I was looking to buy a house and actually asked something like this to a real estate agent. In my particular case, I was looking for neighborhoods that have lots of East Asians (Chinese, Korean, etc. - my wife is Japanese and I am as comfortable around East Asians as western people) but with no criminal element (hint, hint?).

Her reply was to tell me that she cannot discuss this sort of thing with me.

From the article:

“Even half of those who favor affirmative action programs dissent from the idea that minorities should be given preferential treatment”

Sounds like a lot of people dont really know what affirmative action is then.

So very roughly from the figures given we can say that in fact only about 32.5% of whites support affirmative action. And we cant be sure that even that group are sure what affirmative action is by the sounds of it.

Thanks, Lurker, for the clarification of the article I linked.  You are correct about that, but the ignorance of whites about AA also means AA policies will be implemented unopposed, especially when Hilary or Obama assumes power in 2008.

I don’t vote and have arranged my affairs so that government doesn’t bother me, so AA won’t affect me.  AA, like minority crime rates, hopefully will take their toll among the unenlightened until revolution.

You still see ads for Single White Female flatmates in the States, don’t you? Has some civil liberties shyster tried to wipe that out yet?

Fr. John, freedom of association with territory is so fundamental that it pretty much determines whether civilization itself has to fall or not, so your presence here, providing ground truth, is immensely appreciated.

There is a big difference between prohibiting a land title with a covenant in perpetuity, and and a transaction in which the participants prefer each other.  Covenants-in-perpetuity not only degrade land liquidity to the point that it becomes difficult to optimize land use, it interferes with the rights of future owners to freely associate with territory.  Imagine some Jew getting ahold of vast swaths of land after decimating the middle class family farmers with Mexican laborers and agribusinesses like ADM—placing covenants on those lands that, in perpetuity, they shall not be sold to non-Jewish, heterosexual white males, then selling it off piece by piece.  Jews have made enormous monetary sacrifices to achieve equivalent aims—such as the 9 digit donation to the Sierra Club by a Jew to prevent the Sierra Club from taking a stand against overpopulation of the US via immigration.

A population of resident land owners who prefer a certain human ecology, both biological and cultural, excluding from their midst those who do not comply with that human ecology, is another matter entirely.  It is the essence of freedom of association with territory.  If they turn out to be nonviable, they do not pervert civilization toward the end of despoiling the land, through title, for future evolution—they are engaging in the very essence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Civilizations can, and must, prohibit the former.  Civilizations that prohibit the latter must be destroyed.

Having put the issue in context, I’d like to ask you a question:

How are the Hasids of Kiryas Joel, New York getting away with setting up an exclusive city with public schools for their own children protected from ethnic predators, tax exemption of their primary subsistence asset (their homes), a virtual lock on who moves into the city so they can maintain control of the city council, etc?