11 February, 2009
Real Estate Racism
Posted by Socrates in "civil rights", Celler, Celler Rights Violations, jewed Congress, jewed culture, jewed law, media, race, racial preferences, racism accusations, Socrates at 12:35 am | 
Permanent Link
“Real estate racism” is actually rare, because under the Civil Rights Act of 1968, a.k.a, the Fair Housing Act, which came from Jewish congressman Emanuel Celler, if you are a homeowner who is selling or renting a home, it’s illegal for you to favor any buyer or renter based on race. In other words, you cannot attempt to keep your neighborhood safe by excluding non-Whites. Similarly, in most cases, a realtor cannot discuss the racial make-up of a neighborhood with a prospective homebuyer, since that could be seen as “steering,” which is also illegal. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was a frontal assault on private-property rights. Also, let us not forget who owns ABC:
11 February, 2009 at 2:37 am
Just once, I’d like to see the tables turned on those hypocrite Kike bastards in the Jewsmedia: Get a Negro actor to pretend he’s applying for a job at ABC, say a TV producer or something. Give him a fake but impressive resume detailing his extensive background in TV production. Then get a Jew actor (or a White actor made to look like a Semite….a real Jew actor might not go for this) and have him apply for the same job, only his resume is totally lacking any TV-related experience.
Using a hidden camera and microphone, which of the two applicants do you think ABC’s HR Director, Ms. Judith Epstein-Weingarten, is going to hire? “I’m sorry, Mr. Black, but the producer’s job is already filled. If you like, I can forward your resume to our maintenance department. I understand they’re looking for an overnight janitor.”
Then Mr. Weissberg comes in for his interview the next day. “Well, I see you don’t have any background in TV production, but since you’re a Jew like me, welcome aboard and Mazel Tov!” Happens every day, no doubt.
The Jews also make sure they live in secluded, super-upscale neighborhoods where the coloreds could never afford to live or send their nigglets to school. The only coloreds to be seen in Jew neighborhoods are the garbagemen and the cleaning ladies (Jews are not domesticated and will not clean up after themselves). It’s one set of laws devised by them for us to follow and no laws for them.
11 February, 2009 at 3:53 am
I never have understood how the civil rights laws were applied to privately owned, non-government related entities. I understand that prior, there was state-mandated segregation, so from a freedom standpoint it might seem “reasonable” to overturn that so there would be no more *state-mandated* segregation, leaving it open for individuals/businesses to segregate and associate with whomever they want.
But no, the jews got 2 points on us, not just a flip-flop of an overturning/repealing of an existing situation, but a straight-up theft of our public freedom of association, which is NOT directly related to the govt mandating public racial boundaries.
A person/business who is forced to serve people who they don’t want to… is exactly what we call slavery. Therefore, the Civil Rights Acts made whites all slaves to blacks, since it denies us the right to determine for whom we do our labor. The jew idea of “rights” comes with a loss of rights of others. They live a parasitic, zero-sum existence (winning only at others loss), and it even shows in the laws they push on us!
11 February, 2009 at 4:57 am
Sounds like at least some of the outraged lookers at the million-dollar-plus homes were Jews and the rest were Jewed. How much tape doe you suppose they edited in order to compile that propaganda piece?
11 February, 2009 at 11:19 am
Go to http://www.natvan.com, scroll-down, and byy/view America is a Changing Country, by Dr. William Pierce.
11 February, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Doug, the so-called civil rights laws–or any government legislation– can be applied to private property because, in fact, no one really owns their own property. The term “real estate” is a corruption of “royale estate”, meaning that all land ultimately belongs to the king–or the plutocracy, as is the case in the US. Stop paying your property taxes, and you will quickly find out who actually owns it.
11 February, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Etymology
In law, the word real means relating to a thing (res/rei, thing, from O.Fr. reel, from L.L. realis “actual,” from Latin. res, “matter, thing”[2]), as distinguished from a person. Thus the law broadly distinguishes between “real” property (land and anything affixed to it) and “personal” property (everything else, e.g., clothing, furniture, money). The conceptual difference was between immovable property, which would transfer title along with the land, and movable property, which a person would retain title to. The oldest use of the term “Real Estate” that has been preserved in historical records was in 1666 .[2]
The use of “real” to refer to land also reflects the ancient preference for land, and the ownership thereof (and the owners thereof). This, in turn reflects the values of the medieval feudal system, which is the ultimate root of the common law.
It has been argued that the word Real is derived from “royal” (The word royal—and its Spanish cognate real—come from the related Latin word rex-regis, meaning king. For hundreds of years the Royal family / King owned the land, and the peasants paid rent or property taxes to be on the Royal’s land. The word “Real” in Spanish is “Royal”. Similar to El Camino Real, or Royal street. Today, just like hundreds of years in the past, we pay property taxes, or rent to be on the government’s land or the Royal Estate). However, the “real” in “real property” is derived from the Latin for “thing”
Posted by Moorthy at 3:48 AM
http://realestatewants.blogspot.com/2008/07/etymology.html
11 February, 2009 at 5:10 pm
M. Krause: That is a fascinating bit of info, and I have no cause to dispute you on it. Yes, in fact the word “real”in other languages is simply royal.
In Europe of old, the peasants, of course, didn’t own land; only the nobility could. It wasn’t just a matter of money, but of law. When land was the determinant of social status and power, no matter how much money you might have, as a commoner, you couldn’t own land. Only nobles could. That was up into the 1800s in places like Prussia. But the nobles merely “held” the land on leave from the king, Kaiser or Czar, who was in fact the ultimate owner of everything. Everyone else (excepting the nobility) was just a tenant on someone else’s property.
So you’re right. You’re allowed to hold it for a while, as long as you can pay. (It’s akin to rent.) But stop paying your taxes and you’ll find out who the real owner is.
11 February, 2009 at 5:18 pm
In countries such as Spain, as opposed to the British system of law, the land-owner (better said, the land-holder) possessed merely rights to utilize the surface of the land, but not to sub-surface wealth such as mineral deposits. Thus, if oil is discovered on your farm in Argentina, it all belongs to the government, not to you. You will remain an impoverished farmer, while the plutocrats in Buenos Aires grow rich (er).
12 February, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hey, everybody, notice that the Jew producers of ABC slipped in a bit of propaganda to re-enforce the official Z.O.G. fairy tale version of 9/11. Pretty funny, and transparent. I think they’re getting desperate. ;-)
12 February, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“Blew up” the World Trade Center?
But wait, the official Z.O.G. version of 9/11 is that the “World Trade Center”(sic) buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed because of fires. Now they were “blown up”? Somebody goofed on this line.
LOL ;-)
15 February, 2009 at 11:49 pm
[…] 1968, it has been illegal to keep your neighborhood […]
5 March, 2009 at 4:28 pm
It takes some time for the Jews to tear-up our constitution Ya-know!
However, they are getting it done! Would it not be nice to slam it back into power all at once and hear their lament!
ED!