I believe the main reason they can't feed their people is,...
"run by the white population" = free enterprise economic system
"black control"= socialist/communist dictatorship
Crippledtrigger wrote: ↑October 1st, 2019, 12:16 pmI hope there is a check mark by my name. Just to put emphasis to the ignore.shooter444 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 7:14 am Ahhh, yes, nothing like starting the day off with coffee and adding another Ranger Danger alias to my foe/ignore list.
And the list just keeps on getting longer,...
17-21-23
Crippletrigger
HDS
Marine1
Ranger1
YNOTAZ
redj
smithers599
Steve_in_29
stomp442
MarkItZero..........and it only took you 2 weeks with your new alias
Outting as leverman is apparently a ignore-able offense.
I'm speculating but bear with me for a moment. Firearm ownership is much more common and popular in rural areas than in cities. And it is going to be difficult to take the land away from armed farmers. 96% of the land in America is white-owned. My prediction is that in 20 to 50 years the media will begin saying "why do whites, who are only 35% of the population, own 96% of the land?" It's not 35% yet but it will be. Then the government will propose "buy-back" and redistribution schemes.shooter444 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2019, 8:12 amI have been going over your statement above, again and again, but I can't quite get where you're coming from, in relation to Gun Control. But I put these thoughts together, in reply, anyway.
Rhodesia was a country of a black population, conquered and made a colony/possession of Great Britain for over 3/4 of a century until Great Britain's own Rhodesian resident white population basically through off Great Britain control, like we did. Now, the blacks of Rhodesia, basically the original native population, is reclaiming their country by throwing out the white population that did it to them in the first go-a-round. If memory serves me?
So, for me, to relate to your statement, I keep getting the vision that,... for a similar land grab, in line with the current Rhodesian land grab/race war/genocide movement, it would necessitate (for my thinking) that the North American original Native American population would have to be at the head of said land grab here in the US of A, pushing all, white/black/brown, etc., land owners back to where they came from.
I say this, looking strictly from a utopia type moral perspective, the Rhodesian political movement today, is in line with the acquiring and reacquiring cycle of countries/nations that has been going on forever. The main concern to most involved, is, which end of the stick you have a hold on, this go-a-round. . I don't like it, or dislike it, but, these types of historic happenings, barring outright war, is how all lands have been dealt with throughout history.
So, looking at the bigger picture,... I doubt that the white One World Government grabbers would be so race specific if a land grab agenda was on their to-do-list, as you have put it. I think they would take what ever land they want, no matter who owned it,... race not being an issue,... unless of course, using "race" would facilitate their agenda better!!!
jmo
-----------------------------------------Mauser98 wrote: ↑October 1st, 2019, 11:17 pm
I'm speculating but bear with me for a moment. Firearm ownership is much more common and popular in rural areas than in cities. And it is going to be difficult to take the land away from armed farmers. 96% of the land in America is white-owned. My prediction is that in 20 to 50 years the media will begin saying "why do whites, who are only 35% of the population, own 96% of the land?" It's not 35% yet but it will be. Then the government will propose "buy-back" and redistribution schemes.
I could be totally wrong about it, but that's the sense that I have.
Stage 1: Confiscate the firearms
Stage 2: Confiscate the land