Shame Resulting From Bad Programming and the Compulsion to Defend It

In a previous thread on contraception I had an issue with a semi-stalker who followed me from the comments section of another blog to my own. He accused me of being desirous of “self-annihilation” because my wife and I use contraception. I pointed out that we both still exist and we reproduced twice already. But in his mind (I assume this person was male) any use of contraception is equal to “self-annihilation” without exception. This individual also accused me of posting in the comment section of the other blog for the sole purpose of confusing right thinking Christians who were seeking the truth. I find this behavior fascinating.

I recognize a bit of my old self in him. It is a mixture of close mindedness, judgmental-ism, obsessive compulsion and denial. The mere fact that I believed something contradictory to his beliefs seemed to threaten him. This feeling of being threatened motivated him to blast my blog with comments. I ended up having to delete some of his comments because they were verging on inappropriate. What I find so fascinating about this behavior is it displays how powerful the urge to lash out becomes in a mind dominated by a shame ego. He made personal attacks presuming to know not only my conscious but also my subconscious thought process and motivations. His tone was very angry and aggressive.

As I said, I recognize this state of mind because I have experienced it personally. It is the same state of mind that caused me to obsessively bait a conservative bully on a Star Trek message board. I have described this state of mind as a separate entity called a “Shame Ego” that takes control but sort of masks its true identity by convincing its host that it is the host. In other words, the shame ego thinks for the host and the host believes the thoughts of the shame ego to be its own. This shame ego is the result of bad programming early on in life and divided loyalties. The source of the programming is typically the host’s parents. The host feels bad while running the program but also feels loyal to the source of the programming. As such, he cannot reject it. Often he will turn it around the other way and vehemently defend it by lashing out at those people who question the truthfulness of the programming or whether the programming serves a useful purpose. This is what I believe happened to the person I described earlier in this blog post.

The only way out of this mindset and the misery it generates is to give up defending it. This is difficult because it feels disloyal and wrong to the host. But to continue on with it is not desirable both because it makes the host miserable and because the host tends to spread the virus that is the bad programming on to other people. This bad programming is spread through shame. I have written a lot on shame in other blog posts so there is no need to get into that now.

Advertisements

35 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

35 responses to “Shame Resulting From Bad Programming and the Compulsion to Defend It

  1. thordaddy

    Lol… Hilariously self-referential analysis. I’m a 41 year old father of four whose eldest daughter is getting her driver’s license as we write. And I’ve been blogging for over a decade under the same name. You’re the newcomer.

    There is nothing inherently “threatening” TO ME about your desire AS I am already well aware of those desires. WHAT I FEAR is *you* IMPOSING those self-annihilating desires on my children like a virus that then spreads to their children. Because you see, it was ALREADY a long road for me to “see” how dastardly is the desire for radical sexual autonomy, ie, “right” to abortion, divorce, miscegnation, homo-sexuality, etc. So when it dawns on A FATHER that he now has children that MUST RUN THROUGH an even more degenerate gauntlet — OUR children must wade thorough more radical sexual autonomy than us — HE IS NATURALLY either more perceptive of this reality OR he is unnaturally detached from this reality. You must now understand that your tolerance/embrace for your children’s hypothetical future choice of radical sexual autonomy (just like dad and mom) IS PATHOLOGICAL. Period. I DID NOT impose this order. This order is imposed upon all regardless. Your FEEBLE intellectual attempt to overtime this order is, in the aggregate, incredibly destructive as nearly all are witnessing.

      • thordaddy

        The point is that you argue SO AS TO HIDE YOUR DESIRES.

      • thordaddy

        When you claim that self-annihilation is an aspect of “responsible family planning” then you signal to all a DESIRE for radical sexual autonomy and all your protests are the very distractions you subconsciously employ so as to not have to be vocally explicit in your desires. There is still this deep shame in acknowledging your desire for transgression. THIS IS A GOOD THING!!! It really is!

      • I never made that claim. As I said, my wife and I still exist and we have reproduced twice. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that we have not by any rational definition annihilated ourselves.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Self-annihilation is a process of spiritual, intellectual and physical degradation culminating in Final Liberation. It is a “thing” ultimately desired or rejected. And unless one takes this liberating process to Final Liberation, all the outside world can do is look for that evidence that indicates who and who is not a self-annihilator.

        It was my impression that we had reached a middle ground? I agreed that contraception was “responsible family planning” and you agreed that contraception was an act of self-annihilation. And so the compromise is that self-annihilation is an aspect of “responsible family planning.”

        What is the disagreement? Is abortion not an aspect of “responsible family planning?” Is not the intent of abortion exactly the same as contraception?

      • I never agreed that the use of contraception is the same as self annihilation. In fact I have been consistently arguing against this theory of yours all along.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Theory? I assume when you glibly asserted that contraception was responsible family planning that you understood the vacuousness of the claim?

        Is abortion responsible family planning?

        Taking a fishing trip once a month during your wife’s ovulation period?

        Strictly manually gratifying each other?

        Locking yourself to a room with x-rated outlets when the urge sets in?

        An RU-486 pill?

        Infanticide?

        WHAT IS NOT responsible family planning?

        When a smoker smokes and doesn’t die on the spot, does this really mean he is not killing himself as he smokes? Smoking is not an act of self-annihilation?

        Contra-ception… Against conception… Against the creation of a part of yourself and a part of your wife’s self… Self-annihilation. There is no theory.

      • Again, I still exist, my wife exists, our children exist. Our use of contraception has not annihilated us in any way. I understand that you see it differently for some reason. Arguing back and forth does not serve a useful purpose at this point.

  2. thordaddy

    wS….

    Contraception doesn’t annihilate you totally… Contraception PREVENTS a part of you and a part of your wife coming into existence. So your are, in mind and effect, creating and then annihilating a part of yourself.

    • If true, how is the use of contraception any more of an act of self annihilation than just deciding not to have sex?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Having sex with the INTENTION OF NOT HAVING children is an act of self-annihilation.

      • That’s shame talking my friend.

      • thordaddy

        Excuse me… Not having sex for the purpose of not having children is self-annihilating. Celibacy is a different thing altogether.

      • thordaddy

        To be celibate takes EXTREME spiritual, intellectual and physical discipline. To use contraception takes ABSOLUTELY NONE of that. So then to assert these things equally self-annihilating rings absurd on its face. One is inherently infused with “responsibility” through its intimate connection to strict discipline and the other is a mere BELIEF in consequence-free pleasure TOTALLY DEVOID of any notion of responsibility due an absolute disconnect from anything understood as being disciplined. So in the most absurd conclusion, one “sees” strict discipline and thus real responsibility in the pursuit of consequence-free pleasure AND WILL “see” self-annihilation in he who practices celibacy*. It’s crazy.

        * how do you define celibacy? What does the celibate “act” boil down to?

      • But doesn’t celibacy or simply deciding not to have sex one night prevent a part of me from coming into existence the same way you theorized the use of contraception does? How is that not self annihilation according to the definition you espouse?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Celibacy is not equal to deciding to not have sex one night which is not equal to having sex and using contraception. Your claim was that using contraception is “responsible family planning. Which is to say that use of contraception is responsible. The problem with this line of thought is that the use of contraception requires no real discipline and therefore it cannot be inherently responsible. Contraception cannot be “responsible famlly planning.” Celibacy, on the other hand, takes EXTREME discipline ESPECIALLY in a society that exalts radical sexual autonomy as its “highest” principle. So celibacy is very close to being the definition of responsible. But, deciding one night not to make love to your wife, well, there is no forcible mandate in the Bible to have sex. That would be absurd in light of its exaltation of the celibate life. I would only say that if the intent was to avoid having children then at minimum there was a spiritual and intellectual self-negation that could very easily conclude as an act of self-annihilation.

      • You said the use of contraception is self annihilating because it prevents a part of me from coming into existence. According to this theory of yours I don’t see how that is any different than being celibate or simply deciding not to have sex if the opportunity presents itself. They are equal in the sense that all three actions prevent a part of me from coming into existence and are thus self annihilating according to your theory.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The INTENT of the celibate life is EXTREME spiritual, intellectual and physical DISCIPLINE centered around the idea of completely forsaking pleasure and temptation. It IS NOT to avoid having children and of course it is a life for a very chosen few.

        Not having sex one night… WHY must be answered FIRST to determine whether it qualify as an act of self-annihilation.

        Sex with contraception JUST IS an act of self-annihilation because the intent is to avoid creating a part of yourself in conjunction with the wife you just made “love” to.

        Maybe we need to first answer whether you even grant acts of self-annihilation that are not necessarily total annihilation? Do you even believe in acts of self-degradation? Any sex acts that are degrading to the self? And why?

      • I believe shame and shaming others is ultimately self degrading. I further believe sexual relations between husband and wife is healthy for a marriage whether it produces children or not.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I believe that you truly believe the above and so you should be amiable to a final separation. But are you? Should not dysfunctional relationships rooted in absolutely alternate views of reality NECESSITATE a real separation? You believe in divorce, right?

      • Could you please be a little more specific? It is unclear what point you are attempting to make.

      • thordaddy

        Your “side” desires liberation without separation. This is very destructive and self-annihilating. The question on my side it whether this a feature or a bug? Is this an inherently parasitic nature or a learned behavior? Or does it even matter if the situation has reached existential crisis? The reigning ethos is to allow no space free of degeneracy EVEN down to the individual human mind. YOUR beliefs PROVOKE DESIRE FOR SEPARATION IN MANY OTHERS while at the same time your other beliefs do not allow for separation. It’s a toxic brew of beliefs that is only rendered more poisonous when one considers the unwillingness to truly fight for these destructive beliefs. For that there is the unspoken alliance with the degenerate mob.

      • I really have no idea what you are talking about but I do want to understand you. First of all please explain what you mean by “liberation without separation.” Liberation and seperation from what?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Liberation without separation is the self-annihilating “nature” of the human parasite. The human parasite possesses an insatiable appetite that invariably threatens the very existence of the host. If the host is sufficiently weakened past a critical juncture then the entire ecology of parasite/host is destined for total annihilation. BUT, if the host STILL possesses some inkling of survival instinct then it MUST eradicate the human parasite which simply possesses an insatiable appetite destined to kill an unconcerned host.

        In political terms, those who desire “liberation without separation” are those who BELIEVE in the “righteousness” of forced integration of the human parasite and regard separation as “evil.” The people who think like this… Who explicitly demand the “rights” of the human parasite to insatiable appetite and forced integration ARE DEMANDING ANNIHILATION from that part of the “host” still possessing healthy mind, heart, soul and instinct.

        Not allowing this remnant of the West its space to flourish portends the total annihilation of the human parasites… Those who disingenuously claim a desire for “equality…” Those who are fundamentally anti-Supremacy.

        Are you not willing to SEEK A DIVORCE BEFORE it comes to this? Is the human parasite simply not reformable? Can we not have separation without liberation?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Now contrast this to the child in utero who will generally evolve and seek liberation WITH separation. In other words, children seek to free themselves from their mothers eventually. Yet, these very children in utero are conceptualized AS LESS THAN HUMAN “parasites” by the very human parasites that seek liberation without separation. You understand? In order for the human parasite to achieve “liberation WITHOUT separation” in the scenario of pregnancy IS TO TERMINATE that “subhuman parasite” seeking eventual separation. It’s a breathtakingly diabolical frame of mind WHEN one realizes “we” are speaking of mothers and their children!!!

      • What is the nature of the human parasite? Are you describing the relationship between the fleshly body and the soul? How did this relationship come about according to your belief system?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        This isn’t about a “belief system” of mine. This is about the desires of the radical liberationist and his totalitarian impulse to impose a legal regime intent on coercing the public at large into approvingly submitting to said desires. Your side no longer ALLOWS healthy-minded individuals to find refuge from all the degeneracy. Your side no longer allows individuals who believe in a limitation on desire to form a society that enforces those limitations. Your side no longer allows a healthy host to stay healthy by the extermination of known human parasites. The “nature” of the human parasite is an insatiable appetite that cares nothing for the health of its host and thus necessitates annihilation from a host STILL possessing a healthy survival instinct. I would say the most common characteristic of the human parasite is its insatiable desire for radical sexual autonomy.

      • Who is this radical liberationist to whom you refer?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The general population… The masses are empirically “on-board” with bleeding the host dry thereby bringing about the annihilation of all.

      • thordaddy

        … even now, one could not give a definitive answer to, “What is an American?”

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There really is no viable host. There are the “ghosts of white Supremacy.” Most of the destruction is simply a surplus material contraction. In other words, the host is dead, but the rotting corpse still provides plenty of feeding. “We” are in that feeding stage with pockets of remnant (healthy cell) still potentially viable to spawn another civilized host AND NOT REPEAT this self-annihilating cycle.

      • I see. I think your statement speaks for itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s