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.
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