Should america balkanize and each community to run their ethno-state or political enclave/state? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Break up america into independent ethnostates/political states?

Yes
6
35%
No
8
47%
I don't know.
3
18%
#15105301
The american experiment has failed, it's clear that the races can't live together without one oppressing the other. In fact one can argue the entire american experiment was based on white supremacy(of which at that time was small club consisting of English, French.) With Kanye running for office, a dementa democrat calling Black people who see through his lies "not Black" and a /pol/tard who's IQ the same as his age in the flesh running for second term. I think it's time we should call a experiment quits.

I believe we Blacks should have the right to separate and form our own society, one that is Christian, Reactionary, Populist and Race first. Those minorities(whites or otherwise) have the right to stay and live under our rules or repatriate to their country/nation state of choice. If we're to say every ethnicity or race or nationality have the right for self-determination one that's liberty and justice for all, it's better Afro-Americans to police their own neighborhoods to leave us to our own devices.
#15105312
Black Consequense wrote:The american experiment has failed, it's clear that the races can't live together without one oppressing the other. In fact one can argue the entire american experiment was based on white supremacy(of which at that time was small club consisting of English, French.) With Kanye running for office, a dementa democrat calling Black people who see through his lies "not Black" and a /pol/tard who's IQ the same as his age in the flesh running for second term. I think it's time we should call a experiment quits.

I believe we Blacks should have the right to separate and form our own society, one that is Christian, Reactionary, Populist and Race first. Those minorities(whites or otherwise) have the right to stay and live under our rules or repatriate to their country/nation state of choice. If we're to say every ethnicity or race or nationality have the right for self-determination one that's liberty and justice for all, it's better Afro-Americans to police their own neighborhoods to leave us to our own devices.


I agree. Not necessarily each race, but each major cultural group in America should have their own nation if they so desire. There could be an Afro-American state in the South, a Mormon state in Utah, a progressive state in the Far West and so on.
#15105356
This is inherently a *bad idea*, because of its 'consumerist' approach to politics -- as though modern society / civilization is based on subjective groupthink, or private in-crowds, when it actually passed that milestone *centuries* ago, with the nationalization period in the late medieval era in Europe.



People often use the words ‘country’ or ‘nation’ when speaking about the ancient or medieval worlds. But the states which ruled then were very different to the modern ‘national’ state.

Today we take it for granted that a country consists of geographically continuous territory within fixed boundaries. We expect it to have a single administrative structure, with a single set of taxes (sometimes with local variations) and without customs barriers between its different areas. We assume it demands the loyalty of its ‘citizens’, in return granting certain rights, however limited. Being ‘stateless’ is a fate which people do their utmost to avoid. We also assume there exists a national language (or sometimes a set of languages) which both rulers and ruled speak.

The monarchies of medieval Europe had few of these features. They were hodgepodge territories which cut across linguistic divisions between peoples and across geographical obstacles. The emperor of the ‘Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation’ usually ran Bohemia as a kingdom and claimed sovereignty over various territories in the German speaking lands and in parts of Italy. The kings of England engaged in a series of wars to try to assert a claim over a large chunk of French-speaking territory. The kings of France sought to hold territory across the Alps in what is today Italy but had little control over eastern France (part of the rival Dukedom of Burgundy), south west France and Normandy (ruled by the English kings), or Brittany. There could be wholesale movement of state boundaries, as marriages and inheritance gave kings sovereignty over distant lands or war robbed them of local territories. There was rarely a single, uniform administrative structure within a state. Usually it would be made up of principalities, duchies, baronies and independent boroughs, with their own rulers, their own courts, their own local laws, their own tax structure, their own customs posts and their own armed men—so that the allegiance each owned to the monarch was often only nominal and could be forgotten if a rival monarch made a better offer. Monarchs often did not speak the languages of the people they ruled, and official documents and legal statutes were rarely in the tongue of those subject to their laws.

This began to change in important parts of Europe towards the end of the 15th century, just as Spain was reaching out to conquer Latin America. Charles VII and Louis XI in France, Henry VII and Henry VIII in England, and the joint monarchs Isabel and Ferdinand in Spain all succeeded in enhancing their own power at the expense of the great feudal lords and in imposing some sort of state-wide order within what are today’s national boundaries.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 172-173



---


There's also the logistical issue of *resources*, and which regional faction gets to control and use them -- I really don't think that huge, diverse, cosmopolitan modern cities *should* be balkanized, or partitioned, by cultural groups, or race, because of the sheer *turmoil* that that would create for millions of people. Usually that kind of thing only happens under *duress*, during *wartime* conditions.



Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by "race", which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".[1][better source needed]

The doctrine was confirmed in the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Though segregation laws existed before that case, the decision emboldened segregation states during the Jim Crow era, which had commenced in 1876 and supplanted the Black Codes, which restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans during the Reconstruction Era.

In practice, the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually, they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
#15105374
ckaihatsu wrote:This is inherently a *bad idea*, because of its 'consumerist' approach to politics -- as though modern society / civilization is based on subjective groupthink, or private in-crowds, when it actually passed that milestone *centuries* ago, with the nationalization period in the late medieval era in Europe.


This is not a consumerist approach to politics. Every people and every cultural group has the right to self-determination. Organic nations are based on cultural affinity, and the establishment of larger ones requires the stamping out of many smaller local cultures, which, as my username may indicate, I am firmly against.

ckaihatsu wrote:There's also the logistical issue of *resources*, and which regional faction gets to control and use them -- I really don't think that huge, diverse, cosmopolitan modern cities *should* be balkanized, or partitioned, by cultural groups, or race, because of the sheer *turmoil* that that would create for millions of people. Usually that kind of thing only happens under *duress*, during *wartime* conditions.


People often imagine this as necessarily being some kind of Indian Partition type situation, but it doesn't have to be that way. The entirety of North America, for example, could be divided into smaller nations, Quebec and Blackistan and so on, but this could be done on a step by step basis. In creating an Afro-American state from the rest of America, for example, we could have a situation where the borders are laid out and we leave them open for a certain period, five years, lets say, where people can get in or out if they desperately want to. I haven't looked at this in a while, but if I remember correctly, about 12% of the U.S. population moves house each year. Now, given the mobility of the population in North America, and the fact that the proposed country would almost certainly incentivise African Americans to move there, we could just let this process take its course and you'd have a proper African American country in no time.

Despite proposing the division of North America into a set of smaller nations, however, I would also advocate for a North American union of some kind. This would be a kind of political entity with a customs union and so on, however I would not advocate integration beyond a certain point. For instance, I would never support such a union using a common currency, a common military or even freedom of movement, as this would take away from the sovereignty of the nations in the union.
#15105390
Local Localist wrote:
This is not a consumerist approach to politics. Every people and every cultural group has the right to self-determination. Organic nations are based on cultural affinity, and the establishment of larger ones requires the stamping out of many smaller local cultures, which, as my username may indicate, I am firmly against.



Okay, no argument, but in historical-developmental terms, it's a *lateral* move, at best, because there's still the issue of how *productive* facilities (factories, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) are to be divvied-up. (So in *material* terms it *will* be a consumerist approach, because who gets what, exactly?)

My concern would be about any *territorial* disputes that arise during this balkanization process -- if the U.S. government authority is repudiated then what would be the ultimate determining authority over any disagreements, as over borders / boundaries?

I'm not actually politically interested or invested in any of this process, by the way, since I'm a far-leftist, and a materialist, so what *really* matters is how society *produces* for itself, via working class *labor*. I'd much rather see the *elimination* of all nation-state borders, in favor of workers-of-the-world socialism, for human need.

Brexit much?


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



Local Localist wrote:
People often imagine this as necessarily being some kind of Indian Partition type situation, but it doesn't have to be that way. The entirety of North America, for example, could be divided into smaller nations, Quebec and Blackistan and so on, but this could be done on a step by step basis. In creating an Afro-American state from the rest of America, for example, we could have a situation where the borders are laid out and we leave them open for a certain period, five years, lets say, where people can get in or out if they desperately want to. I haven't looked at this in a while, but if I remember correctly, about 12% of the U.S. population moves house each year. Now, given the mobility of the population in North America, and the fact that the proposed country would almost certainly incentivise African Americans to move there, we could just let this process take its course and you'd have a proper African American country in no time.

Despite proposing the division of North America into a set of smaller nations, however, I would also advocate for a North American union of some kind. This would be a kind of political entity with a customs union and so on, however I would not advocate integration beyond a certain point. For instance, I would never support such a union using a common currency, a common military or even freedom of movement, as this would take away from the sovereignty of the nations in the union.
#15105393
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, no argument, but in historical-developmental terms, it's a *lateral* move, at best, because there's still the issue of how *productive* facilities (factories, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) are to be divvied-up. (So in *material* terms it *will* be a consumerist approach, because who gets what, exactly?)

My concern would be about any *territorial* disputes that arise during this balkanization process -- if the U.S. government authority is repudiated then what would be the ultimate determining authority over any disagreements, as over borders / boundaries?


Well, I think I implied the answer when I spoke of a 'step by step' approach. Smaller nations would secede from larger ones, one at a time, such as Quebec separating from Canada. Hence, this process would require the consent of the established nation.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not actually politically interested or invested in any of this process, by the way, since I'm a far-leftist, and a materialist, so what *really* matters is how society *produces* for itself, via working class *labor*. I'd much rather see the *elimination* of all nation-state borders, in favor of workers-of-the-world socialism, for human need.


I'm not a dialectical materialist, but if we're going mask-off, I also support 'elimination of nation state borders' *eventually*, but I view subdividing nations and absorbing them into regional trading bodies as a necessary component of this process.
#15105396
Local Localist wrote:
Well, I think I implied the answer when I spoke of a 'step by step' approach. Smaller nations would secede from larger ones, one at a time, such as Quebec separating from Canada. Hence, this process would require the consent of the established nation.



I'm not a dialectical materialist, but if we're going mask-off, I also support 'elimination of nation state borders' *eventually*, but I view subdividing nations and absorbing them into regional trading bodies as a necessary component of this process.



Please put the face mask back *on*. (People say it's *improved* my appearance.) (grin)


Have you considered this move *economically* at all?

Look at what's going on with the UK, with Brexit. It's having to renegotiate all of its ties to the rest of Europe regardless, by dint of geography -- which is costing time and money, so what's the big fucking deal with it, anyway?

Likewise, if there's to be a North American umbrella, then all of *that* stuff has to be negotiated and *funded*, regardless, otherwise it's a *backward* move, to a more-subdivided kind of fortress capitalism.
#15105399
Black Consequense wrote:The american experiment has failed, it's clear that the races can't live together without one oppressing the other. In fact one can argue the entire american experiment was based on white supremacy(of which at that time was small club consisting of English, French.) With Kanye running for office, a dementa democrat calling Black people who see through his lies "not Black" and a /pol/tard who's IQ the same as his age in the flesh running for second term. I think it's time we should call a experiment quits.

I believe we Blacks should have the right to separate and form our own society, one that is Christian, Reactionary, Populist and Race first. Those minorities(whites or otherwise) have the right to stay and live under our rules or repatriate to their country/nation state of choice. If we're to say every ethnicity or race or nationality have the right for self-determination one that's liberty and justice for all, it's better Afro-Americans to police their own neighborhoods to leave us to our own devices.

The reason the US is becoming balkanized is race identity politics, classifying people according to race (causes division) and multiculturalism. Note how all three of these philosophies promote division.

America was a racist nation from the outset. However, the white people are doing their best to fix the pas,. Guys, give credit where credit is due. As racism has gone down the perception of racism is at an all time high to to social media, CNN, black leaders, and the Democrats who still play the race card to gain voters. Young black people of this era feel more oppressed than the actual people that lived under slavery and Jim Crow. It could very well be racial PTSD and fully embracing the noble victim status.

Separate states will not work because the white and Asian areas will be more prosperous and the other minorities will never stop crying racism.
Last edited by Julian658 on 06 Jul 2020 17:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15105402
Julian658 wrote:
America was a racist nation from the outset.


Julian658 wrote:
As racism has gone down the perception of racism is at an all time high to to social media, CNN, black leaders, and the Democrats who still play the race card to gain voters.



We have to make a distinction between general (populist) racist attitudes, and nation-state *institutional* state racism.

My perception / position is that *public* attitudes are at all-time multicultural *highs*, meaning a general enlightened *tolerance* for cultural diversity, but the U.S. state is at all-time *lows*, as embodied in Trump's rampant xenophobia and immigrant scapegoating / detentions.

So what the *media* is 'perceiving' is the *state racism* that scapegoats and victimizes in order to *distract* public attentions away from the state's own counterproductivity and existential crisis.
#15105407
The US is already Balkanized into 50 different states that have a great deal of autonomy. I'm a big believer in self-determination, so just give the states more power, and still form a federal union for military/security and economic purposes.
#15105409
Black Consequense wrote:I believe we Blacks should have the right to separate and form our own society, one that is Christian, Reactionary, Populist and Race first. Those minorities(whites or otherwise) have the right to stay and live under our rules or repatriate to their country/nation state of choice. If we're to say every ethnicity or race or nationality have the right for self-determination one that's liberty and justice for all, it's better Afro-Americans to police their own neighborhoods to leave us to our own devices.


So what you're saying is multi-culturalism doesn't work, and black nationalism and white nationalism etc is desirable.

Seems like for most people nationalism is ok, unless it's nationalism for ie: whites or jews. Which seems like it's more about power dynamics than race or nationalism.
#15105410
ckaihatsu wrote:Please put the face mask back *on*. (People say it's *improved* my appearance.) (grin)


Have you considered this move *economically* at all?

Look at what's going on with the UK, with Brexit. It's having to renegotiate all of its ties to the rest of Europe regardless, by dint of geography -- which is costing time and money, so what's the big fucking deal with it, anyway?

Likewise, if there's to be a North American umbrella, then all of *that* stuff has to be negotiated and *funded*, regardless, otherwise it's a *backward* move, to a more-subdivided kind of fortress capitalism.


I disagree. I view it as being a way of preserving identity and culture whilst progressing society. Note that I only condone the forming of regional customs unions in developed regions. Developing nations must not be stripped of their natural and human capital by developed ones, so free trade is necessary with these to ensure that their economies can develop while developed economies undergo the process of automation, have their people retrained, reduce the cost of manual labour and so on and so on. While I concede that the state is necessary for continuing economic development, I don't believe that breaking it into as many different states as possible actually hinders that development when each of the states are part of the same trading block.

Anyway, I've got to get to bed, so I'll be offline for a while.
#15105414
Unthinking Majority wrote:
The US is already Balkanized into 50 different states that have a great deal of autonomy. I'm a big believer in self-determination, so just give the states more power, and still form a federal union for military/security and economic purposes.



This is just right-wing ideological bullshit, because leftward governmental policies -- as for civil rights and social services -- require federal-type blanket standards, consistency, and funding, just the same as any rightward, 'national security' kinds of policies.

Remember *this* -- ?



The Little Rock Nine was a group of nine African American students enrolled in Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Their enrollment was followed by the Little Rock Crisis, in which the students were initially prevented from entering the racially segregated school by Orval Faubus, the Governor of Arkansas. They then attended after the intervention of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
#15105420
ckaihatsu wrote:This is just right-wing ideological bullshit, because leftward governmental policies -- as for civil rights and social services -- require federal-type blanket standards, consistency, and funding, just the same as any rightward, 'national security' kinds of policies.


But if you have national standards enforced by a federal government then there's no self-determination in individual states. So in black states you'd have enforced national standards by what are usually white politicians because the majority are white.

Why black people largely remained in the south after the civil war is beyond me, i would have fled at first chance LOL. They probably didn't have the education to realize what was going on or the money to leave.
#15105424
Local Localist wrote:
I disagree. I view it as being a way of preserving identity and culture whilst progressing society. Note that I only condone the forming of regional customs unions in developed regions. Developing nations must not be stripped of their natural and human capital by developed ones, so free trade is necessary with these to ensure that their economies can develop while developed economies undergo the process of automation, have their people retrained, reduce the cost of manual labour and so on and so on. While I concede that the state is necessary for continuing economic development, I don't believe that breaking it into as many different states as possible actually hinders that development when each of the states are part of the same trading block.

Anyway, I've got to get to bed, so I'll be offline for a while.



I don't think you understand that so-called 'free trade' pacts actually favor the *developed*, hegemonic, *imperialist* national power -- smaller, newer, develop-*ing* countries have typically used protectionist trade *tariffs* as economic insulation to prevent the larger powers from dumping cheap foreign goods into their economy while they're still trying to develop and grow domestically.



Early National period, 1789–1828

The framers of the United States Constitution gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." and also "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax-free.

Responding to an urgent need for revenue and a trade imbalance with England that was fast destroying the infant American industries and draining the nation of its currency, the First United States Congress passed, and President George Washington signed, the Hamilton Tariff of 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80–95% of all federal revenue. Having just fought a war over taxation (among other things) the U.S. Congress wanted a reliable source of income that was relatively unobtrusive and easy to collect. It also sought to protect the infant industries that had developed during the war but which were now threatened by cheaper imports, especially from England. Tariffs and excise taxes were authorized by the United States Constitution and recommended by the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to tax foreign imports and set up low excise taxes on whiskey and a few other products to provide the Federal Government with enough money to pay its operating expenses and to redeem at full value U.S. Federal debts and the debts the states had accumulated during the Revolutionary War. The Congress set low excise taxes on only a few goods, such as, whiskey, rum, tobacco, snuff and refined sugar.



All tariffs were on a long list of goods (dutiable goods) with different customs rates and some goods on a "free" list. Books and publications were nearly always on the free list. Congress spent enormous amounts of time figuring out these tariff import tax schedules.



The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery manufacturing plants especially grew. Many new industries were set up and run profitably during the wars and about half of them failed after hostilities ceased and normal import competition resumed. Industry in the U.S. was advancing up the skill set, innovation knowledge and organization curve as they adapted to the Industrial Revolution's new machines and techniques.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in ... %80%931828
#15105430
Unthinking Majority wrote:
But if you have national standards enforced by a federal government then there's no self-determination in individual states. So in black states you'd have enforced national standards by what are usually white politicians because the majority are white.

Why black people largely remained in the south after the civil war is beyond me, i would have fled at first chance LOL. They probably didn't have the education to realize what was going on or the money to leave.



Not my prob because I'm not a black nationalist separatist.

All I'm saying is that, under capitalism, any change to the political economy, as with national-cultural secession, *costs time and money* (U.S. Civil War, Brexit), making it doubtful as to whether such so-called 'self-determination' is even *worth* it.

I'm also pointing out your *hypocrisy* / double-standards, because you're *fine* with a federal level of organization for *rightist* causes, like national security and monetary policy, but you want balkanization for *leftist* causes like civil rights enforcement and social services spending.
#15105439
ckaihatsu wrote:We have to make a distinction between general (populist) racist attitudes, and nation-state *institutional* state racism.

My perception / position is that *public* attitudes are at all-time multicultural *highs*, meaning a general enlightened *tolerance* for cultural diversity, but the U.S. state is at all-time *lows*, as embodied in Trump's rampant xenophobia and immigrant scapegoating / detentions.

So what the *media* is 'perceiving' is the *state racism* that scapegoats and victimizes in order to *distract* public attentions away from the state's own counterproductivity and existential crisis.


Very good analysis for a globalist that yearns for a communist globe.
I have two takes:

1. We are becoming balkanized because of what I said in my post above. The three predominant philosophies of race identity politics, classifying people according to phonotype (causes division) and multiculturalism. To that you can add perennial grievance politics, racial PTSD, and a fetish for embracing the noble victim role.

By the way the lack of PTSD and victimhood is why Nigerians and Jamaicans do way better than black Americans in the USA. Think about that one. If we stay on this path we will have civil war.

There is nothing people of European ancestry can do to ameliorate the sense of victimhood. There will always be something to create more grievance. And this will become a national trend due to victimhood memes. Note how most of those with grievance issues speak the exact same language. What they say is always predictable.

2. The other possible outcome is that somehow people will become less angry after all statues and monuments are gone. They may try to abolish the Democratic Party which was the Slavery and KKK party until 1965. However, cancel culture has not tried to cancel the Democratic despite the awful past.

In any event there is the possibility that things will calm down after Biden picks an Afro-American female and they win in November. That woman will likely become president since as we all know Biden is nearly incapacitated (language apraxia). That will buy eight years of peace, but there will be another round of violence as we enter the era of the post black POTUS with no results for poor black America.
#15105441
ckaihatsu wrote:Also, related:


What if we treated Confederate symbols the way we treated the defeated Nazis?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ated-nazis

I agree, but there are differences. The NAZIS were contemporaneous.

BTW, I think all confederate monuments should be moved to a museum, not destroyed. As for NAZI symbols---------just go to the Holocaust museum and find the NAZI paraphernalia used on the Jews, the blue eyes charts, measurements, etc. History needs to be preserved. (even if evil).

This cannot be stated with more force. Once all confederate monuments are gone the poor uneducated black citizens will remain the same. Losing sleep over Columbus who has been dead for over five centuries solves nothing. In fact, it requires psychiatric treatment.
#15105442
Julian658 wrote:
Very good analysis for a globalist that yearns for a communist globe.



I tend to think of myself more as a *communist*, which *implies* workers-of-the-world socialism.


Julian658 wrote:
I have two takes:

1. We are becoming balkanized because of what I said in my post above. The three predominant philosophies of race identity politics, classifying people according to phonotype (causes division) and multiculturalism. To that you can add perennial grievance politics, racial PTSD, and a fetish for embracing the noble victim role. By the way the lack of PTSD and victimhood is why Nigerians and Jamaicans do way better than black Americans in the USA. Think about that one.



Now you sound like a *cultural* determinist, but you're ignoring the *class* factor, and the stagnating and worsening economy, which is stalling *most* people's lives at this point. Can't you see that there's more *uncertainty* than certainty for the world, and for most people, due to capitalism -- ?


Julian658 wrote:
If we stay on this path we will have civil war.



The racism isn't from *people* -- it's from the U.S. *government*, and the protests have appropriately been against *institutional* racism, meaning from government policies and practice, like killer cops.


Julian658 wrote:
IN any event there is nothing people of European ancestry can do to ameliorate the sense of victimhood. There will always be something to create more grievance. And this will become a national trend due to victimhood memes. Note how most of those with grievance issues speak the exact same language. What they say is always predictable.

2. The other possible outcome is that somehow people will become less angry after all statues and monuments are gone. They may try to abolish the Democratic Party which was the Slavery KKK party until 1965. By the way-------------



What about killer cops?


Julian658 wrote:
That cancel culture has not tried to cancel the Democratic Party is very telling or maybe is just hypocrisy.



This is the most sensical statement you've made so far. Any reflections on this?


Julian658 wrote:
In any event there is the possibility that things will calm down after Biden picks an Afro-American female and they win in November. That woman will likely become president since as we all know Biden is nearly incapacitated. That will buy eight years of peace, but there will be another round of violence as we enter the era of the post black POTUS with no results for poor black America.



Yeah, this latter part is more accurate -- what will the U.S. elitist establishment do about killer cops, do you think -- ?

What are the social and psychological implicati[…]

Unequal in *what way*, though? Studies have show[…]

Kamala Harris

Kamala believed the woman that accused Joe Biden o[…]

Election 2020

If you are pro-police during a protest against po[…]