A cancer can come to dominate ones healthy tissue, that don’t make the cancer cells supreme or desirable. Also, Whites so have some elements where they surpass most/all others, in objective terms not so much in value; like aggression and weapons development/deployment; they are currently unsurpassed.
The term “villainy” is also accurate, but would hamper you in the arena of discourse, I think. It’s too loaded, and White Domination is already a loaded issue that we need to demystify.
White Domination can be documented, even it we can’t prove their intent to do wrong, or the villainy of their intentions, we can prove their domination and it’s material and historical effects.
So yes, there are areas where Whites are supreme, but they are not universally supreme or better as the term White Supremacy would suggest, White Domination takes into account their segments of supremacy; it doesn’t seek to deny them. White Villainy is not a framing I opposed, or that I think is less valid than White Domination, I just think in a political and functional sense, White Domination is more effective in articulating what we are trying to articulate.
Thanks for the insights Anon.
