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.
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.
This I 100% agree with.
My problem is that you might not understand that that includes the White Nationalists.
Couldn't have put it better than this
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.
Categories don't have ownership. People make a nation. The assertion of a nation does not make a people.
If it did, Transgender would be a legitimate nationality. Instead, it's a fake identity being propped up by the assertion of an identity group.