renovated into swanky downtown apartments within walking distance to a subway line.

All the government wants to do is make the "cities" filled with white people in tiny boxed in buildings while the trash live on the outskirts of town. This forces the businesses that rented offices in the cheap part of the city have to come into the more expensive inner city to be closer to the smart middle class people who staff these firms.

I really like this theory. I don't think that there is much propaganda going on at work here besides money and real estate.

I have seen in smaller cities I've lived in, during the 2000s that the downtown cores have been built up rapidly into SJW paradises (see Southpark Shitipatown and Sopasoda) and those developments run right up to the really bad parts of town. How do you clear those ghettos out so you can build more condos with vegan donut shops on the main floor?

Move the ghetto folks to the suburbs. Tell them that they will get to go to the 'good schools', give them bigger housing, give the REITs that bought up big ol blocks of foreclosures a government market to sell into.

Remember the REITs (Real Estate Income Trusts). They bought up huge blocks of forclosed homes and need to make their money back somehow. Regular people still can't get loans, so they won't come back on the market. They'll get their money back somehow. This is one avenue.

Post: #37

(12-21-2015 11:54 AM)heavy Wrote:  I'll play liberal for a second...

(12-21-2015 12:03 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 11:53 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  So what's happening here, in a nutshell? Is the gov't paying people to live in the suburbs?

^^ Which is great. It will totally work, given what we know of psychology and sociology. The environment shapes people and families. It will revive families and continual poverty and crime.

...

Quote:Now imagine a scenario if a banking institution cuts a sweetheart deal with a government agency and sells foreclosed houses at deep discounts in otherwise ok middle class neighborhoods. Then they use those foreclosed houses for section 8. You could see entire neighborhoods nosedive with no hope of bouncing back from recession periods.

There is so much wrong with this sort of experimenting that i'd be surprised if some kind of class action lawsuit can't be raised by legit homeowners. This will definitely fuck with property values.

^^That's horrible those bank execs and politicians involved should be put in prison.

It hasn't happened to this extreme level yet but I see it on the horizon.

Here's the reason why I pointed this out..most big banks in the U.S. still have large portfolio investments in foreclosed homes which many of them hand over to big property management companies. There are entire neighborhoods in in the southwest and midwest in particular that are all bank owned rentals. Since the recovery period of 2010 or so these properties have had decent yield as rentals. Many of the banks offload these properties after awhile but the rental yield is still so good they are kept on the books as investment vehicles.

With new section 8 laws these banks will be looking for new sure fire ways for stable yield in case the next recession doesn't provide such a good opportunity. This is when the government can cut sweetheart deals with banking institutions for portions of their massive foreclosed home portfolios. It's "win/win" for government and banks and absolutely lose/lose for the average middle class American.

What's especially dangerous is if Fannie Mae gets in on this with state government. Imagine a scenario where in addition to large banks the government loan agencies are just itching to foreclose legit property owner's homes so they can then rent it out "risk free" to section 8 tenants while receiving government funds in the process. They will be cannibalizing tax funds and privatizing all profit to banks and other sketchy government institutions.

There are serious avenues of corruption here that have yet to be discovered.

Post: #38

Not to sound smug, but were we not told that the problem in Baltimore was police brutality and now that the police has effectively stopped patrolling that the neighborhoods would be prospering again?

Post: #39

(12-21-2015 03:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  The great irony of these programs, which totally reveals their intellectual bankruptcy, is that the reason Blacks even live in ghettos in the city is because of programs back in the 1960's which were to end racism and discrimination (blah blah blah) by importing poor Blacks into rich cities where "they would have a chance."

Instead, the Blacks were forcibly moved to the cities, robbed and raped all day long, and Whites left the areas creating the modern city ghetto.

CA is kind of a model for this.

Blacks from the south and other parts of the U.S. were lured to the west coast when all the naval yards and manufacturing jobs were booming around and post WW2.

Blacks on the west coast actually prospered for at least a decade and most achieved middle class living standards.

During the late 60-70's period outsourcing became a thing and manufacturing started to dry up. Jobs disappeared.

Blacks were stuck in an area with rising cost of living and large unemployment. Why blacks didn't form their own service industry and/or adapt with a micro economy is a big question that I don't see addressed that much. I see a lot of finger pointing with regards to this.

Then those communities got hit up with the crack epidemic and other problems.

Things then went into a serious downward spiral that's lasted generations.

Post: #40

(12-21-2015 03:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Instead, the Blacks were forcibly moved to the cities, robbed and raped all day long, and Whites left the areas creating the modern city ghetto.

Now, after decades of White flight, the government wants to move Blacks back out of the cities and into the same suburbs they used to live in the 1960's.

Any group of people that rely on others to fix their problems, instead of doing so themselves, will stay exactly where they belong. This is not bad news actually. For one, many of you who may own homes in the suburbs know about it before it goes to mainstream (don't be the last to exit); we already know what not to do now. Finally, for those of us who can think "a few steps ahead" (no need to tell the world, as this is a public forum), this offers quite an opportunity.

(12-21-2015 04:57 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Not to sound smug, but were we not told that the problem in Baltimore was police brutality and now that the police has effectively stopped patrolling that the neighborhoods would be prospering again?

Indeed, when police don't do their job, cities prosper. Heh.

Police avoiding certain areas (because the areas hate police) is a form of population control that keeps certain groups out of the overall population. The irony is beautiful.

Post: #41

(12-21-2015 06:44 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  This is part of the government's plan to depopulate the inner city ghettos for the sheer purpose of gentrification.

Big east coast ghettos have some of the best inner city living. Close to public transit links, lots of small store fronts, and mostly buildings that came up in the 1950s-60s which are way better built than some of the junk being built today. The buildings are easily renovated into swanky downtown apartments within walking distance to a subway line.

All the government wants to do is make the "cities" filled with white people in tiny boxed in buildings while the trash live on the outskirts of town. This forces the businesses that rented offices in the cheap part of the city have to come into the more expensive inner city to be closer to the smart middle class people who staff these firms.

The suburban exodus is a real thing.

Quote:"According to the Census Bureau data, 2013 saw 2.3 million more people living in metro areas than in 2012, with 269.9 million people now living in cities and their surrounding areas."

"The trend in city living is driven primarily by two groups: young professionals and Baby Boomers, who are retiring and moving back to the cities they left when they started families. William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, told USA Today. Frey described the trend as a “180 degree” switch from the exodus to the suburbs over the last decade."

"In all but five of the fastest-growing metro areas, the largest contributor to growth was net migration and not higher birth rates, according to the Census Bureau. Among the cities with the highest “natural increase” are Washington, D.C., and Provo-Orem, Utah, which was recently voted the city with the highest rate of well-being in the nation."

Source: http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03/...us/359714/

All those SWPL yuppie types who grew up in the middle-upper class suburbs are flooding cities and making their mark with a cupcake shop on every corner. Plus, people are having kids later/not at all, want shorter commutes, walkable towns, and all the benefits of city life. They grew up in the bland suburbs and want nothing to do with it. I can understand and sympathize with this to some extent.

Of course, there are a ton of ghetto enclaves right now that are VERY ripe for gentrification. As noted, they have transport links, solid housing stock with "character", and tons of nearby work options. In a way, I'm OK with large ghetto enclaves being wiped out and moved elsewhere. Imagine if large parts of DC outside of northwest were safe, walkable, and nice. Southside Chicago? Baltimore? Detroit? Nearly every large city in America has significant ghetto enclaves that take up A LOT of valuable real estate. Why should deadbeats living on welfare get prime real estate?

For us guys on here who like good logistics, affordable rents, and not having to need a car, opening up large part of cities that were former war zones would do wonders for options. However, ghetto people have to go somewhere and as I made clear in my original post, they shouldn't be getting fast-tracked on the governments dime into nice middle class suburbs that some people work a life time to live in.

Instead, they should move on their own accord to where they can afford; thereby not disrupting the socio-economic integrity of areas they have no business being in; like nice middle class neighborhoods.. There is PLENTY of open space in this country with cheap land/rents and no people around to disturb. Built up cities with transport options on the other hand are very limited though. Again, why should significant sections of these potentially great cities belong to the welfare dependent class? If the gov't wants to intervene, give them and their teenage kids birth control, moving money to these open land areas, and an education voucher to goto a vo-tech/community college to learn something marketable (they can get this already via a Pell Grant).

When you hear about programs like the one in the article, all you hear from libtard idiots is how this and that is good for progress and equality. Nevermind the fact that YOUR family might have worked a lifetime to EARN their way into that nice middle class neighborhood that someone from the ghetto, who has made nothing but poor choices in life, gets the tax funded fast-track into it. Like many things in America, those that make sacrifices and do things right get punished while fuck-ups get rewarded. The final insult being that those that sacrificed pay for the fuck-ups reward.

It's an odd thing. One of the rally cries you hear among libtards is how gentrification in cities is pushing poor ghetto people out of future prime neighborhoods, that this isn't good and something should be done to make sure they can stay in-place via subsidies. Maybe its karma in a way. They took over my neighborhood in the suburbs. Now maybe I should take over theirs in the city.

Post: #42

@black Knight:

Valid point. Why not identify semi-rural areas with job opportunities, relocate Section 8 inhabitants sparingly, and have the housing come packaged with a lease / rent-to-own beater repo car?

Don't know the rural stats but there's got to be some growth areas in each state. Add a monthly visit by social workers or the sheriff to make sure they don't open up a Breaking Bad franchise.

Post: #43

Relevant:

Post: #44

(12-21-2015 07:23 PM)polar Wrote:  @black Knight:

Valid point. Why not identify semi-rural areas with job opportunities, relocate Section 8 inhabitants sparingly, and have the housing come packaged with a lease / rent-to-own beater repo car?

Don't know the rural stats but there's got to be some growth areas in each state. Add a monthly visit by social workers or the sheriff to make sure they don't open up a Breaking Bad franchise.

Well, HOW to re-locate is a bit complex and a debate on its own. The argument I was making is that city space and infrastructure is very finite and welfare dependents have no business occupying large chunks of what could be very nice sections of cities.

There are all kinds of options:

1. You could move them to very open land areas; thereby not disturbing other neighborhoods. The ones that want to be deadbeats will move to certain isolated areas and live out the rest of their existence on cheap land doing nothing.

However, and this key, they are under no condition allow to breed. This is how small ghetto enclaves explode in size over decades into large sections of cities. The Freakononmics guys even made the case that the legalization of abortion was responsible to some significant degree for the decline in criminal activity decades later.

You can read more here: http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abort...u-believe/

2. Another alternative is you just leave people in place and revoke breeding privileges for welfare dependents and their teenage children. In theory, large sections of ghettos will disappear over decades.

3. The legit people who live in the ghetto and want a fresh start (something I can totally understand and get behind): govt' will pay to move them far away from the ghetto (less chance of getting caught up in bullshit), education/living voucher for employment training, work 2-3 years and prove self-sustainment without government help, and then breeding rights reinstated.

You can mix up these options as well. I think the best option would be a mix:

Give legit people a chance to escape but no babies until well off the dole and self-sustaining (you could call it the Second Chance program or something). Want to stay and live on welfare? No babies for you and your genetic line dies due to your laziness. Instead of moving the trouble makers, I would just start doing aggressive enforcement of violent offenders while decriminalizing all drugs; which would eliminate a lot of profit margins and violence that stems from drug trafficking.

Decriminalization of drugs and aggressive enforcement of violent offenders will do a lot on its own in the short-term. No babies for welfare dependents will do a lot of the rest of the work in cleaning up ghettos over a generation or two.

Until Trump came along, I never saw someone in politics who could pull off something like the aforementioned. The no babies bit (via birth control and/or abortion) is probably is too much for Trump. But the decriminalization of all drugs and aggressive enforcement aspect is a very real possibility that Trump could pull off; it wouldn't be a huge stretch for him at all given past things he has said.

Post: #45

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Black people and white people living together? Oh shit, the sky is falling!

Sometimes this forum is crazy.

Post: #46

(12-21-2015 08:17 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Black people and white people living together? Oh shit, the sky is falling!

Sometimes this forum is crazy.

It's a bit much to assume this is all about race. If you're a property owner you don't want a tenant living adjacent your property (or even in the same neighborhood) on responsibility free government subsidies from a crime ridden neighborhood.

It's common sense. Ghetto people, ghetto problems.

It doesn't matter if it's Tyrone from the block, or Joe bob with his truck propped on cinderblocks, or Jesus Gomez amateur fence vaulter champ from Guerrero.

If they are from a crime ridden neighborhood chances are they will bring all their literal and figurative baggage with them.

edit: Before someone tries to say I don't know what it's like to be from a poor bad neighborhood. Yes, I do. I lived amongst similar types I mentioned before in the wonderful state of CA. There were even SE asian gangbangers too as neighbors how's that for multicultural diversity. The trash version of every race was represented in the city I was in. I got out the old fashioned way and this may be a mysterious concept..hard work and education!

I'm not going to lie though things would have been much easier to be on the government dole. But I actually had relatives who didn't know how to apply for things like that since they were too busy actually working rather than squirting out more kids, riding the felon cock carousel, and gaming the system.

Post: #47

^^^
This.

It's not about race, it's about socialism.

It's the same "migrant" issue everywhere.

When you forcibly take from productive people and give to lazy people, why are you surprised when productive people leave, and more lazy people show up?

Post: #48

(12-21-2015 08:17 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Black people and white people living together? Oh shit, the sky is falling!

Sometimes this forum is crazy.

It's not just this forum. Most white people dont want to live near a large population of black people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's human nature that I observed throughout life. And it's not just "red neck right wingers." Most white liberals avoid blacks and do SWPL activities. Your wealthiest liberal areas have few if any blacks (Marin county CA, Martha's Vinyard). Liberal cities like San Francisco and Portland don't have many blacks , probably by design.

In fact, some people are arguing that policies like this are designed to get the blacks out of cities which are being gentrified by white liberals who don't want blacks around.

No matter how much people profess to love multiculturalism and diversity, most people like to be around predominately their own type.

Post: #49

(12-22-2015 11:42 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 08:17 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Black people and white people living together? Oh shit, the sky is falling!

Sometimes this forum is crazy.

It's not just this forum. Most white people dont want to live near a large population of black people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's human nature that I observed throughout life. And it's not just "red neck right wingers." Most white liberals avoid blacks and do SWPL activities. Your wealthiest liberal areas have few if any blacks (Marin county CA, Martha's Vinyard). Liberal cities like San Francisco and Portland don't have many blacks , probably by design.

In fact, some people are arguing that policies like this are designed to get the blacks out of cities which are being gentrified by white liberals who don't want blacks around.

No matter how much people profess to love multiculturalism and diversity, most people like to be around predominately their own type.

Up here in Boston, if a Black dude is driving around blasting some loud "thug" rap music, you can actually watch snobby White SWPL types rolling up their windows and making faces of disgust.

There are so many differences between the races, even on matters of taste, that makes any quick assimilation between the two groups nearly impossible. The only way assimilation can be achieved without conflict is over many generations of intermarriage and tolerance for each group's differences.

Moving people together like they are sandwich parts almost certainly guarantees people will dislike each other more in the long run.

Post: #50

(12-22-2015 11:42 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 08:17 PM)Fortis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Folks got no problem tracing their current ills back to feminism, but Lord forbid they try to do the same historical analysis with race and economics.

I'm not sure why Tony even posted this. With the level of critical thinking or lack thereof..

WIA

Black people and white people living together? Oh shit, the sky is falling!

Sometimes this forum is crazy.

It's not just this forum. Most white people dont want to live near a large population of black people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's human nature that I observed throughout life. And it's not just "red neck right wingers." Most white liberals avoid blacks and do SWPL activities. Your wealthiest liberal areas have few if any blacks (Marin county CA, Martha's Vinyard). Liberal cities like San Francisco and Portland don't have many blacks , probably by design.

In fact, some people are arguing that policies like this are designed to get the blacks out of cities which are being gentrified by white liberals who don't want blacks around.

No matter how much people profess to love multiculturalism and diversity, most people like to be around predominately their own type.

Disagree. Rich or even moderately well off people don't want to near poor wild animals called 'humans'. The town that I live in has racially segmented neighborhoods from the 50s and because of the geography neighborhoods are very geographically distinct, one subdivision is usually separated by a large creek or a steep ridge that you can't build on, let alone see the next neighborhood over.

In the black part of town, there is a nice black neighborhood and multiple poor black neighborhoods. The nice black neighborhood of course also has some white hipster families but they sure as shit aren't having block parties with the thugs four blocks over.

The same for the country. The skin color is 99% white. I live in a middle class neighborhood with 20 ish homes in it, 2 of which are black families...who are also perfectly friendly that everyone interacts with. However, when two toothless white motherfuckers are crawling through the neighborhood in a rusted out pickup truck someone will most likely stop them and ask what they are here for. No on is posting flyers at the trailer park down the road inviting them to the block party just because they are also white.

No one wants to live near the bottom feeders of society, regardless of skin color.