Sam, I am not arguing with your thesis. And I am not asking you to further clarify the meaning you attribute to white. What I am encouraging you to do is not use the word “white” to mean so much. Instead, take a little space to be more clear for those who have not read a lot of your work or the books you recommend. Rather than create terms and devote so much effort to defining them, you could just use plain English and reach a broader audience.
In February, you wrote, “White-supremacist thinking does not segregate itself. There’s no color line with its thoughts. There’s no single point of attack. There are no automatic or absolute boundaries, and no one has to be white to subscribe and adhere to white supremacy”. Now you have shortened it to just “white”, with “supremacy” implied.
OK, but you are losing readers by loading so much meaning into the very commonly understood terms “white” and a lot of people will read it with another meaning, resulting in them rejecting or totally missing a very valid idea.
OK, I’ve said my piece and you’re welcome to do what you like with it.
Perhaps Lewis Carroll said it better:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t- till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”