SA is full of elitist shitlibs conditioned to be suicidal, and was effectively controlled by a hostile anti-white Commonwealth. Had they really wanted to stand up to the world, they could have.
I was talking about Rhodesia. SA was sold out by their politico class, who were more afraid of being called mean names than what would happen 30 years down the road.
Oh right, I forgot the most important ingredient: thermonuclear fusion weapons. Stockpile about 500,000 of them during the first few months, then place them into 'ready to strike' status. Place these warheads on those newfangled 'hypersonic missiles'. Every country will immediately scramble to make peace treaties and non-interference treaties.
Indeed, but I see this as more of a 'secure taxpayers' task, a temporary measure to starve the occupational government AND give them a complete breakdown when the gimmiegrants don't get gibs.
He is being pedantic to the point of disruption. White nations are being flooded with non-whites and their culture is being diversified and their history rewritten. This is happening in the homeland of many ethnic white nations. Instead of saying “It makes no sense that the Irish,French,German,English,Spanish, can’t have a homeland” Tucker just said white because non-retards will understand him.
And because that is a valid shared characteristic as defined by the people who are targeting us. They’ve locked us all in the same house and lit it on fire, but here comes gitz to make sure we understand that we have no common cause.
That's because you're being reductive with the concept of both "homeland' and "race".
There is no "white homeland" in the same way that a Black American doesn't have "his homeland in Africa", because he's not from Africa, nor could it ever be his home, nor does any race have a home, because races of people can exist in any place.
The Boer's homeland is in Africa. They are not European. They are White, but that doesn't mean their homeland is the Netherlands. Removing the Boer from Africa would be displacing them from their homeland. There is no single homeland for the Boer and the Irish. They are different people.
IIRC You're replying to someone who said you can't ever genocide white people because even if they became a super minority there would still be white people somewhere, and even they bred with other races and diluted their "whiteness" they would still be white because that's how races work or something so nbd. Tbf I haven't seen that he cares about other races either.
You accuse me of shit I said and did, not shit you wish I said and did. I've explicitly stated that whites in South Africa are almost being Genocided, and Rhodesians were Ethnically cleansed.
Unfuck yourself, and actually try listening to what I say before making shit up.
Not what I said. Topics were about the global White population in general, and the nature of mixed ethnic groups after replacement immigration and interbreeding. If I'm wrong I'll take your word on it cause I can't be arsed to go through 6 months of comments to check.
Jews are a religion, not a race, and are not even an ethnic group, let alone a nation. The "jewish homeland" has to be tied to religion first and foremost, but because it's religious it can change. They can claim that Jerusalem is their "homeland", but why? Because of the location of a specific temple. But why is it not Bagdad or Basra since much of the jewish religion was built there?.
But we can do this with Islam too. Why is Mecca and Medina an Islamic "homeland"? Well, because of specific events that took place there. But what about places absorbed by conflict? Is Iran not part of Islam? Looks like Spain isn't anymore.
Religions don't really have a homeland, but the nations under them may. And where that nation's homeland is depends on it's nation. This is because religion is a pure abstract concept. It isn't tied to a place as much as it's tied to a moral philosophy.
Edit - Did it, and you're still crying about it like I didn't.
It's funny because your argument is akin to the klans for why they could persecute the Irish and Italians and its also why the white nationalist party in America was against them. You're not even wrong. Seeing all white people as a monolith rather than individual ethnicities and cultures is in my opinion what weakened western societies enough for all the faggotry. It's globalization that allowed people to stop fiercely protecting their interest
The problem is that the Klan claimed Scotch-Irish Nativism to a country that they were immigrants to themselves, even from the same places.
America is absolutely for Americans, but to claim that American Blacks and American Irish were somehow not American, but the Ulster-Scots were American, isn't even close to reasonable.
Even to claim Anglo Nativism to the US doesn't really work because the population at the founding understood each state to be it's own ethnic group, descendent from the English, and ostensibly English. However, if being English meant fealty to a King who protected Ancient English Rights & Liberties, and the King had abandoned that, then clearly the Americans couldn't be English anymore. In the same way that the Rhodesians, Canadians, and Australians are not English; nor the Boers Dutch.
America's Liberalism is what universalized "Ancient English Rights & Liberties", and created an American Nation. That nation is multi-racial, and starts multi-ethnic until after enough time ethnogenisis takes place and American is a multi-racial ethnicity.
His “point” is that Tucker should say “white peoples” and “homelands”. But that’s not how gitz phrased it at all. Instead he used that small mistake in phrasing as justification to reiterate his belief that the category of “white” has no legitimate basis within this discourse. And that is an absolutely retarded and malicious assertion. Whites are grouped by their skin color by their aggressors. White peoples and nations are targeted specifically for their whiteness. Anyone who tries to tell you that white peoples and nations should not adopt racial solidarity in direct response to overtly racial attacks is a saboteur.
I deny that a category can have a homeland, not a person. Every person has a homeland. You're telling me I don't think an Asian person can have a homeland, when I'm telling you that a Korean has a homeland.
Many years behind the online right, but this is a massive milestone.
It makes sense. The intention is to suck the most productive and civilized group until they're basically dead.
With East Asians being next.
that's very antisemitic of him
common sense and reality seem to be that way, for some strange reason.
Tucker: "Why are we playing along with this nonsense?"
Watch the ADL accuse him of using that as a "dog whistle" for "literally genocide."
Bill Kristol has already called him a huwite supreme.
Of course he did. Of course. 🙄
Based and correct.
Whites should just go to central Africa and establish a proper nation for themselves.
They tried. The UN embargoed them.
SA is full of elitist shitlibs conditioned to be suicidal, and was effectively controlled by a hostile anti-white Commonwealth. Had they really wanted to stand up to the world, they could have.
I was talking about Rhodesia. SA was sold out by their politico class, who were more afraid of being called mean names than what would happen 30 years down the road.
Oh right, I forgot the most important ingredient: thermonuclear fusion weapons. Stockpile about 500,000 of them during the first few months, then place them into 'ready to strike' status. Place these warheads on those newfangled 'hypersonic missiles'. Every country will immediately scramble to make peace treaties and non-interference treaties.
South Africa did have nukes at one point, but they voluntarily disarmed iirc
Yep, they saw the writing on the wall for apartheid and since they didn't want the blacks to get nukes, they disarmed
White people already have beautiful countries. They just need to defend them instead of running away again.
Indeed, but I see this as more of a 'secure taxpayers' task, a temporary measure to starve the occupational government AND give them a complete breakdown when the gimmiegrants don't get gibs.
Let’s take over the DRC and actually make it the Democratic Republic of the Congo (without the mass killings).
Cuckerson Redemption arch?
White people don't have a homeland. Neither do Blacks or "Asians".
Ethnic groups have homelands though. And there are at least a dozen white ethnic homelands.
But there's no homeland where Albanians, Portuguese, Boers, and the Irish can call home because that's not how a "home" woks.
The Irish don't have a homeland? Huh?
He is being pedantic to the point of disruption. White nations are being flooded with non-whites and their culture is being diversified and their history rewritten. This is happening in the homeland of many ethnic white nations. Instead of saying “It makes no sense that the Irish,French,German,English,Spanish, can’t have a homeland” Tucker just said white because non-retards will understand him.
And because that is a valid shared characteristic as defined by the people who are targeting us. They’ve locked us all in the same house and lit it on fire, but here comes gitz to make sure we understand that we have no common cause.
The best response to Tony, giz, and ghost fox is really just “shut up jew”
The Irish Homeland is explicitly Ireland.
There's no such thing as a homeland for the Irish and the Albanians at the same time, in the same place.
That was confusingly worded
Deliberately so.
He’s also completely incorrect.
That's because you're being reductive with the concept of both "homeland' and "race".
There is no "white homeland" in the same way that a Black American doesn't have "his homeland in Africa", because he's not from Africa, nor could it ever be his home, nor does any race have a home, because races of people can exist in any place.
The Boer's homeland is in Africa. They are not European. They are White, but that doesn't mean their homeland is the Netherlands. Removing the Boer from Africa would be displacing them from their homeland. There is no single homeland for the Boer and the Irish. They are different people.
I think he means that white countries/homelands are expected to import brown immigrants until they are no longer white countries.
IIRC You're replying to someone who said you can't ever genocide white people because even if they became a super minority there would still be white people somewhere, and even they bred with other races and diluted their "whiteness" they would still be white because that's how races work or something so nbd. Tbf I haven't seen that he cares about other races either.
STOP RIGHT THERE FAGGOT.
You accuse me of shit I said and did, not shit you wish I said and did. I've explicitly stated that whites in South Africa are almost being Genocided, and Rhodesians were Ethnically cleansed.
Unfuck yourself, and actually try listening to what I say before making shit up.
Not what I said. Topics were about the global White population in general, and the nature of mixed ethnic groups after replacement immigration and interbreeding. If I'm wrong I'll take your word on it cause I can't be arsed to go through 6 months of comments to check.
Back tracking accepted. Thank you.
That's obvious.
Now do Jews.
Jews are a religion, not a race, and are not even an ethnic group, let alone a nation. The "jewish homeland" has to be tied to religion first and foremost, but because it's religious it can change. They can claim that Jerusalem is their "homeland", but why? Because of the location of a specific temple. But why is it not Bagdad or Basra since much of the jewish religion was built there?.
But we can do this with Islam too. Why is Mecca and Medina an Islamic "homeland"? Well, because of specific events that took place there. But what about places absorbed by conflict? Is Iran not part of Islam? Looks like Spain isn't anymore.
Religions don't really have a homeland, but the nations under them may. And where that nation's homeland is depends on it's nation. This is because religion is a pure abstract concept. It isn't tied to a place as much as it's tied to a moral philosophy.
Edit - Did it, and you're still crying about it like I didn't.
Ivanka Trump and Woody Allen.
Christian is a religion, not an ethnicity. Like John Adams.
Yes. These people have a religion.
And you claim you aren't anti-White.
Nothing I've said is anti-white. There are no racial homelands for anyone. Am I anti-Asian by my same statement?
If the context of the conversation had been regarding Asian homelands then yes.
What the hell's the difference???
It's funny because your argument is akin to the klans for why they could persecute the Irish and Italians and its also why the white nationalist party in America was against them. You're not even wrong. Seeing all white people as a monolith rather than individual ethnicities and cultures is in my opinion what weakened western societies enough for all the faggotry. It's globalization that allowed people to stop fiercely protecting their interest
The problem is that the Klan claimed Scotch-Irish Nativism to a country that they were immigrants to themselves, even from the same places.
America is absolutely for Americans, but to claim that American Blacks and American Irish were somehow not American, but the Ulster-Scots were American, isn't even close to reasonable.
Even to claim Anglo Nativism to the US doesn't really work because the population at the founding understood each state to be it's own ethnic group, descendent from the English, and ostensibly English. However, if being English meant fealty to a King who protected Ancient English Rights & Liberties, and the King had abandoned that, then clearly the Americans couldn't be English anymore. In the same way that the Rhodesians, Canadians, and Australians are not English; nor the Boers Dutch.
America's Liberalism is what universalized "Ancient English Rights & Liberties", and created an American Nation. That nation is multi-racial, and starts multi-ethnic until after enough time ethnogenisis takes place and American is a multi-racial ethnicity.
There's no inconsistency. You deny someone can have a homeland, you're antagonistic to that group.
You're missing his point entirely, while MattTheBlack understood it perfectly.
His “point” is that Tucker should say “white peoples” and “homelands”. But that’s not how gitz phrased it at all. Instead he used that small mistake in phrasing as justification to reiterate his belief that the category of “white” has no legitimate basis within this discourse. And that is an absolutely retarded and malicious assertion. Whites are grouped by their skin color by their aggressors. White peoples and nations are targeted specifically for their whiteness. Anyone who tries to tell you that white peoples and nations should not adopt racial solidarity in direct response to overtly racial attacks is a saboteur.
I deny that a category can have a homeland, not a person. Every person has a homeland. You're telling me I don't think an Asian person can have a homeland, when I'm telling you that a Korean has a homeland.
Your entire argument can be solved with the addition of a couple “s”.
Pedantic malice.