If we are agreed on the definitions above as being the normal definitions of racism, racist, and ideology, I’ll continue. But I must continue in my own disagreement of those definitions for I believe that an act or instance of racism is solely an action or behavior and does not occur if not enacted. In other words, my thoughts are not condemnable, my actions are.
So, I’m glad you asked
A physical harm perpetrated through an action that is a traceable cause to effect. An action to circumvent a person from needed food, water, shelter, transportation, income, all the life sustaining and basic amenities, but physical harm must be the consequence of the action and if its deemed psychological harm, it must be debilitating duress, a mental breakdown (I may have more to add or some to detract since I disagree with the definition of racism).
What is someone condemned for: their thoughts, their actions, or the combination? I think this is a very important question to clear up first for a thought, an idea, isn’t a guaranteed action or behavior. I know the liberal left wants the thought police, but we aren’t quite there yet. If an internal murderous thought does not cause an external murder, if my thought that Joe blow should die does not cause Joe Blows literal death, am I a murderous Missy? So my first problem is with the normal definition of racism and racist in that a thought does not constitute an action. Does an inner thought constitute an outward action? Notice how the definition does not address or differentiate this reality between inward and outward, it’s left ambiguous by the left to propel court cases towards a guilty verdict based on the thought police.
My explicitly laid out syllogism starts here…
So without stating that I am a white nationalist, you place a belief system on me as well as your belief system that my belief system is racist. To be a proponent of your white heritage is to be racist?
Yes, it is in your book that is why you aligned me with a white nationalist. If the belief behind your logic is reversed, Carleas is not a proponent of his race when he subscribes a wrongness to pride and equates it with racism and the wrongness. A non-racist white in Carleas’ mind should ignore the continuation of their own race for any portion of whites who are proud to be such are racist…THUS, you are ashamed of being white. You cannot be white in any way that promotes a healthy view of what it means to be white and only white (unless you are half chinese or something else), can you? Why does being a proud white equate with only negative things (such as white nationalists and racists) in your mind?
I’ll let you address my discussion so far before it gets any longer. I don’t know if you noticed, but I usually operate in the short and to the point rather than the long, rambling, complex headaches…and this book in the making is definitely a headache.