>>508860631 (OP)>>508860666>a chromatic identifier does not refer to the most apparent superficial trait that it can be applied doWhat do you debtcattle understand by "white"?
If it's a reference to culture, why not refer to the culture instead?
If it's a reference to ethnicity, why not refer to the ethnicity instead?
If it's a reference to nationality, why not refer to the nationality instead?
If it's a referencre to race, why not refer to race instead?
If it's a reference to general origin, why not refer to that general origin?
Why do you use a semantic melting pot, whether it's this chromatic one or a directional, alphanumeric ot directional, instead of meaningful natural language?
You're terminally domesticated and will subscribe to whatever brandspeak and make-believe tribe you're presented with.
You'd rather argue in terms of [current thing] than your own community and your own people -- you'd rather subscribe to a nameless, faceless, rootless amorphous blob.
Semantic melting pots only ever pop up when usurers need to goad their debtcattle into crisis: during 'colonialization' the "brown people" were bad, primitive savages deserving of extinction, during 'reverse colonialization' the "white people" are bad, primitive savages worthy of extinction. How very convenient that (figuratively shapeshifting) banksters are never mentioned by any of the dominant ideologies, but always the #1 profiteers of conflict instigated by their sophists. I digress.
Ask yourself: why do so many peoples of the world refuse to refet to themselves by name since 2008/2011?