Highways are Racist

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Now highways are racist – and must be cancelled.

So saith the new Oberbefehlshaber der Transport – Pete Buttigieg. Whose bona fides to hold this office are purely political. Hiring him for this gig is like hiring Fauci to play lead guitar for Van Halen.

At any rate:

“Black and brown neighborhoods have been disproportionately divided by highway projects or left isolated by the lack of adequate transit and transportation resources.”

Come again?

How does it “isolate” anyone – black or brown or whatever their shade – when it is easy to get anywhere, as the godfather of soul, James Brown, once sang about, back when America was still sane? Just slide behind the wheel, how does it feel?

Pretty damned good.

That’s what living in America is like.

Thanks to the Interstate Highway System, which made Americans individually mobile. That’s what James Brown’s anthem is all about – and it’s what people like Buttigieg want Americans to forget all about.

Prior to its existence, there was Route 66 – which in many places was a meandering two-lane that went directly through downtowns.

It was scenic – a TV show was made about it – but it was far from easy to get anywhere. It wasn’t an arterial system, like the Interstate system. It went from the midwest to LA and if you wanted to get anywhere else, you took side roads and that took a long time.

Families couldn’t just get in the car and drive to Disneyland – or to see their grandparents in an adjacent state.

Not over a long weekend, anyhow.

People outside of cities were, indeed, “isolated” . . . before there were “superhighways, coast to coast.”

Most people stayed close to where they lived, because they had no choice. They could not just slide behind the wheel. Many didn’t even own cars; they walked or took government-controlled – styled “public” – transport to work or the store, if the walk was too far. 

They were not individually mobile in the way that Americans have come to take for granted. And that is what Buttigieg wants to take away – just without saying so.

Instead, he says:

“In the Harris-Biden administration, we will make righting these wrongs an imperative.”

But how, precisely? Assuming it is wrong to make it easy to get anywhere by car – and by yourself?

A hyphenated fellow traveller by the name of Janet of Sadik-Khan – who is an “urban  planner” and chair of something styled the National Association of City Transportation Officials – is less evasive.

She – presumably – says:

“The administration is laying the transformational groundwork to rebuild the streets that we have to prioritize people, safety and climate—and going all-in on transit as the first mobility option for America’s future.”

Italics added for purposes of deconstruction.

What that means is fewer superhighways – and more busses. Fewer cars – that aren’t electric – which by their nature diminish mobility by applying The Wait to any trip which exceeds 50 percent of the already limited EV’s get there and back range.

Vast sums are to be spent on electric vehicle “fast” charging infrastructure, which will do nothing for the lower-income black and brown (and other color) people who cannot afford to spend $40,000 for an electric car – and never mind how far it doesn’t go or how long the Wait to get going again.

It does not occur to people like Sadik-Khan or Buttigieg and his master, Kamela Harris, that low-income people do not earn $40,000 a year. They are low-income people. The electric car push will push these people off the road first – and into the government-controlled wait for the bus or train.

This being the “transit” limned by Sadik-Khan, who was previously an operative for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Which “transit” you’ll be allowed to ride  . . . if you obey. Put on that “mask.” Take your shot. Show your passport. You’ll “transit” on the government’s schedule, at its pleasure. No more easy to get anywhere for you. As you wish, when you wish, on no schedule except your own.

How doe that make you feel?

She also speaks of “safety” – for “all users.”

Emphasis (again) not on drivers.

Instead, cyclists and walkers. Roads into and thus out of cities are to be  put on a diet – heir wording. Dachau style – in order to get rid of them entirely. Literally. Just called something differently: “vision zero.” Which means zero motor vehicle fatalities, to be achieved by zero motor vehicles.

It’s all part of the Harris-Biden regime’s $2 trillion “plan.” Which will “advance racial equality and environmental justice” – by making everyone as equally immobile as feasible.

“It’s big. It’s Bold. And we can get it done,” says the president selected.

Indeed, it is very big.

A big step backward, toward a time before it was easy to get anywhere in this country, especially for low-income people – who could afford to buy and feed a beat-up old jalopy to take them out of the city and to greener pastures.

“We” can’t have that, anymore.

It’s racist, you see.

 . . . 

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!


  1. Politically weak people got their neighborhoods destroyed by having interstates plowed through cities. It happened to all sorts of different people the common thread was political weakness. In some cases interstates were plopped down on neighborhood borders to isolate one from the other. Chicago’s Dan-Ryan expressway was located to prevent the growth of the black neighborhood to the east into Daley’s Bridgeport to the west. It didn’t create the divide, it just became a moat to maintain the divide. And a good hunk of Bridgeport was sacrificed to it.

    But here’s the thing, destroying the interstates won’t bring the neighborhood back. You’ll just have a city without an interstate. And when push comes to shove the removal of the interstate will be the racist move. Back when Chicago was having the Dan-Ryan redone they planned on eliminating many ramps. The ryan has a lot of ramps and merge impaired people cause all sorts of traffic problems as a result. So the idea was halve the number of ramps and reduce congestion. I would get rid of merge impaired motorists rather than the ramps but that’s me. Anyway the black people who lived there got very upset the ramps were going to be removed. So they stayed. Just what’s going to happen in these cities when the interstates are destroyed and no longer there at all? Effectively trapping them in their neighborhoods because it would take a half hour or more to get to an expressway. It’s the ‘woke’ that are real racists.

  2. Mattacks,

    I don’t think we have a disagreement.

    And for what it’s worth, I was the only white boy on my block at 7 and Telegraph. Biggest problem I had was when the Big Four would pull us over and put my friends and neighbors on the ground because I was riding nigger in their dad’s Duce and a Quarter.

    They would ask me, “Are you OK?” Apparently a white boy in the back of a Builac 225 was being held hostage or some other nefarious things.

    I’ve always ASSUMED that Eric spent some time living in Detroit. After all, I’ve been reading his prose since his Detroit News and Free Press days. I’m just pointing out that the facts are the freeway system in that city was designed to reign in the darkies.

    If you don’t understand that part of history, you don’t know and you don’t know you don’t know.

    It’s Huxley vs. Orwell. And Huxley seems to have been the one on point. People have learned to love their servitude.


    You said, “Yuri Bezmenov was right. You won’t accept the truth until their boot is crushing your face.”

    IMHO boots have been crushing faces since the first pair was invented. Probably were invented for that exact purpose.

    Do you remember the ramp to 696 by the Holiday Inn in Southfield?

    That ramp to nowhere was built, sat for a couple decades, and then demolished. A philosophical and figurative boot on the face of the people living in the mitten.

    How about up in Saginaw? Zilwaukee bridge? That ring a bell for you?

    I don’t think you have a basic understanding of government. Tax, and spend more than comes in from the taxes.

    If govco was able to tax everyone to put down the blacks then govco can tax everyone to put down the whites.

    The important thing is that govco can tax everyone to put down everyone.

  3. OMG, no one called out one of the left’s favorite causes as being systemically racist! (Pausing for a moment to sit back and feel the righteous indignation a justice warrior must feel when calling out systemic racism…)

    The left loves trains…. But the saying “growing up on the wrong side of the tracks” is racist. Because being on the wrong side of the tracks meant that prevailing winds sent smoke emissions from the trains in their direction. Guess which peoples were forced to live on the wrong side of the tracks? RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Guess which inner city peoples have been living the bus and train life already and still not getting ahead? RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Clearly, from the beginning, since many rail lines still use rail bed made with the labor of poorly paid people of color for the benefit of government and rich white men that still continue today must be removed. RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Before we can address the problem of racism in horseless carriages, the evil of the rail must be purged from our society and let history forget it ever existed.

  4. The Interstate Highway System is one of the examples I hear anti-libertarians give quite often of why we need government and taxation — something as ambitious as the Interstates could never be built by private means, they will say. I don’t know that it’s impossible (after all, private contractors are the ones doing the engineering and building,it seems) but I think over the years, we’ve just grown accustomed to the idea that “government must do certain things” and don’t bother to think of alternatives.


    • Hi Chris,

      Honestly, I have no problem with tolls. If the government would get rid of the gas tax I am happy to pay what I use. In NOVA it is toll heaven – the Dulles Toll Road, 495 Express Lanes, soon even I-66 will have one. I have used them in the past. I have no problem paying a few dollars or even several dollars to get home 30, 45, 60 minutes sooner. The privatization of roads would be worth researching. How does one divide up a road like I 95 or I 40 or even small back roads? I would like to take it off the federal government’s hands and make it more community oriented. Maybe each county maintains their roads and infrastructure. Of course one still is dealing with government, but it is smaller and hopefully, more manageable.

      • I agree with Raider Girl. Give me my road tax back and let the private sector build roads. Plenty of turnpikes around the country working even with competition from public freeways. I just have a problem paying for roads a second time that I already paid for once.

        • Theres an interesting thing in Pakistan where im originally from where the government would give out contracts to build, own, operate roads between cities for a couple decades. These are essentially private motorways replacing the old poorly maintained roads which were connecting most cities decades ago. Tolls are a bit high (well compared to a Pakistani income, but nothing compared to western tolls) but building and maintaining these in the terrain (with little infrastructure support) cant be cheap. The time savings more than make up the extra cost for most, while keeping too much traffic away. Also, as they are privately maintained they are clean, safe, and largely pothole free – most people are happy to pay the extra and use when required. Infact you get things like different levels of bathrooms at rest areas ! So pay a couple quid and you can go to a VIP one, cleaned after every use, with all the amenities of a nice hotel!!! A cousin recently went to one – she was like its the cleanest washroom she’s ever been to while travelling! Try getting that one past Buttigig…. imagine the unfairness and discrimination !!

    • Hey Chris,
      I think the critics are correct in the sense that indeed such a highway system could not be super-imposed upon a free-market society without the coercion of government. That being said, I think that their argument is a red herring. The proper answer should be: So what? As if human life could not exist without interstate highways or smooth-paved roads everywhere……
      I think a lot of Libertarians and or would-be Libertarians also think that in order for Libertarianism to “work” we must have a society with all of the infrastructure, perks and conveniences we have become accustomed to under the collectivist-coercive state economy. It has become common for Libertarians to just proffer the privatization of everything (Roads, cops, etc.) to replace the state- but I do believe that the statists who point out the impracticality of that are correct, and quite frankly, I don’t believe that living in such a world would be any better than what we now have, because it would give rise to the same abuses we now suffer from.
      I rather maintain that we should rather just point out that a truly Libertarian world would be different than what we have come to know, and that we should embrace such differences. No interstate highways? No problemo- it would give rise to local economies, or other means of transport on the free market (Like via air, with privately owned airports); Can’t commute 150 miles at 75MPH? In a Libertarian world it would more feasible to live near where you work/work from home/practice a trade or business from home, just as our fathers and grandfathers did. etc.
      Those who might desire certain luxuries which are more practically had in a collective environment would be free to form their own communities where they could practice their desires to their heart’s content, without requiring that everyone else participate.
      The real question should be: Which is more important to you: Liberty, or servitude, with the conveniences and familiar things we’ve come to know? Sadly, most choose the latter.
      I basically witnessed people making that choice when I left NY for the sticks. “But where will you get good pizza?! You’ll have to drive an hour to go shopping! Strangers may wave and talk to you! People carry guns!!!” Yes…and now I’m one of those people, enjoying some reclaimed freedom which I had been yearning for all of my life, and it’s wonderful!
      I actually knew a 16 year-old kid who couldn’t understand how I could possibly live 25 minutes away from a hospital!!!! LOL…… (It would take that long or longer to get to a hospi’l in NY!- Not that I’ve ever patronized them)….but I guess 25 minutes to the town in the next county on empty rural roads somehow is longer…. 😀
      Uncle never has to worry about 99.99% of people ever even trying to venture off of the reservation…nit even most Libertarians.

      • Exactly. It would be impossible to obtain the right land without using some form of coercion. Instead of government-sanctioned eminent domain, it would be Carmine’s crew doing the “acquiring”.

    • Chris,

      I was going to comment in this direction, but decided to save my electrons until now. I’ll still make it brief.

      I wonder how many helicopter and gyroplanes $2 Trillion might buy? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads. And if we do want roads, user fees can work well.

      We should be doing EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER to try and do away with the concept of government infrastructure. That is to say, electricity, sewage, water, transportation etc. There must still be a market and the transport it requires, but I think we can be innovative about solutions.

    • Many of the highways that became “interstates” already existed, were under construction, or were being planned by private or public organizations when the interstate bill was signed by Eisenhower. A system would have come to be without the feds doing anything. The Pennsylvania Turnpike was already operating for more than a decade already, and the Indiana Toll road was under construction, that is just two examples of pre- interstate interstates.

      • Rich, there were some roads back in the 19th century horse and wagon days- and early twentieth century- like Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Motor Pkwy- but all of the roads you mentioned were built under the auspices of government- be it state or local- and they were built largely through empty land. Even the railroads back in the 19th century relied on eminent domain, government funding and government bullying (in some cases destroying entire towns, to prosper others) in order to establish themselves.

          • So were the railroads….but again, without the strong-arming of the state to ‘acquire’ the land, etc……. And without having been adopted by the state later, they’d be long gone, just like mass transit, which 100 years ago was almost 100% universally private- but now you can’t find one instance of such that isn’t heavily or entirely subsidized by the state, because the people who use it are not willing to pay the full cost of operating/maintaining it….so the state forces us all to pay.
            Heck, in my lifetime there were still a few private bus routes in Queens in NYC, which went from being privately owned and self-supporting…to being subsidized and using buses that the city would buy and lease to the company for peanuts…to being fully taken over by the city

            • Hiya Nunz!
              When I was a kid riding the NYC subways I think there were three distinct lines, poking through the cobwebs of my memory they were the IND, the IRT, and the BMT. Not sure what year they all became part of the MTA but I’m sure lots of money changed hands at the time.

              • Hey Ya Mike!

                Yep! You got it! The IRT and the BMT were once private companies (The IND was the city’s ‘business’ from day one). The IRT and BMT were elevated lines in the 19th century. The city basically built the first underground route in 1904 for the IRT, and both the IRT and BMT were in bankruptcy soon after, and eventually the city just took ’em over. (Too much info? Sorry…couldn’t help myself!).
                Those subways used to be pretty cool when I was a kid in the 70’s- running ancient equipment from the WWI era…and they got ya where you needed to go, reliably.
                Now it’s an underground police state with state-of-the-art billion-dollar equipment, and the trains creak along and you never know where you’ll end up, ’cause they’re literally always doing repairs……..

            • Nunz, at the New Yawk Port Authority there stands a statue of Ralph Kramden, who drove the streets of the city for the privately-owned Gotham Bus Company. A fictional character and company of course, but at the time “The Honeymooners” was made buses in NYC were commonly run by private business. (Though maybe the statue has been torn down by now for being “rayciss” due to ol’ Ralph’s lack of diversity.)

              • Oh, you’re a riot, Jason! A regular riot! 😀

                Yeah, when I was a kid we’d go so my grandma in Queens, I used to look out her window and see the Steinway Transit bus going by….that was a private company, and believe was still unsubsidized up until the early 70’s.
                Of course, ya can’t make money buying and running buses and only charging thirty-five cents fare….so it became subsidized c. 1973, and the city would buy newer buses with your money, and then lease them to the “private company” for $1. a year. That went on for about 3 decades, and then the city just took over that and the few other remaining private routes.
                Actually, the same sweetheart deals are still going on on Lawn Guyland- Suffolk county buys the buses and leases them for pennies to various private comapnies which bid on the routes (The same companies have been operating the same routes for decades- the bidding is rigged- I used to know the manager of one of those bus co.s) and thje co.s get paid by the county to operate the routes.
                When statists speak of “privatization”, that is what they’re talking about- crony capitalism at it’s finest.
                Speaking of Jackie Gleason, they have a bus garage in Brooklyn named for him. Hey, considering Ralph Kramden’s girth, I doubt any “peaceful protestors” will be carrying THAT statue away!

                Ralph: “You know, that thing your mother said about me at our wedding…”
                Alice: “What thing?”
                Ralph: “You know…what she went around telling everyone: ‘I’m not losing a daughter, I’m gaining a ton’. “!

    • The creation of the “interstate highway system” is why we no longer have a widely used, well maintained, and profitable rail system. With abundant suggestion that such was its purpose. Imagine if you would, our current interstate system, with a near complete absence of shipping. Imagine likewise such a rail system in which ongoing improvements had naturally progressed over the last 70 years instead of being relegated to a fraction of the market. You might still get your package in a few days, with shipping costs pennies on the dollar compared to today’s costs. My point being, without the state managing the business of transportation, or in the case of interstate highways, owning it, such services naturally improve to the highest point people are willing to pay for the service. Throw in a few trillion in pretend money, regulate the crap out of it, and no such market force exists. Instead of naturally reaching a balance between what folks are willing to pay for the service, and therefore the quantity and quality of that service, we have the state deciding what is paid for the service, at gunpoint, and the state insisting on a pie in the sky level of service, regardless of cost. The current issue at hand has the state REDUCING service while still collecting the same fee, or higher, at gunpoint. Whether or not there are highways that provide service, or highways that don’t is a moot point. Of course there are highways that serve no particular purpose. The state built them.

  5. We’re getting a new highway in Indiana (I-69) and it’s actually dividing a rural farming area. No “people of color” affected as far as I know, so Pete Butthead won’t care of course. I used to work in that area and heard plenty of farmers saying they have land on both sides of the 2-lane highway that will become the interstate. The county also has a large river that runs through it, pretty much parallel to the new interstate. So both a river and an interstate have limited crossing opportunities, dividing the county in thirds. Farmers that used to be able to just get on a cross street and take their farm equipment to another field will now have to find a bridge, which may be miles away. Even going to the grocery will now be a challenge for some of these rural people.
    Not that there will be much farming or rural people there in the future anyway. The town fathers are excited about the “economic opportunities” the new interstate will bring and can’t wait to industrialize it. It’s a beautiful area and now it’s gonna suck.
    We already lost a great restaurant, independently owned and operated with the best onion rings in the known universe. It got eminent domained and will probably be replaced with something disgusting like an Applebee’s.

    • The irony of I-69 is that it will likely never be fully finished. It was supposed to connect from Mexico to Canada via Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas (NAFTA Superhighway). Today it is ten disjointed parts. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee are currently doing nothing to complete their sections. The longest part which is in northeastern Indiana and southeast Michigan is part of the original Interstate system from the 1950’s.

  6. Even if you concede the guy’s point (that damage was done in the past), it’s not Thule the situation can be magically un-fucked by ripping out the highways now.

    There is a reason why no one wants to visit certain areas of cities, and race is not it. “Diverse” people don’t like it there either, for the same reason.

  7. Of course, very little of this “highway” bill will actually go to improve roads, urban or rural. This is a communist payoff two-fer. The communists get to drop the race bomb to keep the “victims” of white oppression stirred up (just to be sure they don’t forget how oppressed they are while cashing their welfare checks, getting preferential treatment for the covid jab or super sizing their food stamp fries at McDonalds), plus the communists reward their urban foot soldiers for stealing the 2020 election (the election was turned by minority “votes” in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee) with preferential minority selection for the billions of dollars of no work government contracts in the bullshit bill. Communists are evil, but they’re not stupid.

    • Out of a population under 700,000, over 750,000 votes were cast in the city of Detroit. Very impressive voter turnout. This used to be easily verifiable on the Wayne County website, but I would imagine has been scrubbed by now. They had to dump hundreds of thousands of votes, because OM did way better than they anticipated in their stronghold. Some Milwaukee precincts were showing 400% voter turnout. Of course that’s not enough evidence to prove any inconsistencies according to our courts.

  8. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but when many of Robert Moses’ expressways were put in in NYC, the neighborhoods they destroyed weren’t minority neighborhoods; they were mainly European in composition, consisting of Italians, Irish, Poles, etc. I remember seeing a PBS documentary long ago about how the NYC expressways destroyed community life, particularly in the Italian neighborhoods. Ergo, the expressways aren’t racist.

    • MarkyMark,

      “Ergo, the expressways aren’t racist.”

      So dago, wop, mick, and polock are perfectly acceptable and NON-RACIST terms today?

      (Yes Nunzio I doubled up just for you. 😉. Guido.)

      • Uh, that’s not what I meant, and you know it. The whole present brouhaha over highways is that they impact what are now minority neighborhoods. My point was that in NYC, these neighborhoods weren’t minority neighborhoods when the expressways were built. The last place I thought I’d have to spell out the obvious is on here! I thought you, as a EP Autos reader, were smarter than that-SMH…

        • MarkyMark,

          “ The whole present brouhaha over highways is that they impact what are now minority neighborhoods. ”

          I thought it was impacted. Past tense.

          Since the majority at the time was WASP, they were minority.

          In 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Indians were the majority. Now they are second and third class citizens living on the reservation.

          I think they are considered a minority as of late.

  9. “Black and brown neighborhoods have been disproportionately divided by highway projects or left isolated by the lack of adequate transit and transportation resources. In the Harris-Biden administration, we will make righting these wrongs an imperative.”

    Aw, thanks Mr. Buttcrack! It’s so nice that you and your colleagues care more about us “brownies” than a lot of us do about ourselves. So much so, that you’re willing to dismantle the whole country for us, so that we will never again have to face the “horrors” of self-accountability.

    P.S.: Get ready for “ALM” (Asian Lives Matter).

    • Just came home from the local mall….”Stop Asian hate crimes” is now flashing on all the advertising screens.

  10. The insanity metastasizes.
    When will it stop? When it reaches its logical end-point. We’ve seen it before and we’re going to see it again.
    Think the fatherland in 193…7? It’s coming, get ready.

  11. Eric,

    “ At any rate:

    “Black and brown neighborhoods have been disproportionately divided by highway projects or left isolated by the lack of adequate transit and transportation resources.”

    Come again?”

    In Detroit that is exactly the case Eric. Starting with the Davidson and continuing throughout the years to the 696.

    Words have meaning Eric.

    There is a reason they are called “urban depressed freeways”.

    I’ve logged at least a million miles in Motown, so I’ve seen it with my own lying eyes.

    • Oh please, what communities do either those freeways divide? I lived in the Detroit area most of my life. What they do provide is very convenient transportation for people to get to those so-called “divided communities” and easy transportation for those who live there. Of course they were built before useful idiots were trying to destroy every aspect of our lives. It’s not enough that these same useful idiots can’t remotely build anything today, they have to actively destroy what was built previously.

      • Mattacks,

        “ Oh please, what communities do either those freeways divide?”

        After “those people” moved north of eight mile, 696 was the new line of demarcation.

        Synagogue goers were appeased with a park over 696 so they could still walk to the temples on the north side of the ditch.

        I don’t know how old you are but when redlining was a thing in real estate the borders of the freeways were the demarcation.

        • I know I might be stretching things, but maybe it has something to do with those freeways and arteries following city borders so that both cities have freeway access? No, no, no, that can’t be. The freeway is “raycis”, only logical answer right? What about rail projects? How are those not “raycis”? How do those not “divide communities”? Because they’re built by pander beuracrats at huge cost overruns? The logic fallacies that it takes to come up with your agenda is amazing. Yuri Bezmenov was right. You won’t accept the truth until their boot is crushing your face.

          • Mattacks,

            There is a big difference between dividing and totally destroying entire business districts and neighborhoods.

            Demolition teams leveled 423 homes, 109 businesses, 22 manufacturing plants, and 93 vacant lots in just the stretch of the Lodge between Jefferson Avenue and Pallister.

            The Ford Freeway displaced 2,800 buildings by the 1950s. Black Bottom, which had become home to 300 Black-owned businesses by the 1930s, was completely gutted. Not a single structure still stands from the old neighborhood, which was amongst the city’s densest and had once been home to Jewish, German, Italian immigrants as well as African Americans from the southern United States.

            Mattacks I bought a house at 7 and Inkster that had a deed covenant prohibiting sale to blacks. That was in 1986. Is that raycis?

            You ask, “What about rail projects?”

            To be honest I don’t have a clue as to WTF the people mover was about.

            • What does your deed covenant have to do with freeways? Poor attempt at a straw man. You clearly pointed out in your example, many people of all backgrounds were displaced to build freeways. It’s not like Buttegieg is going to return those properties when he bulldozes the freeways. People might have been displaced, and you can have an argument about the morality of eminent domain in the future, but that’s not the topic here. The topic is about destroying already completed infrastructure. The price has already been paid. If anything, what you and Buttegieg want to do is make it even harder for those businesses that remain in those areas. Get rid of I-375 and how many people are going to visit downtown. Not many.

              • Mattacks,

                “What does your deed covenant have to do with freeways?”

                Not a damn thing.

                “Poor attempt at a straw man.”

                Not trying to invoke the straw man, rather just pointing out that official racism was still a thing 25-30 years after the Jefferys and Reuther were in the design phase.

                “The topic is about destroying already completed infrastructure.”

                Mattacks, that’s all government does. It’s not a topic. It’s THE underlying theme.

                It’s the Crime Creation Industrial Complex.

                “I t’s not like Buttegieg is going to return those properties when he bulldozes the freeways.”

                Yes he is. He will return them to the government. The de jure owner.

                I guess you’ve never experienced the joy of home “ownership.”

                “Get rid of I-375 and how many people are going to visit downtown. Not many.”

                Do you really care how many visit?


                What is your vested interest?

  12. ‘Now highways are racist – and must be cancelled.’ — EP

    Apparently, one of the first projects on the highway-demo wish list is tearing down the elevated Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans, which blights nearby neighborhoods in the same way that elevated street car lines used to darken major avenues in NYC, until many (but not all) were removed.

    Indeed, Robert Moses, who indiscriminately punched expressways through New York City, ‘proposed the Vieux Carré Riverfront Expressway through the French Quarter following the completion of Interstate-10 to enhance the accessibility of the area.’


    Clearly, a megalomaniacal bureaucrat with a big transport budget and no taste can do a lot of damage.

    What’s so delusional about Build Back Bugger is its implicit fantasy of limitless resources. With John Law Powell dispensing $120 billion a month of counterfeit Yellenschrift to Wall Street’s securities dealers, Kamalastan feels rich. Never mind that the net worth of Social Security and Medicare is in the NEGATIVE tens of trillions.

    For the $3 trillion that Smirking Chimp Bush and his successors flushed down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, the entire interstate network could have been renovated, upgraded and vastly expanded. But incredibly, with the Afghan fiasco still grinding on 20 years later, hegemonic fantasies of ruling the world once again coincide with grandiose monument building at home, as in the days of LBJ’s Great [sic] Society.

    Government feels no economic pain. But as proven by the original John Law in the France of 1720, the depth of a bust is directly proportional to the size of the Bubble that preceded it. France remained depressed for decades after John Law wreaked his paper-money havoc. Then heads started getting chopped off. 🙁

    • Moses and his gang of vandals would have built a highway over Champs-Élysées if handed the opportunity.

      Highways should bypass cities, not go through them.

      • Amen, Handler! That bastard drove [pun intended] more poor and working class WHITES (and many others) out of their modest homes in solid neighborhoods in the cities, and helped turn those neighborhoods into low-income crime-ridden slums- I grew up with many of the refugees from those places as my neighbors as a kid, and now these fascist racist communist pricks who fester in the WH are blaming the children of the very victims of their communist policies (including LBJ’s “Great Society” which put the finishing touches on those neighborhoods thanks to massive housing projects) as if they and their parents had been the ones to implement those policies!

        • Yep. And think of the convenience that we lost. EVERYTHING used to be located in the downtown. Now we have to drive all over the place to accomplish a handful of errands.

          • Oh man! Yeah! Speaking of which: I lived for about a year when I was a kid in a small mid-western town…..it was amazing! This was in the mid-’70s. Our very modest old house in town cost $10K(!!) and it was in a perfectly respectable and quiet area. You could walk two and a half blocks and be right in the center of downtown, where within a small radius you had everything you need or want! Today, that residential area is the white trash/druggie area, and if you want to live in ‘decent society’ you have to move to the cookie-cutter developments on the outer edge of town (which all used to be small farms and rural homes), and to go to the store, you have to drive clear across to the outskirts of the opposite end of town- a good 14 miles…..and of course it’s now just the usual box stores and chain restaurants- all of the unique independent small businesses of any account which once existed downtown are gone, ‘cept for bars and tattoo parlors Painted Pine Cones By Ashleigh……’cause them politicians who took all the people’s money and liberty and told where they could build and what they could build made it that way in their infinite wisdom…and then they “upgraded” the 4-lane that runs through the town, so that the speed limit which used to be 45 is now 25 -as if anybody can actually drive that slow on a four-lane…so it’s just a giant speed trap now….and now WE have to be punished for OUR indiscretions and “racissness”, so I guess the next “project’ will likely be to restrict access to the highway, and add mass transit, so that people can take the bus and make an all-day affair of going to the Walmart………

            And this is “progress”! -Brought to you by the cooperation of Repugnantcans and Dumbocraps!

            • “Painted Pine Cones By Ashleigh”

              HAHA! I was just commenting on all these countless women’s boutique “businesses” in the area. They all sell the tackiest shit (printed t-shirts, items with corny positive messages written on them, soaps, etc.). I hardly ever see cars in their parking lots except the owner’s BMWs and Porsches….

              • Imagine their poor husbands- Not only having to pay for the BMW, but having to subsidize the ‘business’ for a few years till Tyffineigh gets tired of it! (“O-K, that didn’t work out, but I have another idear: A spa for iguanas!”)
                I have to laugh- There are tons old store fronts in the old downtown around the courthouse square of the town in the next county where I go shopping- One that I frequently pass I always take notice of, because I’m often stopped in front of it when waiting for a light.
                Literally every few months there is a different restaurant in that store front!
                Imagine the thought process: “Let’s see; I want to go into an industry where new start-ups have a 90% failure rate, and where profit margins are so thin that even the ones that survive rarely make any money. I will establish this business in a location where 37 other people have tried the same thing and failed; a location where customers will have to park several blocks away and walk, and where pedestrian and vehicular traffic disappears before 4PM. I will be the next Chef Boyardee!”.
                And it never ends- This has been going on for the 20 years I’ve lived here!!!

                • “Imagine their poor husbands”

                  Before proceeding, did they say “look, this is not viable, and here is why.”?

                  No? No sympathy.

                  I swear, “I do” (often) lowers IQ by 20 points.
                  Induces Stockholm syndrome too.

                  • No, they didn’t say that because… if you want your marriage to last, do what she wants. Period.
                    – A famous marriage researcher, I forget his name.

                    • Someone once asked me “Why do you suppose married people live longer?” [*They* actually used to say that…but I believe even *they’ve” debunked that now].

                      My reply: “Spite”. 😀

                    • Morning, Nunz!

                      As an ex-married guy, I’ll offer my take on this. When I was married, I was happy – because I was certain my now-ex shared my views about marriage. That we’d committed to it; that we had each other’s back; that it was unconditional – and forever. This imparts a sense of shared commitment, of having a spouse who will always have your back. Had I not been certain, I would not have gotten married.

                      Well, I was wrong.

                      Am I happier now? I honestly cannot say. I am ok. I have become comfortable being single. I am seeing a great woman but will I ever be capable of committing in the same way again or even feeling the same sense of certainty again? Marriage has its problems but divorce is a whole ‘nother thing. It changes you, probably forever.

                    • Mornin’ Eric!
                      Yes, exactly! Ideally, we need marriage in order to be at ‘full capacity’ functionally; to be complete; and for society to continue in a completely functional manner.
                      The attacks upon society which has been orchestrated over the last century, which have resulted in effectively destroying the traditional concept of marriage and family will in retrospect be regarded as the single most detrimental thing to have ever been unleashed upon the world.
                      But here we are in the midst of a world in which society and it’s institutions are drunk with the very thing which poisoned the well of life and well-being, and so now, unfortunately, if we go through the motions of marriage- even if we have not become intoxicated by the poison, the fact is, it is virtually impossible to find a woman who at some level has not been so intoxicated, and in whom that poison will not be manifested when she feels it is in her best interest to do so- as it is always there, at every level of society, like bottles of booze being stashed around the house by an alcoholic; and a helping hand is always available at any time for those desiring to hoist that glass of poison, like an alcoholic’s group of old drinking friends who are ready to spring into action at the bidding of one phone call.
                      Even though we may recognize this, there is no way to avoid it- and so marriage has become a gamble, with very bad odds- pretty much like buying a lottery ticket. At best, you may be able to endure a tolerable situation, but you won’t win the jackpot, because the very institution and conduct and expectations of it’s participants have been so corrupted- but most likely you’ll just lose everything and be more miserable because all of your dreams of what you’d do with that jackpot are smashed, and now even your last dollar is gone, being spent on that dud.
                      It’s a sad fact, that of everyone I know, everyone over 40 is either no longer married…or miserable if they still are.
                      Eric, I can feel your pain, because we were not meant for divorce, and more so than we are meant to have a lung or an arm removed (This is also why adultery is such an evil thing- which sadly, some prominent Libertarians don’t seem to believe).
                      If there is one consolation though, bear in mind those guys we all know who are still married, and while they may not be actively embroiled in contention or hatred, most that I see are, as Thoreau said “Leading lives of quiet desperation”- Pretty much just putting in the time; leading separate lives, going through the motions, but having no passion- just doing their part because that’s what men do….working….while the wife has morphed into some cow who has been swept away with the hysteria of the TV- and the guy’s only comfort is the quiet time he spends alone at night after she’s gone to bed. I know so many once vibrant guys who have had the life sucked out of them by being reduced to living in that scenario. They don’t hate their wives….but there’s just really nothing there except familiarity, which keeps them together, as they’ve been going their separate ways for decades- and that is a terrible position to be in- and I am thankful that I am not in it, ’cause at least guys like you and I are still “alive”. We are still growing and experiencing and doing….and are not hobbled by the inevitable compromises we would be forced to make if we were in the shoes of those guys, just to ‘keep the peace’.
                      In that respect, I think marriage has resulted in neutralizing more guys, functionally, than anything else.
                      This is not the way it was meant to be- but it is the reality of the anomalous world in which we find ourselves living at this point in time. It’s like modern-day California: Certainly the state with the richest and most diverse scenery and climate, which could be a paradise….but because of what *they’ve* done to it, and any who dare to reside there, we wouldn’t even dream of being tempted by her beauties, for to do so under present conditions would be suicide!

                    • Really, Nunz. A man who has never walked down the aisle is giving advice on what he thinks other married men are going through? Not every man or woman over 40 is miserable or just slinking along in their relationship.

                      You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually love their spouses and enjoy being with them. Not every man is desolate nor every wife a cow.

                      Marriage is a tradition as old as time and only in the last generation it has now become an institution for only the downtrodden and desperate?! Oh, please.

                      You fear commitment. You are so focused about the failure of a potential relationship you refuse to even give it a chance to thrive.

                      Yes, some relationships don’t work out, but many others do. If it doesn’t last that just means you were with the wrong person not that every person is the wrong person.

                      Since I am on my soapbox I will take this moment to psychoanalyze you. Honestly, I think you are lonely. I have discovered those that squawk the loudest tend to be the unhappiest. Deep down I believe you would enjoy having someone to come home to and talk with, of course, as long as they thought like you do. I believe you would enjoy companionship and someone else to run off to Patagonia with.

                      Oh, I know I am stirring up a hornet’s nest with my post and I expect retribution, but I sincerely hope you do find that special someone, as I wish that everyone would. Companionship and intimacy is wonderful when shared with the right person.

                    • “Really, Nunz. A man who has never walked down the aisle is giving advice on what he thinks other married men are going through? Not every man or woman over 40 is miserable or just slinking along in their relationship.”

                      Condescending, and presumptuous. It was also an observation, not a universal truth. Not everyone isn’t either.

                      “You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually love their spouses and enjoy being with them. Not every man is desolate nor every wife a cow.”

                      Arguing a point never in debate or stated as universal fact, merely observed experience.

                      “You fear commitment. You are so focused about the failure of a potential relationship you refuse to even give it a chance to thrive.”

                      Arrogant sanctimony. The all seeing all knowing RG.

                      “Yes, some relationships don’t work out, but many others do. If it doesn’t last that just means you were with the wrong person not that every person is the wrong person.”

                      Vapid tautology.

                      “Since I am on my soapbox”

                      When did you step off it?

                      ” I will take this moment to psychoanalyze you.”

                      Well don’t we think we are the superior one. Funny how your ‘observations’ are OK, but Nunz is wrong to express the same.

                      I suppose the irony of your post is entirely lost on you too. No?

                      You really are a, DK low.

                      “Really, Nunz. A man who has never walked down the aisle is giving advice on what he thinks other married men are going through? Not every man or woman over 40 is miserable or just slinking along in their relationship.”

                      Condescending, and presumptuous. Not everyone isn’t either.

                      “You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually love their spouses and enjoy being with them. Not every man is desolate nor every wife a cow.”

                      Arguing a point never in debate or stated as universal fact, merely observed.

                      “You fear commitment. You are so focused about the failure of a potential relationship you refuse to even give it a chance to thrive.”

                      Arrogant sanctimony.

                      “Yes, some relationships don’t work out, but many others do. If it doesn’t last that just means you were with the wrong person not that every person is the wrong person.”

                      Vapid tautology.

                      “Since I am on my soapbox”

                      When did you step off it?

                      ” I will take this moment to psychoanalyze you.”

                      Well don’t we think we are the superior one. Funny how your ‘observations’ are OK, but Nunz is wrong to express the same.

                      I suppose the irony of your post is entirely lost on you too. No?

                      You really appear to be a D/K low.

                    • RG, I am truly happy for you and your husband if you have managed to find that rare gem of enduring love!!!!
                      I think you misunderstand where I am coming from. I’m the guy who used to scare girls away when I was a teenager, ’cause I made it known that I was into commitment, and was never at any point in my life looking for ‘just fun’.
                      I valued marriage and commitment above all else- and had I met a suitable girl when I was younger, I would not have hesitated to marry her, while we would be young enough to grow together.
                      And do realize that what I had said above is not a critique of women in particular- it is a critique of current society and the unnatural forces which have recently shaped it; the destruction of traditions which once ensured fidelity and stability, which is essential for the nurturing of strong thriving marriages (Of course, no one was ever guaranteed happiness or fulfillment- as those are largely dependent upon the individual participants- but having that fidelity and stability is a necessity, and provides the best chance for success).
                      Look how it is today: Most girls at the prime age to be preparing for marriage and motherhood, are instead going off to college to learn about nukular physics and lesbianism; aquiring tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt; destroying their health and natural bonds by years of partying and promiscuity, and coming out not knowing how to boil spaghetti, and being in a position where they will be obligated to spend the majority of their waking hours for the next 30 years at least, having to work outside the home- and this is touted as desirable, so that they “Don’t have to depend on a man”. So rather than spending one’s time finding a dependable man, and having the qualities to make oneself desirable to him, they are instead taught ‘independence’- and independence in a relationship which is predicated upon mutual dependence is destructive.
                      Likewise, the men are now socially engineered to the point of still being little boys when they are 30- which I guess is why so many women these days are attracted to thugs and creeps- because at least they possess some of the masculine traits which the average guys are lacking these days.
                      As for my observations on married men: They are based on the situations of people I know- relatives and friends. On the surface, some of these people may even seem to have ‘good marriages’- as they are still married to their original wives…..but things are not what they envisioned- as they lead separate lives- each working outside the home and operating on their own schedule; not sharing mutual interests; no longer sharing political views (Though they once did- but the TV changed ‘her’- It’s ALWAYS the woman who buys the BS and changes!)….and the guys are left upholding their responsibilities….but just basically sharing a house with someone. It’s very sad, because while there may be no hostility and even some semblance of love, the fact is that both participants are unfulfilled, and no longer really ‘best friends’- but rather more so playing a part and fulfilling an obligation- which is admirable- as many don’t even do that- but I know I would be loath to be in such a situation, because instead of having to work hard, and just having a few hours to myself at night, I get to be happy all of the time, and am under no obligation to please someone else.
                      As one of those married guys once said of me: “No one knows more about women than a bachelor”.
                      And ya might want to brush up on your psychoanalysis. I do not know the meaning of the word lonely- literally. I am the penultimate loner. One might not know it by how much I post here- but this is the only site I regularly particpate on- and I barely even email anyone anymore (Even the few people whom I really like), and don’t often talk on the phone. I don’t text (I don’t carry a cellphone)….I work at home and never have anyone over. I leave my own property maybe on average once a week. I’m friendly with one neighbor, and keep in touch with a few old friends I’ve known for decades, who live far away.
                      Only way marriage would have been good for me, would be if I had met a similar girl, who was also a loner, and just wanted to be around me. But finding that in a woman is even rarer than it is in men.
                      Since I’m very happy being alone, I really have no need for women/marriage, and once i realized that fact many years ago, I thus stopped looking- which is ironic, as I seem to attract a wide variety of women of all ages- and I have to admit, when a gorgeous and nice girl 30 years younger than myself was interested in me a few years ago, I did actually give some thought to the idea…but ultimately rejected it, which serves as my formal and official declaration of bechelorhood for the rest of my life- as i tell my 96 year-old mother who is still hoping I’ll get married one day: “If I were interested, i would have availed myself of that opportunity, as that was the last shot I’ll ever have at a young, beautiful and down-to-earth girl”.
                      I LOVE solitude! I love quietness! I strove to have those things. I never met any woman who was striving for those same things- most abhor them. I might have shared my awesome world with the right person had I met her when appropriate….but now that I’ve built that world myself, I certainly don’t want someone coming in a ruining it……
                      Hey, I take no offense at your observations though; in the context of the average person, they would likely be perfectly valid- but you should know by now that I am far from average. (I don’t mean that in a conceited way- just factually and statistically).
                      And far from fearing commitment, my fear has always been that ‘she’ wouldn’t be as fully committed as myself. (I’ve known a lot of women who should be committed…. 😀 )

                    • Thanks for the back-up, Anon! (I like your response better than my own! :D).

                      One point I would like to make re what RG said:

                      “some relationships don’t work out, but many others do. If it doesn’t last that just means you were with the wrong person not that every person is the wrong person.”

                      THAT is part of the problem.

                      Marriage is now viewed as more of temporary thing, since the laws of the state have replaced what is a religious institution.

                      But marriage should not be viewed as something which can be dissolved if it doesn’t work out. That is the very thing about commitment- it is supposed to be permanent! If it is not viewed as permanent, then it is not truly commitment.
                      If people- men and women- would view it as it is meant to be- a literal vow before God that you will be one with the other person, then perhaps they would take it more seriously, and put more effort into finding someone of suitable character, and in making themselves desirable in the long term.
                      Let’s face it, a lot of people get married for fear of being forever alone, or because they have a desire to procreate, and or because they want a guaranteed source of sex (Not that they get it… 🙂 ) – so they take what is available; they compromise; they make concessions…and “if it doesn’t work out I can always move on”.
                      The state getting involved in marriage and changing it’s rules is one of the assaults upon marriage that I was referring to earlier- and it’s interesting, because much like the COVID BS, they can not yet forcer you to have a state sanctioned marriage….but yet everyone just automatically does it.

                    • Fear commitment. That’s just shaming language. Man up, risk it all.
                      What are the benefits? Crickets. A woman has to risk exactly nothing. Under the modern system she can continue to live and act as if she is single and there are absolutely no penalties. Only benefits because the man has to legally finance it. It’s even considered a man’s fault because then he isn’t able to inspire her loyalty, he doesn’t have good game, or doesn’t hold frame.

                      All a man has is a woman’s word and whatever odds from his vetting process. That’s it.
                      There aren’t many women out there that won’t use the power the system grants her if push comes to shove. There are even less that will stick it out in addition to that. The commitment is only one way today, and man who looks at these conditions and says he wants her to commit too, with essentially equal risks, is considered weak and affraid.

                      There are two traditional systems. System of the first: A young woman marries a man who has reached his productive potentional that is considerably older than her. System of the second: A young woman marries a similar age man with productive potentional and helps him reach it. Both assuming the disasterous divorce system that exists today does not exist. Divorce being only a measure for extreme circumstances or an objectively fair system.

                      Those are the two systems of essentially equal comitment and most modern western women find both objectionable.

                      The modern way of doing things is also two systems:
                      System of the first: the woman spends, consumes, her youth, beauty, and fertility having fun. Enjoying herself. Or maybe having children with pretty, exciting, and/or dangerous men. After doing so she demands to pick a same age man who has reached his productive potentional to marry. In other words a man who worked when she played. System of the second: The woman follows sort of the same the line as tranditional second system but instead divorces the man where she can have great financial benefit. Takes everything. The man is left broke and impoverished for the foreseeable future.

                      Most men are fine with one or either of the traditional systems. They are fair. The modern systems are not. They are one sided commitments. Which is why men have to be shamed into them. There are men who don’t have to enter into them because of all the young women that want to play with them and men who have too much to lose. The rest aren’t even under consideration by the women and not even a factor in the discussion.

                    • Morning, Brent!

                      I agree the problem is the system, which makes divorce both easy and potentially profitable. It can go both ways, of course. And either way, it’s alarming – given the not only possible but probable consequences. I think the stat is that around 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce and for second marriages, it’s closer to 70.

                      If “the virus” were that dangerous – I might Diaper! (Well, I’d avoid pubic areas – Diapers being useless except as submission theater.)

                      I was relatively lucky with regard to my own divorce. My ex and I settled things amicably – if that’s the right word – between us, with minimal lawyer involvement. Even so, we both lost hugely, financially. And of course, we lost more than just money. I lost faith in the institution. Having been divorced, I never want to get divorced again. As you say, the risk – financial, emotional – is too great.

                      I don’t espouse a particular one-size-fits-all answer, but some suggest that a commitment between two people but without the state being involved can serve. Each maintains their own legal residence, even if one spends most of their time at the other’s place. No commingling of finances, in legal terms. Share and help one another, live as a couple – but if it doesn’t “work out,” the arrangement can be ended without either person having to part with anything except each other. It is obviously not the same as a committed marriage – and it assumes no children will be involved.

                      But when it is so easy to decide you no longer wish to be committed and just move on – it is a hard thing for a rational person to decide that it makes sense to make a commitment to marriage and children.

                    • Hi Eric!
                      The latter half of your last comment re commitment really serves as a reminder of why the institution of marriage is greatly harmed if it’s tenets and values are not universally supported by society.
                      Regardless of our own ‘commitment to commitment’ and loathing of divorce and adultery, fact is, when society no longer stigmatizes the desecration of marriage, desecration becomes easy and of little or no consequence to the one desiring it.
                      Much like single-parenthood or being on welfare- once the stigma is removed, it becomes widely accepted, and so, widely practiced- while it’s critics who point out the dysfunctionality and evils of such things are vilified for daring to criticized what is “just normal”- and thus sanity and morality are inverted 180*.

  13. Am I the only one that is a bit worried after reading this?


    I have serious concerns when equity firms like Blackrock, JP Morgan, and other hedge funds are doing this. Yes, yield is a concern, but I don’t recall these companies doing this in the past. If I was a conspiracy theorist it would sense how they are able to buy up personal residences to be rented out later (also driving up the cost)…..you will own nothing and be happy may be around the corner. 🙁

  14. Where does it end?

    It only ends for those of us who will vamoose, because as we can all see, there is not ONE stone they are leaving unturned anywhere in the developed world in their quest to completely control all human activity- and as this garbage comes together more and more (No matter who is in office- there is only one party- the *them* party -as we can see by the same agendas being pursued by every administration in our lifetime) it will be utterly impossible to evade it- and likely impossible to leave.


        • Nunzio,

          From the wiki, “ Pinky and the Brain are genetically enhanced laboratory mice who reside in a cage in the Acme Labs research facility. Brain is self-centered and scheming, while Pinky is good-natured but feeble-minded. In each episode, Brain devises a new plan to take over the world which ultimately ends in failure: usually due to the impossibility of Brain’s plan, Brain’s own arrogance or overconfidence, Pinky’s bumbling, circumstances beyond their control, or multiples thereof. In common with many other Animaniacs shorts, many episodes are in some way a parody of something else, usually a film or novel.”

          • Hmmm, maybe I was thinking of Rin & Stumpy. (I used to have a friend who was into all of the cartoons….)

            Acme Labs? If their stuff works anything like what they used to sell to Wile E. Coyote……..we have nothing to fear!

    • Nunzio,

      I’ve asked this question before, and I’ll ask it again: WHERE does one go?! This shit is WORLDWIDE! I still know people in Peru, and they have worse restrictions than we do. I follow Dave Cullen’s videos; he’s an Irishman who exposes all the BS, and this is going on in Ireland. Some have likened the modern day USSA to Nazi Germany; while there’s a lot of truth to that statement, there’s one, key difference: unlike in the 1930s, there’s NOWHERE TO RUN! Where does one go to get away from the oncoming Dystopia?

      • Hi MM,

        There isn’t anywhere and that is the problem. Maybe Antarctica, maybe the Amazon, but it is worldwide. It sickens me that every country has taken a knee. Watch Belarus though, he seems to be the only with any brains, which means he will likely wind up dead.

        • The now FORMER President of Tanzania was balking too; there, it was as if COVID had never happened! There were no lockdowns; life was totally normal. He then raised some eyebrows when he rejected a vax shipment. It seems that the box said “not for use in the US or Europe”. The Tanzanian president said that, if the vax wasn’t good enough for the US or Europe, it wasn’t good enough for his people, either, and he rejected the shipment. Soon thereafter, he was found dead, and his replacement is more, shall we say, amenable to going along with the program?

      • “I follow Dave Cullen’s videos; he’s an Irishman who exposes all the BS, and this is going on in Ireland.”

        No way! I, too, am a fan of Mr. Cullen! His videos are very insightful.

        Oh, and to answer your question: wherever civilization doesn’t exist, I suppose. And if all else fails, outer space? lol But seriously, I believe the only way out eventually will be through death.

      • Ah, MM, I’m tired of answering that question (As I and some others on here have on many occasions). I’m beginning to think that those who keep asking just really don’t want to have to do without the infrastructure of the first world.

        • “really don’t want to have to do without the infrastructure of the first world.”

          Nailed it.

          There’s nowhere to run (where life is like having mommy and daddy take care of all the logistics). Being free is unlikely to be easy. Being easy is unlikely to be free.

          • Exactly, Anon!
            We easily forget that it was but a very short time ago (Just a few generations) when others built what we have from bare resources in a free world. The opportunity to do that personally is desirable- to make things as we want, with such as we have to work with.
            I remember those old movies I’d see as a kid, where some Limey consigned to the jungles of Burma or deepest darkest India or Africa, would fix up his hut or house much like his place back in Merry Ol’ England; sweep it out real nice; make some tea, and pretty much maintain his own culture.
            I can easily do without all of the big tech stuff. What need would there be for it in the real world? I lived without it for decades…and it was preferable- so I don’t see it as giving anything up to attain greater freedom, any more so than I gave up anything when I moved from NY to KY, because not only doesn’t one need commuter railroads and lifeguards, but life is actually better without them- and even the one thing I can think of that I enjoyed, was well worth giving up to gain greater freedom.
            As someone once said: “Freedom is not free”. One must often make a choice. Some have paid great prices- even lost their lives, for the prospect of freedom. It seems to me that merely giving up some conveniences and baubles is really not even worthy of being mentioned….much less so when one considers that most of those things have hobbled us, controlled us, and have made it possible for our liberties to be easily taken without resistance.

        • Hi Nunz!

          I’d settle for the legal right to own property – outright – and to be left alone to the extent I leave others alone. I do not wish to live in a tent in the woods – or under a bridge, either. That’s a different kind of “freedom.”

          • “I do not wish to live in a tent in the woods…”
            Amen, Eric. Neither do I. That’s why demanding to be left alone is not enough. We have to defend capitalism. Don’t let the evil bastards take away the standard of living that centuries of voluntary trade and profit-seeking have brought us.
            Only people who already have lots of material things have the luxury of blabbering about how unimportant material things are.

          • Amen to all of that, Eric! Those two things- to truly be able to own property; and to be left alone are the basis of all freedoms, and without which, whether one lives in a tent in the woods or all 6 of Al Gore’s mansions, they can never truly be free- but rather just evading tyranny, or paying to not be bothered as much.

        • Nunzio,

          Yeah, I like First World infrastructure; this is true. That said, for a Third World country that has fewer resources, what’s to say that they’ll LET you in, especially if they weren’t impacted by COnVID?. Why would they let in any foreigners if they don’t have to?

          Oh, there was a Third World country that was living normal life through this whole thing: Tanzania. It was as if the COnVID never happened there! After rejecting a load of vaccine whose packaging said, “Not for use in the US or Europe”, her president rejected that load of vaccines. Shortly thereafter, he died under suspicious circumstances, and his replacement is more amenable to “going along with the program”. So again, where does one run to?

          • Meh…Tanzania wasn’t on my list…. Suspicious circumstances? The guy was probably smoking crack…. 😀

            Even there, what the government does in it’s capitol and or it’s major cities and more densely populated areas usually has little to do with how things are in the boonies, ’cause they just don’t have the infrastructure nor resources to monitor and control everything like we do here.

            You live in the sticks here or in the middle of the Mojave desert, you’ll still see helicopters and planes flying overhead, and don’t be surprised when a car with a lightbar pulls up in your drive.

            By contrast, you live out in the middle of nowhere in BFE in half the countries of this world, and stay away from the borders and cities, and you’ll likely never encounter anyone from the government for the rest of your life.

            It’s more about getting away from ionfrastructure, and finding a functional culture- which in many places will determine more about the quality of life than written laws and government.

            Most of the kinds of places we’d want to be will let you in as long as you can prove that you’re not a vagrant, and that you’re not there to take a job or resources from their ownm people (Unless the fools we live amongst)- Often, buying property will do the trick….and a greased palm or two can work wonders.

            Yes, we’ve all come to know and depend on this infrastructure here…that is how they keep most people on the ranch. Guess it depends on what matters more to you. I don’t use most of the infrastructure anyway…and as far as things like smooth-paved roads, I’d be happy with dirt/gravel/mud roads, and whatever kind of conveyance might be appropriate to navigate them- be it a hose or a bicycle or go-cart or old 4×4. I wish we had such freedom here. I don’t have cable TV (or any TV) or a smartphone; and I could gladly live without the interwebz if I were living a more basic and self-sufficient life, as I could spend the rest of my life reading and drawing and painting and farting around in the woods or on the beach, and still not have enough to time to say it was enough when I croak. I want that life! Maybe you don’t want that life, and are willing to give up some liberty in order to have what you want…that’s O-K too, but I know what I want.

            • Nunzio,

              I know you’re right about that; in many countries, once you get away from the cities, life is, shall we say, very basic? A good 4×4 or a enduro style motorcycle would be more appropos for transportation. I know that Peru is like that once you get away from the cities; once you leave the Pan American Highway, you’ll be lucky to find paved roads…

              I almost pulled the trigger and moved down there. I still wrestle with the idea of leaving altogether. Then, the question becomes: do I want to leave a language, country, and culture I know for one I don’t? Do I want to always be the extranjero, the foreigner? Once you get outside of the cities, you WILL stand out; shoot, you’ll stand out IN the cities once you’re away from the tourist areas! I know that’s what it was like when I spent 3 months in Peru during 2018.

              Do I want to leave an area I know? Do I want to leave people I know, no matter how little? Do I want to go somewhere where I don’t know the lay of the land? Do I want to find new doctors and veterinarians again? Do I want to find new handymen/repair people? What about learning a new language? Oh, and do I want to go somewhere that has worse COnVID restrictions than we do here?

              The thing is, if you go to a country outside of the English speaking world; if you go outside of Europe; you WILL stand out! Everyone will know who you are; I guarantee it. Not only will your skin color be different; you’ll tower over the local people, so you can literally be seen from blocks away. Unless you have a decent grasp on the language, people will try to take advantage of you; after all, you’re the rich gringo. For me, the only way an expat move would work is if you already know people in the country; that’ll give you a bit of a head start.

              I get what you’re saying, Nunzio. My personal thought is that since this shit is global, there’s nowhere to run; the only differences are how far different nations’ governments are going, which is dependent on what the locals will tolerate. In any case, the COnVID scam is global, so I don’t know if running solves anything; at best, I think it’ll buy a little time, nothing more. I don’t see that there’s any other choice than to fight if necessary. I don’t want to do that, but I have my limits. Those are my conflicted thoughts on the matter.

              • MM, that is perfectly understandable. I’ve given some consideration to those concerns myself, because what you say is very true. For me, I’ve always been the outsider; the one who stands out, anyway. I keep to myself. As long as I’m in a place where I can be alone with lots of space between me and anyone else, I’m good- and I don’t really care about being accepted, etc. because i just want to be left alone.
                I realize that mine is a rare personality type. But ya know, from what I’ve heard from people I’ve known who have moved to such places, they find that they are readily accepted by the locals- since they are not tourists, or “rich gringos”, but just regular people seeking to lead a modest life. My worry would be rather that I might offend the locals by wanting to keep to myself! Buit hopefully I’d be remote enough to only have to worry about an occasional random encounter with a person or two on an individual basis.
                Yes, the differences in language; getting familiar with the lay of the land, etc. etc. it’s all stuff that countless others have done before us- whether those who have come here, or those from here or Europe who have gone to places like Asia or S. America etc. It doesn’t have to be scary- it’s just a learning process and an adventure.
                I know I REALLY miss the feeling of newness and freshness and of being an “outsider” that I experienced for the first couple of years I lived here after leaving NY! And ditto even some other moves i had made in the past which weren’t as drastic. Experiencing a new place, and learning from the experience, and discovering all sorts of new things…..the unknown……just gives life a new freshness and vigor.
                It’s great to put down roots and stay in one place forever- but it’s also good to move around a bit first, so that you know where you’d like to stay forever when you see it. And these days, with things happening on an accelerated scale and changing so quickly all the time, doing some moving may not be so bad. I’ll tell ya, I really miss that fresh feeling of moving into a new place in a new area- roads that you haven’t driven 100 times before…you actually notice the scenery….you may take a random turn just for the heck of it, because you don’t know what’s down that road- which hardware store is better?
                I remember some of the observations made by some that I know who went- stuff ya might not give much thought to when you’re still here because we’ve become so accustomed to the BS- like one guy I know who moved to Chile observed (and this was back in like ’07): “It just dawned on me, that I haven’t seen a chemtrail since I left the US!”.

    • Stop telling people they should run Nunz. They KNOW you are wrong. They have obviously studied every scenario, all the governments and their policies to arrive at “there’s NOWHERE TO RUN”.

      People who deal in only arrogant absolutes, are not likely to listen even if you spoon feed them. They will find (or invent) some element that is simply unacceptable to them so they can continue to tell themselves that doing nothing is the best choice.

      I await the angry rationalizations and insults.

      • I know, I know, Anon! Ya’d think I’d learn. 1930’s Germany all over again. Hey, why would anyone leave “the best and freest country on earth” when “there’s nowhere else to go”? Just take a vacation to Disney World “The Happiest Place On Earth” where ya get arrested for not allowing them to take your temperature (Did ya see that one?) and can stand in 3-hour long lines in 90* heat all day to go on some carnival rides, and you can forget all yer troubles! 😀

        • Also, I would never tell anyone my actual plans. They might follow me!

          And escape is not “one size fits all”.

          People who want to be free will make the effort. People who are comfortable with he guided cage won’t.

          • Amen, Anon! I just have a “jumping off point”- but I’m not even sure where I’ll end up 😉 And I guarantee ya, that many of those who poo-poo the idea now, will be saying “Wait, where did that guy go?” when things get hotter and it gets too uncomfortable for ’em here.
            Just like when I left NY- Virtually everyone ridiculed me “Oh, it’s the same everywhere ya go? What’re ya gonna do, live among the hillbillies [hums Deliverance music]”- but now, those same people are are all fleeing themselves (and without the benefit of preparation] or wishing they could, but can’t, because they blew the opportunity.
            I used to post on NY forum years ago…I’d never tell anyone where I moved to! Last thing I’d want is more NYers moving in!

  15. Highways are not racist, you see all kinds of homeless folks living under highway bridges.

    Joe Biden needs to go look for another job where he will be useful.

    Got some Dunning-Kruger going on upstairs in that empty skull of his.

    Anyone see the video of a teenager getting choked unconscious, collapses to the floor, then thrown out of a fast food joint by the manager?

    I do hope a few grownups teach the manager of the fast food restaurant a thing or two about a thing or two.

    Never too late to learn a lesson the hard way.

  16. Around here they’re taking perfectly good two lane roads and shrinking them down to one lane plus a bike lane, along with expanding the sidewalk to the width of a travel lane. I guess they need the wide sidewalk because the traffic is so miserable it might be faster to walk. Mission accomplished 😖.

    • Just another way to “encourage” more government-controlled mass (no pun intended) transit usage, especially in high-density urban areas.

  17. These useful idiots want to completely destroy any usable infrastructure in this country. It’s the same with powerplants including hydro dams. I know I-5 through Portland and I-375 in Detroit were already on the scheduled for demolition under King Barry. They’re going to completely destroy us and every aspect of our lives.

    Even their airport upgrades are suspect. Why not let the airlines finance it. Delta paid for Laguardia and Salt Lake City’s renovations. (Of course we paid for Delta’s bailout and current virtue signalling) I wouldn’t be surprised to find out if their airport upgrades are designed for private aircraft only. Why have upgrades for the proletariat?

    • When destruction is involved, their actions are very quick and efficient. Don’t be surprised to see their actions soon. I can’t imagine anyone in these “divided communities” wants their freeway access taken away. It has nothing to do with those people.

  18. Indeed, the US Psychopaths In Charge are in full bore accommodation of their psychosis, delusions and all. The problem is exacerbated by diminishing intellect among such psychopaths (see the current POTUS). They simply aren’t smart enough to envision the results of their insane actions will have a negative effect on them as well as us. And if there’s one thing the psychopath seeks to avoid, it’s negative effect on themselves, at all costs. Which is what has restrained them in the past. Not so today. They have licensed themselves to be just as psychotic as pleases them. Consequences by damned. Of course the diminishing intellect among the common folk isn’t helping either.

  19. Central 70 Project in Denver. The highlight is removing the viaduct down by the puppy chow factory and moving the highway underground in a Boston Big Dig style cut and cover.

    Connectivity: Local north-south and east-west connectivity will improve with the Project. The Project also features a 4-acre park over the highway that will connect the Elyria-Swansea neighborhoods that were divided when the viaduct was built in the 1960s.

    Looks like it will be a pretty nice, but narrow, park. Likely to have big exhaust ducts throughout the park, which will become targets for vandals, epidemiologists and terrorists. Gentrification will drive out the undesirables as real estate becomes even more scarce in the city.

    Driver Choice: After crews add an Express Lane in each direction on I-70, drivers will have the choice to use the Express Lane for a reliable trip in exchange for a toll, or to use one of the three to four general-purpose lanes for free. Carpoolers (vehicles with three or more people) and motorcyclists can ride the Express Lane for free.

    You know who else will get to ride the Express Lane for free? Anyone on “official” state business. In Colorado, state officials get their own license plate. I’m fairly certain they will be flagged in the readers as A-OK for using the express lanes. And AGWs on patrol of course will get a free ride, if only because it might save lives…

    This is happening while the fix for the horrible potholes covering the western end of I-70 is to put up “road damage ahead” signs. And complaints that the gas taxes aren’t high enough.

  20. “It does not occur to people like Sadik-Khan or Buttigieg and his master, Kamela Harris, that low-income people do not earn $40,000 a year.”

    I don’t think they care – as you know, it’s NOT really about helping anyone (except maybe themselves).

  21. Driving back this weekend after seeing the familia I passed under the bridge to I95 in Fredericksburg….it was bumper to bumper traffic. The green new dealers may have a fight on their hands if they think people are going to willingly give up their mode of transportation. Covid, likely pushed people back into cars and trucks….who wants to get on a bus or train with a bunch of “supposedly” sick people? This type of transportation will never be instituted into the rural or suburban areas. The costs are prohibitive and the infrastructure isn’t there.

    • Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA), which runs the bus service between Aspen and Glenwood Springs, actually shut down during the first few months of the pandemic. All last year there were stories in the paper about how RFTA was losing money and facing a major shortfall in budget. And they were limiting capacity on the buses to 14 people. If they hit that magic number, that’s it. Luckily most restaurant workers in Aspen lost their jobs anyway.

      • Hi RK,

        Around here bus service is down as well and I believe last time I checked the traffic on our Metro system was down by 90%. People are only going to take public transportation when they have no other recourse. Good luck trying to find any bus service 30 minutes outside of most large cities. Very few soccer moms are going to load all three kids on a bus to get on the train to get to Saturday morning practice. It is mini van or bust.

        • That’s the idea RG. No other recourse and to get that soccer mom into the city with the rest of those enlightened people.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here