Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Oh, friend. You clearly haven’t been paying attention. You could be living 100 miles from a Hispanic person…and you still get to blame every single bad thing in your life on those damn dirty Mexicans.

image.gif.15d0e22fe92e21653cdd761f20d91af2.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

More importantly -- who are they going to look down upon?  Who are they going to blame their problems on?

Are you completely unfamiliar with Cult organizational hierarchy? There will be a leader, and a few hench people. That group will look down on and blame all issues on the followers. Most issues arising from 3 areas, not bringing in enough new "settlers", leadership not getting enough "love" from "settlers", and "settlers" not donating enough money, time and effort. 

This is all known. It's like you've never even been in a cult.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 hours ago, 'stache said:

The food is gonna suck, and the dance clubs are gonna be lame af.

 

undefined - Imgur.gif

First thing that went through my mind was shitty restaurants/ cooking. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Goredho said:

Until someone wants to be the Jackie Robinson of Aryan, Arkansas, it's just some goofballs with a commune and a desire to be known.

I mean, they engaged a reporter.  So they could look into a camera and say, "You are not welcome here."  Who's the "You"?   I saw no lines of non-white people looking to integrate into their community of "Deliverance" LARPers.  These guys are thirsting for relevance, maybe to attract like minded people, maybe to normalize the concept, maybe to provoke a response that gives them increased notoriety or makes them martyrs.  They are just desperate for attention.

Why give it to them?  By all means, go and enjoy your shanty town of racial purity.  You can call it Utopia.  I'll call it the Aryan nation reservation.

Moving on...

So they’re basically @futureman

  • Haha 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Just like the title says.  In the Arkansas Ozarks.  Preserving white American culture.  Would this be controversial if another race does it?  IMO yes 
 

 

Safe to say that 7/11 or any other drive in won’t be opening in that community.

Posted

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

Quote

The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as landlords and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of:

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Iceman said:

First thing that went through my mind was shitty restaurants/ cooking. 

There’s no limit to how much meatloaf and ketchup “those people” can eat.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

 

Not a lawyer, but pretty sure it's not legal. I would imagine the community would have to deny a member based on any of the above for the federal government to take action against them. Until someone is discriminated against, it's a big nothingburger.

That being said, a really great way to do that is to seek attention and advertise that you're breaking federal law. Some uppity coloreds might try to entrap you!

1 minute ago, MrBig said:

There’s no limit to how much meatloaf and ketchup “those people” can eat.

I bet those dorks only cook recipes from the Civil War south.

Posted
I bet those dorks only cook recipes from the Civil War south.

Yes…I’m sure the DOJ will get right on enforcing the Fair Housing Act against open and proud white supremacists. That’s definitely a top priority for this DOJ.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Yes…I’m sure the DOJ will get right on enforcing the Fair Housing Act against open and proud white supremacists. That’s definitely a top priority for this DOJ.

The federal government enforces the laws and constitution objectively and without prejudice, sir. How dare you besmirch our federally-elected and appointed officials!

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

 

I'll willing to wager the members of this "community" on privately owned land don't actually buy, rent or lease shit. 

Run it like a cult. They "donate" x dollars to "apply" for membership. The are then "given" their plot of land. There is no official documents on this process and is likely communicated verbally. 

By that I mean, I'd be shocked if there are any contracts offered to the "members". Hell, they probably use federal law to defend why. 

Give us $x for your "application". Once "approved" come out and meet us to see if we are a good mutual "fit". In the face to face indoctrination occurs, more money is taken and verbal "contracts" are made.

Enforce that DOJ.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
12 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

I bet those dorks only cook recipes from the Civil War south.

46760630_1923521837743244_2117181369531446498183_1923521801076581_25751500858767

These are from a cookbook my wife got from her grandmother a long time ago.  The cookbook was put together by the women of Cotton Plant, Arkansas.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

 

Well, first off, you have to go a little deeper than a statement of the overall policy and into the Act itself.

As a shorcut, let's do the section headings of potentially applicable sections.

§ 3601. Declaration of policy

§ 3602. Definitions

§ 3603. Effective dates of certain prohibitions

§ 3604. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices

§ 3605. Discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions

§ 3606. Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services

§ 3607. Religious organization or private club exemption

I think the main thing they're relying on is the discrimination occurs in the membership in the PMA, which is not any sort of real-estate transaction or rental or sale of housing.

Then, once you're in the PMA, you buy shares in the LLC, again not a sale or rental of real property, which entitles you to build on and otherwise exercise ownership attributes over a chunk of the land.

So, I think it literally probably evades the terms of the statutes.  And maybe they're trying to squeeze into that religious/private club exemption.

I think historically, this probably won't work.  But with Ruckus & Co., who knows anymore.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

46760630_1923521837743244_2117181369531446498183_1923521801076581_25751500858767

These are from a cookbook my wife got from her grandmother a long time ago.  The cookbook was put together by the women of Cotton Plant, Arkansas.

 

You had me at stuffed cabbage.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

46760630_1923521837743244_2117181369531446498183_1923521801076581_25751500858767

These are from a cookbook my wife got from her grandmother a long time ago.  The cookbook was put together by the women of Cotton Plant, Arkansas.

 

Wet Back Delight was such a bad follow-up to Afternoon Delight by the Starland Vocal Band. They really misjudged things with that release. 

Edited by hookemATL
And now I’m humming the tune and making up lyrics for it. God I love being a horrible person❤️
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'll willing to wager the members of this "community" on privately owned land don't actually buy, rent or lease shit. 

Run it like a cult. They "donate" x dollars to "apply" for membership. The are then "given" their plot of land. 

By that I mean, I'd be shocked if there are any contracts offered to the "members". Hell, they probably use federal law to defend why. 

Correct.  Fair Housing Act enforces fair lending/renting practices.  Not applicable is you are not buying/borrowing.  If you build on private land you only have to content with it being up to code, etc.  And then only if you want to insure it or get it appraised.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

46760630_1923521837743244_2117181369531446498183_1923521801076581_25751500858767

These are from a cookbook my wife got from her grandmother a long time ago.  The cookbook was put together by the women of Cotton Plant, Arkansas.

 

That all looks fantastic, esp the cabbage.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Correct.  Fair Housing Act enforces fair lending/renting practices.  Not applicable is you are not buying/borrowing.  If you build on private land you only have to content with it being up to code, etc.  And then only if you want to insure it or get it appraised.  

Well, you still have to acquire the land.  Or the right to occupy and improve the land.

Posted
46760630_1923521837743244_2117181369531498496_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=PZNT1O9bJpoQ7kNvwGtkryc&_nc_oc=AdmCfK7JZsqlACUdc71ifGBe4QQqKQbTPSSNn4Y4tFXVolyuJI65VGdRdq35EKy2hfp_wf7DOwSV9ICMyASpvh8L&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-den2-1.xx&_nc_gid=TzQGg0bYTomo2d3up6MaJA&oh=00_AfQxzjkqZrc2N5oGTAaGUs0CmrBNcjima8ZX51FlsX2m2A&oe=68AB1D0146498183_1923521801076581_2575150085876744192_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=XVBKhoyg3o4Q7kNvwEK5Pk2&_nc_oc=AdmwIBEwv8KPzEEdyZGNjuR6tMyKSJr3720O29E1ydHkwNb3k3J6j7a5BQFzjSJuQUpSXQ5hHQaLVpKWtczZqORw&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-den2-1.xx&_nc_gid=m00pWoqtRPHA5hMKJr0C5Q&oh=00_AfR-Lrw2dwZYdAfFyWHwwDfap7JLNqVqj2_DVDS3XpNFnA&oe=68AB36DB
These are from a cookbook my wife got from her grandmother a long time ago.  The cookbook was put together by the women of Cotton Plant, Arkansas.
 

I’m a little bit - but not a lot - ashamed that I’d eat every recipe shown. And enjoy it.
Wet Back Delight was such a bad follow-up to Afternoon Delight by the Starland Vocal Band. They really misjudged things with that release. 

Yet….I know all the words. It’s a banger, we play it at all the quinceneras, because irony is fun.
  • Haha 2
Posted

Fair housing act? LOL, who the fuck is gonna enforce it these days? I fully expect that race based restrictive covenants are on their way back. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you still have to acquire the land.  Or the right to occupy and improve the land.

You're over thinking it. 

There is one owner, a very small group, or maybe a very closed up LLC. 

There are no tenants or legally tied folks. 

Like a church, they donate to the "cause" and are "provided" a home.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes…I’m sure the DOJ will get right on enforcing the Fair Housing Act against open and proud white supremacists. That’s definitely a top priority for this DOJ.

SCOTUS: 

That law is illegal now, sorry.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

 

It’s not. I guess the better question is who is going to enforce the law? State officials? This DOJ that destroyed the entire civil rights department?

Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That wasn't the question.

The answer to your question is that it is illegal under the Fair Housing Act and numerous other laws and policies. It's very relevant however that it is almost certain that they would not be enforced so as a practical matter it's not illegal. 

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You're over thinking it. 

There is one owner, a very small group, or maybe a very closed up LLC. 

There are no tenants or legally tied folks. 

Like a church, they donate to the "cause" and are "provided" a home.

That is actually exactly what I said above.

Under oldlaw, though, I'm reasonably certain that arrangement would violate the 5th and `14th Amendments, if not the Fair Housing Act.

There is a private cause of action under the FHA and 1983 of course.  

Oddly, there's only one Trump appointee in Arkansas, and he seems to be a piece of shit as regards civil rights laws.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is actually exactly what I said above.

Under oldlaw, though, I'm reasonably certain that arrangement would violate the 5th and `14th Amendments, if not the Fair Housing Act.

I own some land. 

Can I decide who is or is not allowed on my land?

Could I build second house on my land?

Could I build 3 using legal methods?

Can I allow my friends to stay in them for free? 

Does the government have say over the race(s) of my friends staying in my houses for free?

Posted
53 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You're over thinking it. 

There is one owner, a very small group, or maybe a very closed up LLC. 

There are no tenants or legally tied folks. 

Like a church, they donate to the "cause" and are "provided" a home.

How would they preclude a Black or Hispanic person from being admitted to the "club" or LLC or from donating to the cause and being provided with a home? Traditionally, it would be easy to break through whatever pretext they put together and get to the blatantly discriminatory intent. I'm actually surprised to don't set this up as a church that allows its members to live on the property in exchange for weekly tithing. "My religion precludes me from associating with non-Aryan people" would be consistent with recent SCOTUS rulings on religious freedom. They'd get away with it pretty easily if they did it that way tbh.

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I own some land. 

Can I decide who is or is not allowed on my land?

Could I build second house on my land?

Could I build 3 using legal methods?

Can I allow my friends to stay in them for free? 

Does the government have say over the race(s) of my friends staying in my houses for free?

As stated again and again, it comes back to private land ownership.  Fair Lending, which cascaded down from the Fair Housing Act, enforces just that:  lending and unfair rental practices

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I own some land. 

Can I decide who is or is not allowed on my land?

Could I build second house on my land?

Could I build 3 using legal methods?

Can I allow my friends to stay in them for free? 

Does the government have say over the race(s) of my friends staying in my houses for free?

For free, you say?

Hi, friend!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

How would they preclude a Black or Hispanic person from being admitted to the "club" or LLC or from donating to the cause and being provided with a home? Traditionally, it would be easy to break through whatever pretext they put together and get to the blatantly discriminatory intent. I'm actually surprised to don't set this up as a church that allows its members to live on the property in exchange for weekly tithing. "My religion precludes me from associating with non-Aryan people" would be consistent with recent SCOTUS rulings on religious freedom. They'd get away with it pretty easily if they did it that way tbh.

Scientology is already out there

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

How would they preclude a Black or Hispanic person from being admitted to the "club" or LLC or from donating to the cause and being provided with a home? Traditionally, it would be easy to break through whatever pretext they put together and get to the blatantly discriminatory intent. I'm actually surprised to don't set this up as a church that allows its members to live on the property in exchange for weekly tithing. "My religion precludes me from associating with non-Aryan people" would be consistent with recent SCOTUS rulings on religious freedom. They'd get away with it pretty easily if they did it that way tbh.

The "members" of the "club" have zero legal standing. There us no contract. There is no legal club. There is zero rent paid. There is zero ownership of people in the community. They are staying on their friends land for free. 

They just really like "SS Social Club" which banks off shore and gave SS Social Club all their money before moving on their friend's land, where they are free of rent, bills, utilities or ownership. They are "living off the land". 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

For free, you say?

Hi, friend!

We seem to have similar taste in shows. 

You are welcome here. 

Come move on in.

Oh, I love to donate to BurntEyes Philanthropic Charity for Wayward 20 Something Women Who Failed at Becoming "Influencers". I'd love it if you would too. Let me know and I'll send my address. 

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

They are staying on their friends land for free. 

This is what it really seems to boil down to.  Bunch of larpers banging each others sisters/wives out in the woods.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, BabaYaga said:

This is what it really seems to boil down to.  Bunch of larpers banging each others sisters/wives out in the woods.  

And we hate them for that... I thought we weren't kink shaming here anymore. I guess I was wrong.

  • Haha 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I own some land. 

Can I decide who is or is not allowed on my land?

Could I build second house on my land?

Could I build 3 using legal methods?

Can I allow my friends to stay in them for free? 

Does the government have say over the race(s) of my friends staying in my houses for free?

 

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The "members" of the "club" have zero legal standing. There us no contract. There is no legal club. There is zero rent paid. There is zero ownership of people in the community. They are staying on their friends land for free. 

They just really like "SS Social Club" which banks off shore and gave SS Social Club all their money before moving on their friend's land, where they are free of rent, bills, utilities or ownership. They are "living off the land". 

If you're legitimately letting friends and family stay for free, sure. A very rich person would have to be seriously committed to this idea to legitimately bestow upon a township sized population free housing. At some point a traditional enforcement agency could probably pursue this as an obvious rouse but it wouldn't be super clear. I get the sense from the article that they are contemplating some form of indirect compensation for the living accomodations and it would be pretty easy at that point for a traditional enforcement agency to break through the rouse and get to the illegal discriminatory intent. I use the word "traditional" because that's not the world we're living in currently and this arrangement will not have any problems even if set up as a traditional landlord tenant relationship.  

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

If you're legitimately letting friends and family stay for free, sure. A very rich person would have to be seriously committed to this idea to legitimately bestow upon a township sized population free housing. At some point a traditional enforcement agency could probably pursue this as an obvious rouse but it wouldn't be super clear. I get the sense from the article that they are contemplating some form of indirect compensation for the living accomodations and it would be pretty easy at that point for a traditional enforcement agency to break through the rouse and get to the illegal discriminatory intent. I use the word "traditional" because that's not the world we're living in currently and this arrangement will not have any problems even if set up as a traditional landlord tenant relationship.  

You should truly do some research on cults. Every single one of them does exactly what I just described. Usually done under the name of region, but some done in the name of science and... Scientology. Mormons pretty frequently but they aren't alone. Remember the "Twin Flames" cults? "Dancer" cult? I could go on and on but they are all over the place.

Edit - Hell in that video there was a couple that met AT the "community" and got married already.

Basically, a cult finds lost souls or those who want to do "something". They give them a place to "belong" and find like minded people for "community". Race is trending HUGE in social media. This is just an offshoot of other cults with race tacked on as the driver. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I'm all for them segregating themselves from the rest of society.   That many fewer assholes to deal with.

that's kind of my thinking as I watched the whole report. they really did try hard to hide their shitty takes with calm discourse but wow.

 

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Doesn't south that different from Vidor, TX tbh. Arkansas at least has the decency to be honest about their hate

 

not defending AR but to be fair I think most of them moved there from elsewhere.

 

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

surly lawdogs, how is this legal?  From the justice.gov website:
 

 

 

it's not, the LLC owns the land and you have to be admitted to the LLC as a member which is the only way you can occupy the land and that requires you be a member of a no colored people allowed club. it's cute, but in a normal judicial world, this is akin to the deed restrictions that said "no colored people can own or live on this property except for up to 2 servants living in servant quarters." it's flatly illegal and should be treated as such. the funny thing about it is though, they don't need all this formality, nobody but blind racist dave chappelle would want to live there with them. you can defacto do this all day long to a reasonable scale informally, especially in the middle of the bumfuck mountains.

 

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Correct.  Fair Housing Act enforces fair lending/renting practices.  Not applicable is you are not buying/borrowing.  If you build on private land you only have to content with it being up to code, etc.  And then only if you want to insure it or get it appraised.  

there are more regulations than just lending when it comes to segregationist intent.

Posted
3 minutes ago, troph said:

it's flatly illegal and should be treated as such. the funny thing about it is though, they don't need all this formality,

Oh, I get that part.  No sane person of color would challenge it.  Maybe the ACLU just on a lark, but it likely wouldn't go far.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...