I found this via the Traditional Britain Group.

I thought you meant "Resistance"

I did also!
This topic - that "racist" over identification is a marxist concept and yet another tool to enslave -  was just discussed on Rense radio network.  I do not remember which particular show.  

The word ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is another example of such a word. It was invented in the late 19th century. It distorts one's thinking by removing one's attention from the sinful act of sodomy which must be condemned, and putting it on the sinful human being who must be forgiven; thus, people feel guilty for "hating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs", when there is nothing wrong with hating sodomy.

Any word that is consistently used in a political context or in the media generally should be examined. If it was invented in the past 200 years it is especially suspect, because the last 200 years have been the history of revolutionary pseudo-intellectuals invading the academy and gaining ascendancy in public life.

The word "genocide" was invented in the 1940s in order to make the h0Ɩ0cαųst seem as horrific as possible; yet now people look back on the Old Testament and refer to the multiple examples of "genocide" therein, when genocide is a word that is thousands of years younger than the events of the Old Testament. Most likely in ancient times when one group of people or tribe destroyed another (and it wasn't just the Israelites who did this), what they were thinking was, "our gods are going to destroy your gods", and not, "our genes are going to destroy your genes". Gods were what were culturally important in ancient times; it's only in recent times with the rise of Nation State, Nationalism and Darwin's gene-centred cosmos that "genes" became ultimate in importance.

One of the best essays of the 20th century is George Orwell's Politics and the English Language which deals with this corruption in modern language.
Here are a few notable excerpts:

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump.

Source for this essay: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

If we therefore wish to be holy, let us commit ourselves to a holy way of speaking and distance ourselves from our enemies tongue. Our ideas will be formed by our daily habits of reverence in practice, and where the mind wanders into temptations the routine of reverence will make it difficult for sin to gain a hold over the mind.

Quote from: John Grace

I found this via the Traditional Britain Group.

Call it what you want, the hatred and bad will that goes along with this is still sinful.

But,there is one race that excels in such hatred and bad will, and they will always be found in the forefront of these "anti-racist" ideas and movements, as well as being the foremost promoters of race mixing for everyone save themselves.

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: poche

Quote from: John Grace

I found this via the Traditional Britain Group.

Call it what you want, the hatred and bad will that goes along with this is still sinful.

But,there is one race that excels in such hatred and bad will, and they will always be found in the forefront of these "anti-racist" ideas and movements, as well as being the foremost promoters of race mixing for everyone save themselves.

No, it is not a question of one "race" excelling another in hatred. The moral law applies to everyine. If you sin against charity based on race the sin is still against charity. It would be grave matter and would be something that should be mentioned in confession.  

You would have to take that up with those who hate the other races.

What is wrong with wanting to preserve your own ethnic group?

Nothing.

Race mixing is against natural law and leads to the destruction of ethnic groups. IMO.
There is already a chance that red haired people will go extinct in the next 100 years.
No one should marry someone of another race unless they know it is for love and not because they are afraid of some marxist who labels everyone who is not marxist as a racist.
How can someone claim to love their marriage partner of another race and at the same time work for the destruction of their entire ethnic group. "Multiculturalism" is WRONG.

Quote from: soulguard

What is wrong with wanting to preserve your own ethnic group?

Nothing.

Race mixing is against natural law and leads to the destruction of ethnic groups. IMO.
There is already a chance that red haired people will go extinct in the next 100 years.
No one should marry someone of another race unless they know it is for love and not because they are afraid of some marxist who labels everyone who is not marxist as a racist.
How can someone claim to love their marriage partner of another race and at the same time work for the destruction of their entire ethnic group. "Multiculturalism" is WRONG.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your own ethnic group. What is sinful is hatred of the people of other ethnic groups. Hatred is still sinful.  
There is a tradition in the Catholic Church for more than 500 years which promoted race mixing in Latin America.  

Where is all of this hatred coming from? No one has been speaking of hating anyone in this discussion. Remember, the whole "racism" and anti racism movement is a Jєωιѕн construct which is being effectively used to undermine and destroy all distinct racial groups but one.

Racial superiority finds its most fervent expression in a particular race dating to Babylonian times. Research the тαℓмυd and you will see race hatred in its pure form.  Leave the others who are trying to preserve themselves as God created them alone. Honoring and defending what has been given and determined by the Creator's will is not hatred, but rather an utter rejection of those who would thwart His will and corrupt His creation.