Heritage black Americans are part of America so an understanding and arrangement should be reached. The most peaceful and efficient way forward is the old libertarian way: no one messes with each other. No more taxing one group to spend on another, as this breeds even more resentment than interracial violent crime does. Many people can escape unsafe neighborhoods but very few can escape the tax man. If people want to use government services, they should pay for those services per usage. If people aren’t able to pay their own way, they should appeal to voluntary charity which is better able to place responsible conditions upon receiving the charity. No one should be coerced to do any economic transactions, which should all be voluntary trades. The force of law should only be applied to protecting people rather than violating them.
We should also respect peoples’s right of association. If some black people feel they are better off in their private lives being physically separate from non-blacks, they should have the right to pursue peacefully their version of happiness. Same can be said for some white people. Forcing people together breeds resentment. If we eliminate the government’s immoral policies of coercive taxation and forced integration, we’ll find that people’s interracial resentment will naturally subside and people will organically feel more friendliness and empathy for one another. Most people don’t and won’t want to be separatists. There are even practical, selfish reasons for wanting, for example, a large and diversified customer base for one’s business. The color that many people care about the most is the color of money. Leave people free to calculate their own business decisions and they may not disappoint.
The government should have a role in the management of natural resources such as land. The government should not have a role in managing abstract activities such as labor, education, healthcare, charity, retirement investing, etc, but unfortunately it does. If we were to downsize the government and remove its tentacles from all of these abstract activities, its continued role in natural resource management would still leave the government much smaller than it currently is, and therefore the police state much less powerful than it currently is. For example, instead of sending the cops after someone for not paying the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance per the Affordable Care Act that the person never agreed to, the cops would be used to enforce the terms of the land contract that the person voluntarily agreed to. By restricting the force of law to concrete, real world physical interactions, there would be many fewer opportunities for the current over-policing that comes with the government’s current practice of coercively micromanaging way too many abstract activities and private decisions. Both the classic libertarian way and the geolibertarian way would leave the government much smaller.
Regarding the control over who a neighbor’s house is sold to, theoretically there’s the possibility of Home Owners’ Associations setting conditions on home resale. Using the justification of agreement with the developer’s terms, HOAs can currently dictate the color of paint on people’s houses.
In most cases, one can’t directly control who his neighbor sells to without probably resorting to coercion himself. Such coercion can run both ways, by the way. There’s the proverbial brick through the window of the new black neighbors, and there’s also the anti-white violence that keeps inexpensive properties in black neighborhoods from being “re-gentrified”. There are plenty of whites who would be interested in a <$100K home within short distance of downtown Baltimore, but the anti-white crime makes it practically impossible for most. The properties’ affordability to blacks that is enforced by anti-white violence is an example of black privilege.
One’s best bet for morally “controlling” the quality of his neighbors is peaceful economic pressure. In a hypothetical meritocratic country where people can’t get above-average rich through government employment, where special interests can’t be enriched by bribing the government, where current counter-economic activities become legal so they no longer offer a bloated profit-motive, and where an efficient police force actually does its job of preventing and punishing crimes against victims, the way to get above-average rich is by providing honest utility that people voluntarily compensate for. In such a hypothetical country, if one lives in a neighborhood that only honest, useful people can afford, then his neighbors will likely be quality people. If this meritocratic way results in some places being not diverse, then so be it. People in poorer neighborhoods would also be safer than they are now because of the improved police force that wouldn’t be demoralized or distracted from its true mandate. If the person in this example is hellbent on specifically racially discriminating, he can join a peaceful local club of same-race people, which should be legal out of respect for the right of free association.
People can also use social pressure, such as setting a tone of who’s “welcome” in certain locales by using non-violent methods such as social ostracism. It’s a jerk move, but at least it doesn’t injure anyone or damage property.
Otherwise you’d need legally set-aside racial enclaves such as “the black people’s zone of southern Alabama” or “the white people’s zone of northern Maine” or whatever. The logistics of setting these up would be difficult, involving a lot of eminent domain to compensate re-located people, but if people want to vote these things in for the sake of peace, that’s their prerogative.
Look at just who owned the majority of the plantations back then. Hint: same ones as today, and the majority were not pure Caucasian. Think bankers. Think who would actually own another human being? Think Satanists. Research
https://youtu.be/6R8h9O-Uvak
Sorry about YouTube I looked on Rumble and couldn’t find it on there. Theo Von is a Louisianimal so I get his humor, I’m from Louisiana also. And Roseanne has been my favorite for as long as I could remember. Well them 2 together 🤣😂
I didn't live in the projects, but my husband did. I was poor, but it was never an acceptable reason for bad grades or bad behavior. The library was free, which is the reason I read a book a day all summer.
I didn't watch the video, because the poster's last sentence kind of threw me for a loop. I personally don't think "we" are fighting each other, not at this time in history. I believe the races are getting along better than at any time in the most recent past, BLM, the black guy they made a statue for (who was a terrible person) Floyd I think, and just criminal activity, usually in the Democrat run cities where the Democrats want to give people of color, generally, a pass. As the old saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Otherwise, and I haven't done a "poll" on the subject it is my feeling from talking to people while I am out, we are getting along fine.
And, maybe I should have watched the video, but...
This is great!
I don’t like the government taxing the honest labor of blacks or whites
I 100% agree.
What I am hoping out of this.
It's 100% impossible to sustain an "All White" or "All Black" nation in America. If the country was supposed to be "All White".
No way would you bring over black slaves. Doing that action would defeat the "All White" concept.
What we have to understand is that the elites only care about themselves. The rest of us are expendable to them.
It's time to join forces with like minded people from all walks of life.
Heritage black Americans are part of America so an understanding and arrangement should be reached. The most peaceful and efficient way forward is the old libertarian way: no one messes with each other. No more taxing one group to spend on another, as this breeds even more resentment than interracial violent crime does. Many people can escape unsafe neighborhoods but very few can escape the tax man. If people want to use government services, they should pay for those services per usage. If people aren’t able to pay their own way, they should appeal to voluntary charity which is better able to place responsible conditions upon receiving the charity. No one should be coerced to do any economic transactions, which should all be voluntary trades. The force of law should only be applied to protecting people rather than violating them.
We should also respect peoples’s right of association. If some black people feel they are better off in their private lives being physically separate from non-blacks, they should have the right to pursue peacefully their version of happiness. Same can be said for some white people. Forcing people together breeds resentment. If we eliminate the government’s immoral policies of coercive taxation and forced integration, we’ll find that people’s interracial resentment will naturally subside and people will organically feel more friendliness and empathy for one another. Most people don’t and won’t want to be separatists. There are even practical, selfish reasons for wanting, for example, a large and diversified customer base for one’s business. The color that many people care about the most is the color of money. Leave people free to calculate their own business decisions and they may not disappoint.
Well said.
It's much easier to let people do what they want to do.
I think what most separatists don't understand. For their ideas to work.
You do need the state to acquire more power to control who owns what land. Which also means increasing the idea of a police state.
Which would naturally lead to more policing of other policies to control people.
Now if people freely choose to hang out on their own. That's not a problem.
The only issue that person would have. How can they control their neighbor from selling their home to someone from another group?
The government should have a role in the management of natural resources such as land. The government should not have a role in managing abstract activities such as labor, education, healthcare, charity, retirement investing, etc, but unfortunately it does. If we were to downsize the government and remove its tentacles from all of these abstract activities, its continued role in natural resource management would still leave the government much smaller than it currently is, and therefore the police state much less powerful than it currently is. For example, instead of sending the cops after someone for not paying the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance per the Affordable Care Act that the person never agreed to, the cops would be used to enforce the terms of the land contract that the person voluntarily agreed to. By restricting the force of law to concrete, real world physical interactions, there would be many fewer opportunities for the current over-policing that comes with the government’s current practice of coercively micromanaging way too many abstract activities and private decisions. Both the classic libertarian way and the geolibertarian way would leave the government much smaller.
Regarding the control over who a neighbor’s house is sold to, theoretically there’s the possibility of Home Owners’ Associations setting conditions on home resale. Using the justification of agreement with the developer’s terms, HOAs can currently dictate the color of paint on people’s houses.
In most cases, one can’t directly control who his neighbor sells to without probably resorting to coercion himself. Such coercion can run both ways, by the way. There’s the proverbial brick through the window of the new black neighbors, and there’s also the anti-white violence that keeps inexpensive properties in black neighborhoods from being “re-gentrified”. There are plenty of whites who would be interested in a <$100K home within short distance of downtown Baltimore, but the anti-white crime makes it practically impossible for most. The properties’ affordability to blacks that is enforced by anti-white violence is an example of black privilege.
One’s best bet for morally “controlling” the quality of his neighbors is peaceful economic pressure. In a hypothetical meritocratic country where people can’t get above-average rich through government employment, where special interests can’t be enriched by bribing the government, where current counter-economic activities become legal so they no longer offer a bloated profit-motive, and where an efficient police force actually does its job of preventing and punishing crimes against victims, the way to get above-average rich is by providing honest utility that people voluntarily compensate for. In such a hypothetical country, if one lives in a neighborhood that only honest, useful people can afford, then his neighbors will likely be quality people. If this meritocratic way results in some places being not diverse, then so be it. People in poorer neighborhoods would also be safer than they are now because of the improved police force that wouldn’t be demoralized or distracted from its true mandate. If the person in this example is hellbent on specifically racially discriminating, he can join a peaceful local club of same-race people, which should be legal out of respect for the right of free association.
People can also use social pressure, such as setting a tone of who’s “welcome” in certain locales by using non-violent methods such as social ostracism. It’s a jerk move, but at least it doesn’t injure anyone or damage property.
Otherwise you’d need legally set-aside racial enclaves such as “the black people’s zone of southern Alabama” or “the white people’s zone of northern Maine” or whatever. The logistics of setting these up would be difficult, involving a lot of eminent domain to compensate re-located people, but if people want to vote these things in for the sake of peace, that’s their prerogative.
Well said.
All Americans- we all bleed red
Good point, but...
Look at just who owned the majority of the plantations back then. Hint: same ones as today, and the majority were not pure Caucasian. Think bankers. Think who would actually own another human being? Think Satanists. Research
The nose knows.
https://youtu.be/6R8h9O-Uvak Sorry about YouTube I looked on Rumble and couldn’t find it on there. Theo Von is a Louisianimal so I get his humor, I’m from Louisiana also. And Roseanne has been my favorite for as long as I could remember. Well them 2 together 🤣😂
Classicism
I didn't live in the projects, but my husband did. I was poor, but it was never an acceptable reason for bad grades or bad behavior. The library was free, which is the reason I read a book a day all summer.
As PDJT would say, it's true, it's true.
I didn't watch the video, because the poster's last sentence kind of threw me for a loop. I personally don't think "we" are fighting each other, not at this time in history. I believe the races are getting along better than at any time in the most recent past, BLM, the black guy they made a statue for (who was a terrible person) Floyd I think, and just criminal activity, usually in the Democrat run cities where the Democrats want to give people of color, generally, a pass. As the old saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Otherwise, and I haven't done a "poll" on the subject it is my feeling from talking to people while I am out, we are getting along fine.
And, maybe I should have watched the video, but...
It’s short - it’s pretty good he speaks a bit of truth