The Legal Double Standard: “Whites-Only” Town Faces Lawfare, While “Blacks-Only” Town is Celebrated, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
Tyler Durden's July 29, 2025, ZeroHedge article exposes a glaring hypocrisy in America's cultural and legal landscape: a "whites-only" community in Arkansas, Return to the Land (RTTL), is vilified and threatened with legal annihilation, while a "Blacks-only" town in Georgia, Freedom, is lauded as a triumph of self-determination. This essay, from a perspective sympathetic to free association and sceptical of progressive double standards, argues that RTTL's inevitable destruction by lawfare reflects not just legal challenges but a broader agenda to suppress white separatism while endorsing similar efforts by other groups. The state's selective enforcement, crushing one community while applauding another, reveals a system weaponising civil rights laws to maintain racial power dynamics, not justice.
The Return to the Land: A "Whites-Only" Experiment
Founded in October 2023 by Eric Orwoll and Peter Csere, RTTL is a 160-acre settlement in Arkansas's Ozark Mountains near Ravenden, home to 40 residents and backed by hundreds of global members. Styled as a Private Members Association (PMA), RTTL restricts membership to those with "European ancestry" and "traditional values," explicitly excluding non-whites,Muslims, LGBTQ+ individuals, and non-Christians (except pagans). The group has built cabins, roads, wells, a community centre, and a schoolhouse, aiming for a self-sufficient, pastoral life inspired by South Africa's Orania, a white Afrikaner enclave. Orwoll, a YouTuber with 14,000 subscribers, frames RTTL as a "fortress for the white race," citing fears of demographic decline and multiculturalism.
RTTL claims legal protection under PMA status, arguing it's exempt from the Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 and Civil Rights Act of 1866 by selling LLC shares tied to land plots, not real estate directly. Orwoll, who invested tens of thousands in legal research, insists this structure upholds the First Amendment right to free association, akin to a Sub-Saharan African women's club excluding non-Africans. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, while condemning racial discrimination, stated on July 30, 2025, that a preliminary review found no clear violations of state or federal law, though his office continues to investigate.
Freedom, Georgia: The "Blacks-Only" Darling
In contrast, Freedom, Georgia, a 96-acre "Blacks-only" town founded in 2020 by 19 black families, has been celebrated by media outlets like CNN and The New York Times as a bold reclaiming of Black autonomy. Located in Wilkinson County, Freedom aims to be a safe haven for Black Americans, with plans for homes, a school, and a farm, explicitly marketed as a "new Black Wall Street." Founders Renee Walters and Ashley Scott cited systemic racism and police violence as motivations, with no mention of excluding others, but a clear focus on Black empowerment. The project raised $1.7 million through crowdfunding, and by 2025, it hosts 50 residents with plans for 200 homes. Media coverage praises its "stunning and brave" vision, with no significant legal challenges reported.
Unlike RTTL, Freedom faced no accusations of violating civil rights laws, despite its racially exclusive framing. The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, but Freedom's private land purchases and lack of explicit bans on other groups seem to shield it from scrutiny. The contrast is stark: RTTL's overt "whites-only" stance invites lawsuits, while Freedom's implicit "Blacks-only" ethos is applauded as cultural preservation.
The Lawfare Trap: Why RTTL Faces Destruction
RTTL's legal foundation is shaky, despite its PMA gambit. The FHA bans racial discrimination in housing, including private transactions, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 guarantees equal property rights. Legal experts like Florence Wagman Roisman argue RTTL's practices are "disgusting" and likely illegal, predicting DOJ intervention in a non-Trump administration. University of Minnesota's Myron Orfield likens RTTL to private clubs but warns that using public resources (e.g., postal services) could trigger FHA violations. Leftist groups are pushing for legal action.
RTTL's overt racism, Orwoll's "fortress for the white race" rhetoric and coded Telegram posts, makes it an easy target. The group's expansion plans to Missouri and ambitions for all 50 states amplify scrutiny. Even if PMA status holds, any misstep in land transactions or public utility use could invite lawsuits. Arkansas's history of racial strife, from the Little Rock Nine to 1959 segregationist protests, ensures RTTL's high visibility will draw relentless lawfare.
Freedom, by contrast, avoids legal heat through careful framing. Its founders emphasise Black empowerment, not exclusion, and operate on private land without explicit bans on other races. Media and political support, rooted in progressive narratives of racial justice, insulate it from challenges, even if its practical effect mirrors RTTL's separatism. This double standard, condemning white separatism while celebrating black separatism, reflects a cultural bias where one group's tribalism is empowerment, the other's is hate.
The Progressive Power Play
Durden's article nails the core issue: the state and its allies tolerate, even applaud, Black separatism while weaponising lawfare against white separatism to maintain power dynamics. Progressives rely on white guilt and forced integration to sustain a system where, as Durden argues, whites are the "resource pillar" for a socialist agenda. RTTL's open defiance, rejecting multiculturalism and embracing European ancestry, threatens this by normalising white tribalism, eroding the guilt-driven control mechanism. Freedom, conversely, aligns with progressive ideals, posing no threat to the status quo.
This hypocrisy mirrors broader societal failures. In the UK, migrant hotel protests are met with censorship, not solutions, as the state avoids addressing immigration concerns. Similarly, the VICP shields vaccine makers from liability while victims struggle, showing a pattern of protecting powerful systems over people. RTTL's exclusionary model, while repugnant to many, exposes this selective outrage: why is one group's right to associate freely sacrosanct, while another's is "disgusting"?
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Critics argue RTTL's overt "racism" justify legal action, as they revive Jim Crow's legacy, unlike Freedom's focus on safety from systemic racism. The FHA and Civil Rights Act exist to prevent segregation, and RTTL's explicit bans violate their spirit. Freedom's lack of formal exclusionary policies makes it legally distinct, even if its intent is similar.
Rebuttal: The legal distinction is flimsy. Both communities seek racial homogeneity, yet only RTTL faces existential threats. Freedom's implicit exclusion, marketing solely to Black Americans, achieves the same end without legal pushback, revealing selective enforcement. The NAACP's Barry Jefferson claims RTTL misreads the Civil Rights Act, but Freedom's unchallenged status suggests the law bends to political narratives, not principle. RTTL's rhetoric is inflammatory, but free association, even for unsavoury groups, is a constitutional right. If a Sub-Saharan African club can exclude others, why can't a European one?
Conclusion
RTTL's "whites-only" town is a lightning rod, doomed to be crushed by lawfare from activists and authorities wielding the FHA and Civil Rights Act. Its PMA structure and LLC land deals may delay, but won't stop the inevitable, as whites are targeted by the Great Replacement. Freedom, Georgia, meanwhile, sails smoothly, its "Blacks-only" vision cloaked in progressive approval. This double standard, applauding one, annihilating the other, exposes a system less concerned with equality than control. As Durden suggests, the state fears white separatism's challenge to its power, while Black separatism fits its narrative. Both communities raise a deeper question: if free association is a right, why is it only sacred for some races? And why does the larger white community never take a stand in self-preservation?
Comments