>>16526798

Racism is indeed necessary. But it does not require hate.

Note how in your response you diverted to categorising it as hate, in order to attack it.

Racism is simply noting DIFFERENCE between groups.

Noting that each group has its own interests, and biology.

If Grey Wolves (a canine group) do not select partners on a racial basis, i.e. other Grey Wolves, and do not protect their territory from other biologically different groups, such as wild dogs (also canines, who can produce offspring with grey wolves), then their existence is lost.

Racism is racial preferencing. Any group that does not racially preference in terms of partner choice, will be BIOLOGICALLY dissolved.

Any group that does not racially preference, in the face of other groups doing so, will be replaced by them.

Let there be two groups, A people and B people. Have A people select race blind (for university admissions, replacement CEOs, members of parliament etc) and have B racially reference.

Let each start with 6 power positions each.

First round, A selects (all things being equal) 3 A and 3 B members for senior positions. People B select 6 B (or for cover perhaps 5 B and 1A).

Now there are 9 B members in position of power vs 3 A. Go another round.

The 3 A members select 2 A and 1 B (or perhaps because they are under pressure to demonstrate their anti-racism they pick 2 B and 1 A). B proceeds in a racist fashion.

Now there are 11 members of group B in power, and 1 A…

This is how anti-racism works in the real world Anon.

It is genocidally racist in application. It simply does away with and disempowers the group it is imposed upon.

Hence why dictated by nature itself, racism is a survival skill. A necessary one.

Note hatred is not at all required for my argument to hold. Only for your's (to demonise racism).

You have been sold a lie that racism is bad, so that a people can be replaced.

This is racist Anon, and not only racist, genocidal.

My racism allows all groups their land. Your's specifically prevents a people from having their's (as it would be racist to keep it or keep others out)… dooming them.

Nationalists kept sustainably in power via racism, do not allow the globalist elite to win.

They lack the ability to parlay their power base from one nation to the next, to be, in reality, globalists.

Only anti-racism allows them to spread their wings and take from other people. Because if they are denied access because they are not 'of' the other people they can take nothing.

Or if they would still take, can only do so via force, or by subterfuge early knocked back by the racist population (who can soon do away with a compromised ruler allowing it to happen).

A racially unified society is not one that has large divisions to exploit.

Anti-racism is the globalists end run around the peoples of earth.

To bind them all and enslave all.

Under anti-racism they cannot be called out "that is an antisemitic trope!", and can find a ready army of people willing to do their bidding, as various racial groups with more (due to the handwork, sacrifice and intelligence of their ancestors) can be robbed.. with the lion's share going to the globalist elite on the way of course, but sufficient to buy off others.

And the people that did possess enough power & historical appreciation to see off the globalists, fall under the induced ignorance of their own anti-racist people, working against them.

Globalism rides on anti-racism.

Something far more wholesome is racism tempered by fairness and balance.

Fairness and balance dictates Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians and White Nations for Whites is fair. Anti-racism dictates it is not.

But a world where everyone is robbed of their homelands in inequitable, as is the one where one group is robbed and the others retain theirs. The only two destinations anti-racism leads.

Don't you think the majority of people of earth would rather keep their nations, culture and self-determination rather than lose them to the press of others?

That is racism, but it is also sheer common sense.

Racism then is not the bad guy.

The people ok with the genocidally racist & unfair &unbalanced outcomes of anti-racism are. The useful dupes for the elite.

TRUE respect can occur between two racists.

A racist Black man can see in front of him a racist White man. And know they are TRUTHFUL in their opinions of each other. And do not cover over real differences. And each can commit to leaving the other alone or fight like hell if they are harmed by the other.

Each can be TRUSTED to act in their own interests.

Each can RESPECT the other as different, and leave the other alone or just come together where stars align for mutual benefit on a certain project. Each can allow the other self-rule and a sustainable existence.

Each can refrain from taking from the other, as being racist, they'd prefer their people to take care of themselves.

Antiracism asks a group NOT TO act in its own best interests. What an utterly racist request to make.

If I as a White demanded Chinese not to act in their own interests, but to hold mine as equal, I'd be doing nothing other than being racist against them, failing to account for their interests in as much if not more than a genuine racist.

Think about it. Even a racist does not ask a Chinaman to act against his own interests. I mean, because how racist (and fucking weak) would that be? A racist expects and is ok with others acting in their own interests. He respects that. He is, in the end, finding the natural balance of nature. Anti-racists the balance that works for the elite, against their own people, and their own interests.

>>16527055

My thoughts are in line with those of people charting millennia of successful existence.

Anti-racism is a last century invention, that since its adoption has led to the replacement and disempowerment of the groups that have embraced it.

Ergo, which is more likely - a person holding views in alignment with millennia of successful history and a direct link to survival, exhibiting a mental disorder, or the person going against the survival and rights of their own people, adopting a position that leads to their harm?

If a wolf in a pack, acted in a way that neglected a positive future for their wolf-pack, vis a vis one that continued to exhibit the pro-survival behaviours the pack depended upon, which would a biologist say was suffering from disordered behaviour?

And the one acting to pump up division here is you. There is nothing stopping two racists, of differing races working together to take down a force that threatens them both.

The only person imagining that into existence is you.

On the other hand, by disallowing racism as valid and desirable, you place your hand on the erasure of a people, and their dispossession, that NECESSITATES division. As per the other examples given.

Who was racist Anon? Our grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents…

Who i anti-racist Anon? The screaming childless banshees of the left, and milquetoast "conservatives" that allow their people to be replaced.

Our grandparents were aligned with the sustainable life of their people and civilisation, these others are not.

You are the one suffering under a mental disorder. Denialitis.

>>16527113

Is it to some extent moot until Q says something that is of value?

Saying nothing and coming back and not saying anything significant might as well be the same thing.

To my mind multiple verifications are necessary. Needs to be endorsed by Trump, zero deltas AND by dropping good info.

>>16527286

There is left and right. They are biological evolved orientations that tend towards optimum overall growth when in ordered balance.

Leftism -we must change to overcome things that are bad

Rightism -we must be careful and discourage changes that may prove to do more harm than good.

1 part the first, to 5 parts the latter, and civilisation sifts through the worst ideas, while still progressing the best, at a pace that allows mistakes to be handled without them piling up.

We now, thanks to the media and past success (wealth) live in a society where they are structured more 1 to 1 in number, or 3 to 2 / 2 to 3 etc. Out of balance and so undergoing change out of control, without the sifting mechanism in proper orientation.

There are also different races.

Q downplays racial rights and interests either because he perceives it as being counter to immediate needs, or because he is not in fact, on our side.

It may be, that Q perceives the truth as too hard for most barely awake anons (those that stick with anti-racism) to get.

Racism is necessary for survival, but does not need to be pushed to outright harming and hatred of others to achieve this.

While anti-racism needs to be tempered by racism and some sense of self-preservation and need for self-referencing to ensure survival.

Hard to understand for a devoted anti-racist no?

But easy for a person who is racist (only because they can see the nature derived necessity of it without any trace of hate for others or wish to see others harmed).

There could also be 4 factions:

1. globalists that want elite control

2. globalists that want the mass of humanity to be in control (NECESSITATING the dispossession and loss of self-determination of the White race)

3. nationalists who want each race to have its own space & sustainable existence (the racist position)

4. nationalists who want their race to destroy and rule all others (possible another globalist position -1, or an uber racist-nationalist position).

I'm a 3. Q could be any of the positions. Not presenting himself as explicitly 3 because it requires too much nuance for most to understand, or because he doesn't agree and isn't a 3 at all.

4 and 1 would mean he isn't as he presents as and is working for the elite, which is always a possibility (no one should be blindly followed)..

..and if he is a 2, he ultimately is ok with a future that is explicitly harmful to White people (& genocidal).

So for me he HAS to be a 3 to be "good" and moral. But many in category 2 THINK they are moral, despite their vision/utopia being built upon the dispossession of others against their will.