“We are breeding, multiplying
In the space between the walls.
What you call living feels more like dying,
If it feels like anything at all.
Wearing our hearts on our sleeves,
Seems you’ve forgotten what your head is for.
My blood is on your hands,
And no that’s not a fucking metaphor.
We are afraid of conflict, but always at war.
And we no longer feel pain, that’s what the medicine’s for.” –Paint It Black, “Greetings, Fellow Insomniacs”
Freedom of association is defined as, “Both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.” This is not allowed for white people, and certainly not white men. In major college sports, such as basketball and football, all athletic departments must interview at least one black candidate before deciding on who to hire. There are all-black colleges and universities, and all-women’s colleges and universities. There are also an inordinate number of women’s and minorities’ scholarships, and of course most institutions of higher learning have established racial quotas that are not based on merit. The only example I can think of for men to have explicitly male organizations would be fraternities on college campuses, but how long before these have been completely abolished? Everything in the public sector, and even private businesses and organizations, is subject to the Constitutional violation that is Affirmative Action.
More sinister still is the inability for people to escape the Federal Leviathan’s clutches on their personal lives. Sure, you can choose where you want to live, but what happens when your town—maybe one in which you’ve invested in property or your family’s lived for generations—has refugee re-settlement imposed on it? What if its generous entitlements attract a certain demographic that destroys social harmony and cohesion? Even worse, what if the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) decides your town or community does not meet its secret “racial disparity” data and is targeted by the Obama-initiated Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) scheme, designed to move urban non-whites into white-majority suburbs? Senator Mike Lee states, “If any aspect of a community’s housing and demographic patterns fails to meet HUD bureaucrats’ expansive definition of ‘fair housing,’ the local government must submit a plan to reorganize the community’s housing practices according to the preferences and priorities of the bureaucrats.” Effectively, you’ve lost complete control of local self-governance. Anywhere—anywhere—you go to escape “diversity” and its wonderful benefits could be subjected to the kinds of forced population transfers once a hallmark of the USSR undertaken in order to sever communal bonds on a local level and in a larger sense to ultimately erase ethnic and national loyalties and identities.
Don’t forget: integration was accomplished in flagrant violation of the Constitution and at the barrel of a gun. As we live and breathe, freedom of association is dead. I am very obviously not in favor of government-mandated segregation any more than I am in favor of government-mandated de-segregation, and that includes government at the state and local level. Citizens must be free to chart their own course in life, and that includes freedom of association. You have the right to decline service to a patron, you have the right not to be forced to live in state-sponsored “diversity,” and you have the right to peaceably assemble with whomever you choose.
There is major disagreement over whether or not freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment (some, such as myself, argue the right to peaceably assemble implies freedom of association), but according to Laurence M. Vance, it is legally protected in any case:
Legally, the freedom of association is considered to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case of NAACP. v. Alabama (1958), a unanimous Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to reveal to the Alabama attorney general the names and addresses of the NAACP members in the state because it would violate the NAACP members’ freedom of association… Freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” ensured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to the preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs (my emphasis)… Since no power was granted to the federal government in the body of the Constitution to infringe what are commonly referred to as Americans’ “First Amendment freedoms,” the government has absolutely no authority to do so (also my emphasis)… The First Amendment merely reinforces the idea that the federal government lacks the authority under the Constitution to abridge Americans’ existing freedoms… In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.
You have a panoply of options for just about any commercial product you could desire, but for the truly important things—your rights and freedoms—you’re being held hostage by a government that has been financing terribly destructive policies for fifty-plus years at minimum, and even over one hundred if you consider the catastrophes of 1913—the White Slave Act (income tax) and the Federal Reserve Act—the damage of which has only amplified as time has gone on. As Don Miguel Ruiz says, “True justice is paying only once for each mistake. True injustice is paying more than once for each mistake.” In the form of confiscatory taxation, the federal, state, and local governments all get their pound of flesh, and you get to finance LaQuivontay Morales-Brown, a third-generation welfare recipient, and your own dispossession.
While I am obviously sympathetic to people who’ve fallen on hard times, as nearly everyone at one time or another does, and hence why I do believe we need welfare for our fellow citizens that truly need it, we shouldn’t be supporting multi-generational entitlement abusers and people who consciously make poor life choices in spite of all the available data. Only 8% of Americans who finish high school, marry before having a child, and postpone marriage past the age of twenty end up in poverty; conversely, for those who do not make such decisions, 79% are impoverished. Beyond the reams of cash and a host of other benefits given to assorted immigrants, aliens, and “refugees,” a substantial amount of money is going to citizens who otherwise could work, but are unwilling to, and with the way the system is presently constructed, they have little incentive outside of self-respect to attain employment. Case in point:
In October 2014, Maine began requiring about 16,000 able-bodied childless adults to work, train, or volunteer on at least a part-time basis in order to continue receiving food stamps. Adults who refused to comply with the new requirements would cycle off after three months of benefits. After implementing these reforms, Maine quickly moved thousands of able-bodied adults out of dependency and into self-sufficiency. By January 2015, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps had dropped to 4,500 and has continued to decline. These changes drew ire from the Obama administration (my note: that means it’s working)…Today, just 1,500 able-bodied childless adults rely on Maine’s food stamps program. Those still relying on the program also need less assistance overall, as they are working more, with average benefits dropping 13% since the work requirements went into effect. As a result of these changes, taxpayers are now saving between $30 million and $40 million each year.
Poor decision-making impacts more than just the tax-payers who have to finance it. There is a very clear correlation between broken or single-parent homes and the impaired socialization of their children, leading to behavioral and emotional disturbances that are almost impossible to correct past early childhood. As Edward Goldsmith notes:
Emotionally disturbed children are characterized by an inability to accept any social constraints. They are unable to concentrate on their work and are only interested in things which are of apparent immediate advantage to them. Regardless of their intelligence level, they are thus extremely difficult to educate. They are particularly concerned with the present, and the short-term, and are predisposed to all pathological forms of behaviour such as delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism and schizophrenia. What is worse, when they grow up, they are unlikely to be capable of fulfilling their normal family functions; their children consequently also deprived of a normal family environment, will in turn tend to be emotionally unstable.
Emotionally disturbed children grow into anti-social adults, who commit more crimes and perpetuate the cycle of broken homes, children born out of wedlock, and abuse. With 77.3% of births occurring out of wedlock in the black community, in addition to the child abuse rate being twice that of whites and a substantial percentage of blacks reliant on welfare and other social programs, every non-biological factor that could be controlled for, within reason, is not being controlled for. This compounds the fact that blacks in general are significantly more pre-disposed to these kinds of behaviors. This is a recipe for disaster.
The Left likes to pretend that blacks and other minorities have no agency, that they are utterly helpless and need their paternal overlords’ protection, but they are human beings, not play-things, and should be more than capable of making the kinds of decisions that have proven to lead to the curtailment of poverty. If an individual can perform a rational cost-benefit analysis of their potential welfare earnings, they can do the same for their lifestyle choices. Most welfare recipients do in fact act rationally by avoiding the downside of becoming, potentially, a two-income household, or earning enough outside income to jeopardize Section 8 housing and other benefits.
I understand future planning and impulse control are genetically lacking in this population group, but if we are unwilling or unable to say that all groups and individuals must be held fully accountable for their own actions and behaviors, then there is a very different conversation we need to have about a whole host of basic assumptions on which we base our society, starting with the franchise. After all, if a hapless object is incapable of taking agency over his or her own life, how can we expect them to be civic-minded and responsible enough to vote in elections that determine the future of the entire nation?