Social Inside the White-Only Settlement in Arkansas: The Group Building a 'Fortress for the White Race'

[Fox by the Sea]

NO ONE should be starting culty isolationist colonies that are about racial hegemony as an intended goal.

Why not? its just a bunch of dudes in the middle of nowhere. what difference does that make to society?

it just looks like hysteria to me.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Because it's illegal, as has been explained umpteen times in this thread already

It's not illegal - It isn't a town; it isn't even incorporated, just a bunch of dipshits that bought 160 acres of private land to build their own community.

Think of it like the private golf courses that banned minorities in the past. If this little redneck community wants some sort of state/federal funding then they'll have to change their stance - otherwise it's shitty, but it's their right to be pieces of shit.

 

[usernamee]

Why not? its just a bunch of dudes in the middle of nowhere. what difference does that make to society?

it just looks like hysteria to me.

I wouldn't want to be a kid growing up there though and much rather be born into a regular society with regular education. I'm just assuming they're teaching the kids some unsavoury shit that will be hard-wired into them, but I could be wrong.

 

[Sinister]

Why not? its just a bunch of dudes in the middle of nowhere. what difference does that make to society?

it just looks like hysteria to me.

Again this has been thoroughly discussed in this thread. Their entire point is to spread their ideology and try to turn the US into an ethno-State.

 

[usernamee]

if this was about a bunch of racist blacks choosing to segregate themselves this would not have been a 27 page thread.

It would be hilarious because the people who would criticize that would probably be called racists.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I wouldn't want to be a kid growing up there though and much rather be born into a regular society with regular education. I'm just assuming they're teaching the kids some unsavoury shit that will be hard-wired into them, but I could be wrong.

well then take all kids away from religious families all over the world.
take them away from families that say men can get pregnant
take them away from true believers in communism that force their kids in the ideology
etc etc

if you start one, you can find arguments for any.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

It would be hilarious because the people who would criticize that would probably be called racists.

and the exact arguments would be used. why do you care? let them be what they want, who are they hurting, if they break the law put them in jail etc etc.
it's obvious.

 

[Sinister]

It's not illegal - It isn't a town; it isn't even incorporated, just a bunch of dipshits that bought 160 acres of private land to build their own community.

Think of it like the private golf courses that banned minorities in the past. If this little redneck community wants some sort of state/federal funding then they'll have to change their stance - otherwise it's shitty, but it's their right to be pieces of shit.

No, it's illegal. Private golf courses cannot ban minorities now (as a distinct condition of membership) and neither can private schools. It doesnt matter at what stage of development they are and they've already said on video what their clear intended purpose is, and even then they're still subject to local and State laws, which is why the Arkansas AG is pretty pissed.

 

[Sinister]

It would be hilarious because the people who would criticize that would probably be called racists.

Or you could read the thread and realize this is a dumb argument.

 

[The XL]

Yeah that's totally not what this is.

It's more socially and legally acceptable for minority groups to put their interests first. I mean, this is totally observable and fairly obvious to anyone who is being objective. The legal semantics involved with these white supremacists might be somewhat different, but minority groups operate in this spirit all the time.

 

[usernamee]

It's more socially and legally acceptable for minority groups to put their interests first. I mean, this is totally observable and fairly obvious to anyone who is being objective. The legal semantics involved with these white supremacists might be somewhat different, but minority groups operate in this spirit all the time.

Does that mean we shouldn't try to hinder more of this sort of shit to pop up and populate?

If Islam didn't exist and someone came up with that religion today and wanted to build out a town where they practiced Islamic shariah laws, shouldn't we try to stop that shit?

 

[Sinister]

It's more socially and legally acceptable for minority groups to put their interests first. I mean, this is totally observable and fairly obvious to anyone who is being objective. The legal semantics involved with these white supremacists might be somewhat different, but minority groups operate in this spirit all the time.

What does "in this spirit" mean? Because this spirit here is racism. Unless you mean the vague notion of "putting their interests first"...but what does THAT mean? Because typically minority advocacy groups are started to tackle issues derived from lacking of civic infrastructure. As an example, my Sister has a charity in South Florida that caters primarily to black and Latino communities. She operates a food pantry and a donation hub for everything from clothes, to school supplies. She's not being exclusive in her outreach as a mission, those are just the communities in need of the most help and are logistically viable to her.

Also why are you saying merely "minorities?" If you look immediately past the idea of "whites can't _____" I mean, right down the street from my house is the Italian American Club and they do plenty of outreach work themselves. So do various Irish Clubs, Polish Clubs, my Grandfather was a member of a Fraternal organization that was like 99.5% white dudes by coincidence because it consisted of Veterans.

There are A LOT of groups that are majority white, or of specific communities and cater to them.

 

[oldshadow]

Those minorities have to follow the same rules. They can't exclude others from their community. These aren't just white people wanting to be alone. They throw up the 1488 slogan and have nazi like imagery on social media. They know what they are doing.

You can "discriminate" based off a private club but you can't outright say it is only for whites. You need to hide it behind some membership vetting/interview process. Your club can't be open to the public. I think this club caters to the public because they have a public application on their website. That white settlement is trying to say civil rights legislation doesn't apply to them because the settlement is a part of a LLC and people are buying shares of the LLC which gives them the right to build on that land.

Yes you can but it must meet the legal requirements of a private club.

This is from the ACLU website.

"Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation), the club advertises for members, it is directly controlled by its members and operated solely for their benefit, and the club is operated for profit."

When Is a Private Club Not a 'Private Club'? - ACLU of Pennsylvania

PHILADELPHIA – In the wake of allegations that the Valley Swim Club, a private membership club, sent away dozens of children from the Creative Steps Day Camp because they are African American, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania explained, in response to media inquiries, that the...

www.aclupa.org

 

[oldshadow]

No, it's illegal. Private golf courses cannot ban minorities now (as a distinct condition of membership) and neither can private schools. It doesnt matter at what stage of development they are and they've already said on video what their clear intended purpose is, and even then they're still subject to local and State laws, which is why the Arkansas AG is pretty pissed.

Yes they can if the meet the legal requirements of a private club. Very few want to do that.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No. Freedom Georgia was not and is not "blacks only."

Not relevant at all

I think you state things that may or may not be true

• Freedom is a settlement in the U.S. state of Georgia established in September 2020, in the wake of a breakdown of race relations after the killing of several African Americans, including the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. It was created by 19 African-American families who together purchased 96.71 acres (39.14 hectares) of land in Wilkinson County, near Macon, with the goal of incorporating a city that is a "safe haven for people of color"

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Again this has been thoroughly discussed in this thread. Their entire point is to spread their ideology and try to turn the US into an ethno-State.

who? a bunch of people? how are they realistically going to do that lol?
if you'd get a million people together with that goal it would still fail. hell, even 10 million.

this is just not a serious thing to be concerned about.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You can be a racist in the confines of your own home, but not to engage with society based on that premise. You can own a house and never let black people into YOUR house as guests. You cannot rent a room in your house and advertise "no negroes." People always try to use the notion of Freedom of Association (meant to protect worker's Unions) and the notion of "private clubs" as a more sanitized way of being racists, but its dubious at best and when private schools tried to use that argument to not allow minorities to attend, it didnt work

You have to apply for permission to buy land or build a business in Freedom.

btw: I don't see whitey in the contractor section unless they mean that whitey must be female or a veteran.

We are excited to partner with black-owned, women-owned, veteran-owned, BIPOC businesses as vendors, contractors, and consultants.

https://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/our-partners/

Very diverse community

 

[fedorthegoat777]

The movie Black Panther, was literally about a black ethno state in Africa and people thought it was fucking fantastic. If everyone just learned to leave everyone else, the fuck alone and concentrate on how they want to live their own lives, the world would be a much better... and far more peaceful place.

Remember back in the old days when people used to say "Oh well, it's a free country" when they disagreed with others? Why the fuck do we not do that anymore? If they cross the line and start hurting others, then sure, throw them in jail, if they are just peacefully keeping to themselves in their own little community, how the fuck is it any of your business? Leave everyone else, the fuck alone.

This would literally solve every single problem that we have right now.

That and castrate the s.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Again this has been thoroughly discussed in this thread. Their entire point is to spread their ideology and try to turn the US into an ethno-State.

Isn't that the goal of the klan and skin heads? We don't ban them because they're "morans" - we either educate them or mock them.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It's not a club. It falls within a similar function of an HOA which is member based, you pay dues, but you cannot discriminate based on race. Any program, private or otherwise, which offers housing cannot discriminate based on race. Thats illegal, plain and simple.


Wow man, the flagrant dishonesty is genuinely disappointing. Especially since the Freedom GA information has already been posted several times over already. Freedom did not in any way shape or form discriminate based on race. They encouraged people to join regardless of race to join and be involved so long as they considered themselves allies of the black community. There was no limitations on who could enter. There was no limitations on who could own anything like you falsely claimed. There was no limitations on who could run or be involved in any program or business like you falsely claimed. And there was no racist philosophy being pushed.

And yes if guys in the Ozarks weren't banning all minorities then it would be different. It is ridiculous that you have to even ask that. Them discriminating is the entire problem. What they are doing is not legal.

God you're even dishonest in the info you pull from the site. Making sure sure to remove all the bits that prove you wrong.

While the initiative’s primary goal was to provide a safe space for Black families, the vision included opening the community to the public for events such as retreats, reunions, weddings, and recreational activities like hunting and fishing. The Freedom Georgia Initiative’s website and statements from its founders emphasize welcoming “Black allies” and creating a space for broader community engagement, suggesting that while the core focus is on Black families, the community was not intended to be exclusively for Black residents but rather inclusive of those who support its mission. For example, their plans included public events like the “Big Black Campout” to invite broader participation.

https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/can-private-clubs-and-religious-organizations-legally-discriminate/

Can private clubs discriminate based on race?​

No, private clubs are not allowed to discriminate based on race under federal law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in public accommodations, and private clubs that operate as public businesses may be subject to these regulations.


Private clubs occupy a unique legal status, often allowing them to operate with certain exemptions from anti-discrimination laws....

For instance, a club may limit membership to individuals of a particular religion or may have age restrictions, which can raise questions regarding legality. However, the legal framework surrounding private clubs can be complex and varies significantly by locality. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that impose additional restrictions on the ability of private clubs to discriminate, aiming to promote fairness and inclusivity.

Case Study 1: Boy Scouts Membership Policy​

In a highly debated case, the Boy Scouts of America faced legal challenges regarding their membership policy. In New Jersey, the state’s Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster based on gender preferences.

However, in California, the Supreme Court ruled that the California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to individuals who are gay or do not believe in God. These cases highlight the variations in state laws and their impact on the discriminatory practices of private organizations like the Boy Scouts.