Are you intentionally misunderstanding Pluralus, or what? He's been very patient with you, and you have induced him to say a number of thoughtful and inciteful things, but this is getting kind of silly.

If the misunderstanding is inadvertent, please go back and read what he wrote, sans tribal perspective. He's using words to mean what they conventionally mean. Don't assume he means any more or any less than he says. If you hear a dog-whistle, it's you. Not him. Assume so, anyway.

If the misunderstanding is intentional, what are you trying to prove, anyway? Are you just trying to signal your tribal affiliation? Do you think if you misrepresent his stated position he's going to suddenly realize he's a closet white nationalist and go, "Oh golly gosh, you're right, you sure got me! All thems fancy words and syllogisms and suchlike was just cover for my insecurity and bigotry!"

If Pluralus explains the lingo of modern CRT in culture (as opposed to the law school classroom stuff), it doesn't mean he endorses anything about the lingo, just that he understands the terminology. He may or he may not endorse various aspects. You don't know unless he says. When it comes to "systemic racism", he thinks that not only is this a well-defined phenomenon, it's of great practical consequence and needs to be addressed. When it comes to "whiteness", I assume he thinks it's a poorly-delimited grab-bag of real and imagined grievances and should not be endorsed as a useful descriptor--that's what "not a thing" usually means in contexts like this.

Is this really so hard to understand?

He's actually thinking about the content. If you don't do the same, you really can't keep up. In fact, at this point in the thread you seem to be so far behind that you apparently don't even notice the consistency in his position (?!).