>>16739676

I think your position is entirely fair. Natural. Needed most likely.

For me I find my hatred has been robbed by pity and disgust.

We strove to see them as equal, in the end maybe there are some few of them that are, but by and large they proved they are not, because they literally do not see or care. When we did and do.

But I'll be no less implacable in my desire to see our people free than if I was motivated by hate, that is certain.

The other piece though I think is fear.

We really are in very dangerous territory, not territory at all we are guaranteed to get out of or survive. At least not in civilisational intact form (let alone national), very possible even not racially or culturally.

So that's probably the other part of it. The 'others' (& our own) broke my heart, but real fear and trepidation take my mind away from any emotion at all.

The path simply needs to be tread to make more Whites wake up and walk the rightful path for our people to survive, which is orientating to our own needs, and fighting to see them met. And this needs to be done for survival.

When really down and fighting for life I don't think emotion comes into it. It is simply what needs to be done, whatever is attached to it. The drive toward life. Met here by the Aryan drive for honour, integrity, fairness, decency and justice (all which would be denied at our loss), There is not room to do any different (for a decent & honourable person).

>>16739881

>So unity is not a denial of reality, or unity is a denial of reality?

>Which is it?

>It either is or isn't.

You asked for unity, you criticised my position as divisive.

I stated that requiring that unity with other races not be predicated on unifying with processes and peoples that were directly harming my own, in such a way as those harms would continue.

That is, that unity between people can be based on people unifying on an agreement of X, or an agreement of Y.

A unity based around people "not seeing race & difference" being one that MAINTAINS the currently in operation vectors of White genocide, and that is based in denial of reality… of refusing to see what is there… real differences (in biology, not thought).

Or unity around acceptance that difference and different peoples exist, and on a basis of seeing each people keep their rights and sustainability and self-determination, rather than see such things lost via a process or position that involves denying difference, or allowing loss of such things for my own group.

This isn't a game, and ours is not a discussion happening in a vacuum, where it is just a playful tussle of logic and phrasing.

Legitimately and actually, in the world outside this forum, Whites are being asked to unify with non-Whites on a basis of anti-racism, denial of racial difference, and acceptance of non-whites becoming more numerous in White spaces and increasingly dominant in their say over them.

One can unify with other races (people) on that basis. Or on rejection of that basis.

My own position is clear, and need not make sense or be accepted by you.

Your own position to me is irrelevant. Our discussion between each other, from my viewpoint, is relevant for how others receive it.

To make sure, when people like you call for racial unity, that Whites understand that they can call for unity that INCLUDES their needs, rather than denies them, and refuse any other form of unity.

That a unity around Asia for Asians, Israel for Jews, and White nations for everybody is not a unity worth a damn, it is a unity around White genocide.

This is achieved in this space.

Intellectual games around the point are of no interest to me.

The reality of Whites rejecting unity around anti-racism (which naturally allows others to keep coming into and taking space from Whites.. in modern APPLICATION of anti-racist principles), is the interest and operational point.

Whether you accept Whites (or myself) doing that or consider it "illogical" or "invalid" or "bogus" or whatever is your problem not mine.

But I think when one side is asking for no more than their own people's rights not being overlooked, and the other is more concerned with "but what does unity mean really", it becomes pretty clear to others who is on the side of decency. And who by playing games is not.

>>16739977

My argument does not rest on mental differences between the races.

You keep wishing to take it there, presumably because you have no argument against what is required BIOLOGICALLY for a group to continue in sustainable form.

The fact that one set of life forms may (or may not) think like another, does not remove the negative consequence for another group, of their ceasing to biologically exist.

The fact that Grey and Red squirrels likely think very much the same, does not stop animal conservationists from seeing value in saving the Red from loss of habitat, resources and life at the hands of the introduced Grey.

So I tend to care about life. All of it. I care that its various forms are not thrown under the bus unnecessarily. I apply that to people who are in my ANCESTRY group, and who VIA THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE, can continue my own family line in a manner that is best placed to replicate its qualities and phenotype. That is, to have it sustainably continue.

Alignment with life Anon, not death, not suicide.

Why the need to continually take the conversation to places that seek to downplay that, or chart a different course?

Why not just accept the right to life and self-determination for Whites?

Why is that so bad you feel you need to get Whites away from that path?

And do you know what that makes you?

What would it make you if you were trying to do that to Blacks, or all people but Whites?

I mean, to you, if there is no loss in Whites losing their rights, why any loss in all but Whites losing their rights?

You fancy that you are fancy in argument, but in matters of down to earth signficance anon, that is not what marks a person as the kind other people would appreciate or want to listen to.

You can continue to think you send yourself aloft with your words, when you really pull yourself down, and your argument and position in front of others, but this is no matter to me.

As I stated and I stated truthfully. My position is only to stand and say Whites should only accept a unity that protects their needs as an DIFFERENTIATED people.

I will simply repeat this because that position holds no matter what arguments you raise.

My need is not to argue you to acceptance, just to stand next to your argument another that says, this is probably more rational, fairer, and more balanced and just than accepting your own.

And others can judge for themselves.

And so I will not go any further except this single statement reposed to you:

Whites must only accept unity with others, in a form that allows White nations to stay White and under SUSTAINABLE White control, anything else is a genocidal position and involves acceptance of genocide and harm against Whites, and so invalid. But as Whites can accept other races having the same rights in their spaces, there should be no trouble in FAIR MINDED people of all races accepting the above. Indeed they would have to be genocidally anti-White to oppose it.

Argue till you are blue in the face to stop Whites accepting the truth in that. All you are doing is showing your despicable and genocidal lack of appreciation of the rights of others.

Exposing yourself, not holes in an argument.

>>16740003

>but why the copy pasta spacing in your reply?

There was not a single line copied or pasted, and my comment appeared just as it was typed out in a train of thought. So it seems you are reaching for issues just to have an excuse to keep babbling.

>>16740026

>Given you have described your mind as afraid, disgusted, robbed, and full of hate, at what point will you realize that you're describing yourself and only yourself?

No, again you have stated my writing exactly opposite as it was expressed.

I stated that I find myself BEYOND afraid & disgusted, and not at all filled with hate, as I see the matter as serious and one of survival, where one simply goes forth to do what is required for survival as it is very clearly jeopardised otherwise.

That when it comes to matters of survival, which any person can verify as empirically true (that is that survival is threatened), emotion does not come into it. One acts against the vectors that inhibit survival, because it is required, not because one feels emotionally about it.

When the body responds to an ACTUAL environment that is harmful, to reduce the harm, and survive it, a person is moving past the point of emotion.

i.e. When a bullet is fired at ones body, one's reaction to hit the ground and avoid it, and then the drive to escape or disarm the shooter, does not resolve around building and appreciating some hatred for the shooter, or fear at what may happen.

The body and brain are beyond NEEDING such stimuli to prompt the appropriate action.

Anon I have love for all life, and the universe. I would fashion to you I understand how these various parts fit together, the good and the bad, to provide the impetus to move the universe forward, and if the universe was not constructed in just such a way, its overall goals would not be met.

So I understand. This takes me past base emotion. But I understand the place for base emotion - it prompts action - but for me this is not necessary at this point, and not since my youth.

I am a person that values fairness, balance, progress, justice, honesty, the truth, and am thoroughly against unnecessary harm being done to any people, but inclusive of my own.

The difference between myself and the mainstream standard White anti-racist is that latter part.

Not that I don't care about others, I likely care more about them than people that fashion themselves as anti-racists. But that I don't EXCLUDE my own from my care and appreciation of their rights.

What is abnormal and disfigured and unbalanced is not my view, it is White anti-racists.

For non-White "anti-racists" in practicing anti-racism as it is actually formulated are not anti-racist at all, they are prosecuting their own racial self-interest against another racial group that is suffering.

So genuinely it is only deeply propagandised White (anti-White) anti-racists that are way out of alignment with other people and acting weird and against nature and survival.

Because that is what the TV told them to, and what society was arranged to reward in the latter few decades. Anon, not because it is correct, fair, balanced, real, justified or any other positive.

You can read through Anon, at no point do I speak in a manner that involves hatred of any other group, even when I mention Jews, who I do hold as the race most responsible for what has happened (other than my one people's susceptibility and foolishness), I accord them the same wishes and rights I accord my own.

Their own space and safety, sustainability and sustainable self-determination upon it.

That's balance Anon. Being oblivious to what calls for Whites to unify with others around anti-racism and refusing to see difference is not.

There are many people's on earth, allowing as many as possible (of those groups) to have sustainable self-determination and sustainably survive (and profit or lose from their own efforts) is the absolute height of respect for each group. Denying such rights to Whites does not maximise the number of beings experiencing such rights, it minimises them.

>>16740289

Your posts add nothing of value to anybody, including this one.

If I repeated myself to you, multiple times, it was because you kept trying to misstate my words, to take the argument to a place you felt firmer footed.

I was not going to let you go through with making it a word game argument, Anon, because it is not, it is one about survival and the rights of 1 billion people on earth (and via protecting those rights preventing the loss of other peoples rights going even further).

>>16740409

Have you not heard of double spacing Anon? Why are university papers required to be submitted in such a form for review?

They are a little bit more legible than tightly grouped text. It is a fucking digital world pal, and if you have the prerequisite IQ to be interacting on the board (and to have found it) you should be able to digest such text in a matter of seconds.. or scroll past it in an instant if you are not.

So what is the fucking difference?

More talk about nothing over substance.

>>16740426

Or alternatively that I type as if I was in a chat?

You know… type sentence. return. type sentence. return.

I take posting here when involved in a back and forth as "conversational". So tend to type out in that way.

i.e. I am not essay writing, but still want to get across a bunch of connected points.

For me, the actual reality behind the words interest me more than format or words whose themselves. i.e. the RECEIVED communication as it reformulates inside one's own brain, which is the closest one can get to understanding what was intended anyway, regardless of the chosen words and structure presented. And so I tend to assume others are flexible enough mentally to do the same.

(While agreeing that checking for typos & grammar before pressing reply would be helpful, but I never do - I love setups with a quick edit function after posting.. haven't come across that here).

But again, not a matter of substance.

All seems to me Anon that one can either engage with honest intent or non, and matters of form and what not align more with the non.

If one want's clarity one can ask "what did you mean when you said this?".

When that isn't asked, honest to assume the person thinks they have a line on things.

And note though, when asked clear questions to clarify your own position, you chose not to. I engaged to clarify and make clear (i.e. no I was not saying that). You left attempts to clarify what your problem was with Whites retaining their space and self-determination unanswered.

Inferred was an argument along the lines of "well Whites as a category is illegitimate for preservation", presumably because "it is not proven different groups think differently", underlying which is the obviously implied assumption that if a group doesn't think uniquely, there is nothing lost (at least nothing of importance or value) by having its rights or survival overlooked.

To which I clearly stated I disagreed and found that sentiment objectionable, whether groups do think differently-with a biological basis or not.

Free will gives rise to such rights, choice, not hurdles placed as barriers in front of exercise of such.

>>16740520

Pretty sure Reddit is the home of people worried about format and grammar, not actual information and argument.. so perhaps you'd be best suited to take your own advice.

Last time I engage with such childish nonsense.