Monthly Archives: October 2015

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part I

At a certain point in our dialog I stopped responding to him and started writing the posts “Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist” Parts I through VI. He had given me a lot of material and I wanted to begin the task of trying to flesh out his ideas. I think he wanted to keep commenting back and forth. But, after a while that sort of exchange becomes counter productive because our egos get involved and the discussion of the issues begins to take second place to trying to make the other person appear foolish.

But he kept commenting. This time he was commenting on my commentary of the comments from the post “Ego and Forgiveness.” It was all getting very meta. Much of his commentary was a repetition of thoughts he had already expressed. But now and again he would introduce something new. The following series of articles is my attempt to present his ideas as I understand them and provide whatever commentary on them I can. To be honest most of what he wrote was incomprehensible. It seemed to make a great deal of sense in his mind but he had trouble articulating these ideas in a way that made sense to me. Often when I asked him to clarify what he meant he became obstinate and accused me of being willfully ignorant or unable to recognize the truth of his ideas because I approached it from the standpoint of “Radical Autonomy.” He had trouble accepting the possibility that his ideas were anything but obvious and straight forward to me.

The radical autonomist, to maintain his appearance of radical autonomy, ie., his appearance of having more freedom than the rest, must ultimately destroy his Origin and blur his final destination. In other words, the radical autonomist must perpetually fill a self-created vacuum that has no beginning or end. He completes this task through cycles of self-creation/self-annihilation each time due entropic laws losing a little bit of “matter” in which to create a new Self ultimately leading to Final Liberation… Self-annihilation… No more “matter” in which to create the next new Self that was promptly destroyed when recognized as a particular impediment to one’s autonomy.

This label “Radical Autonomist” is very important to him. To him there are the true believers acting morally with what he calls “God-ordained free will” who represent a small fraction of the population. Then there are the “Radical Autonomists” who I presume seek autonomy from God which ultimately results in “self-annihilation.” He has never defined “God-ordained free will” except to say that it is the pursuit of perfection. He calls this perfection “Supremacy” but seems resistant to say that “Supremacy” in this context is related to supremacy over other people. He calls it “Objective Supremacy” which he relates to the teachings of Christ which he seems to think (inexplicably) encourage each racial grouping to perfect themselves independent of other racial groupings. He rejects the notion that this particular teaching of Christ requires scriptural support which I find confusing because how else does one know the teachings of Christ if not through scripture? What would this other source be?

As you can see his intellectual framework is very complicated and difficult to follow. Each idea is layered upon another in a complex tapestry. I have a hard time approaching it systematically. However, it all seems painfully obvious to him. As such anyone who cannot make sense of it is either willfully ignorant or under the influence of the philosophy of “Radical Autonomy.”

Several times he has labeled me a Radical Autonomist and seems to assume I follow all the tenants of Radical Autonomism that he sees laid out in his head. It is unclear to me what he thinks these tenants are other than the ultimate desire to break free from God. But I have no desire for this outcome. This he will not listen to but sees every action I take and every idea I express to be further evidence of his beliefs.

He talks about the Radical Autonomist “creating cycles of self-creation and self-annihilation.” I’m not sure if he is referring to the Eastern notions of reincarnation where the ultimate goal is to escape the cycle of rebirth. It seems to fit on some level because there is the idea of achieving “no self” which sounds a lot like his “Self Annihilation.” However, in the Eastern context (at least to the extent I understand it) escaping the cycle of rebirth is a desirable outcome and to him it is not. He sees it as separation from God but I think this is a mistake. I believe according to the Eastern model, liberation from the self is a return to God. In other words it is the “self” that causes the separation from God.

He talks about “no new matter being available to create a new self.” I am not sure what he is getting at here. I am not even 100% sure he is talking about reincarnation. Certainly most sects of Christianity do not believe in reincarnation with the possible exception of the Gnostics. His rhetoric does not echo other Gnostic themes as far as I can tell, however.

So in the end I arrive where I started with him. Trying to make sense of his ideas is extremely confusing. The more I try the more confusing it becomes. But I will continue.

108 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part VI

[W]hat you deem ‘shame’ is simply a rejection for any tolerance of self-annihilation. If I feel truly shamed I KNOW I have degraded myself and there can ultimately be no tolerance for self-degradation in those that honestly desire free will.”

Essentially the white Supremacist is claiming here that he never feels shame. I find this hard to believe given his desire for superiority over other people. I believe his true motivation for superiority is shame masked heavily with denial. He clearly feels himself to be in a position to judge other people who do not share his vision of reality. He labels them “radical autonomist” and “self-annihilator”. When you label something you confine it to a box that may or may not match up to reality. It is a convenient way to reference a concept but it often produces lazy thinking.

But there is already the impetus to label everything which may or may not have anything to do with putting that now labeled something into a ‘box.’ What is a ‘box’ anyway? This ‘something’ you’ve labeled ‘box’ that then holds other ‘somethings’ requiring designated labeling seems a special kind of ‘something?’ How does this ‘box’ actually ‘confine’ somethings and seemingly not “confine” other somethings? So if I label wS a self-annihilator, how is he really ‘confined’ to a ‘box’ when he already rejects white Supremacy? What exactly is the nature of your confinement when labeled a ‘white’ self-annihilator in a state of radical autonomy ‘boxed-in’ by the self-delusion of being a true Christian?

I can see here that he missed my point. His labels do not confine me in reality. His labels confine me in his head. He then mistakenly believes these labels in his head to be reality.

PS. A white Christian is a white Supremacist and rejects all acts of self-annihilation.”

So here we get into his notions of Christianity and what a “true” Christian actually is. He takes the position that white Supremacy is true Christianity. In a previous exchange I asked him how he squared this assertion with the Second Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Jesus’ commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you.” His response was that he did not love himself and so therefore he was under no obligation to love his neighbor and Jesus’ remarks were solely directed to his disciples specifically with respect to the other disciples and thus carried no authority with respect to him as a mere reader of the gospel. I found these arguments, labored, technical and weasely frankly. It seems to me he was following the letter but not the spirit of the law which is an attitude Jesus rejected.

I further wonder how he squares white Supremacy with the beatitudes specifically, “Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth…, Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy… Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God,” (MT 5:5-9) and “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” (MT 20:16)

I have no doubt he has an equally labored, technical, weasely response. Be sure to read the comments to find out.

To be continued…

74 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part V

My biggest fan waxed psychological about the workings of the ego: “It’s not clear who exactly is writing on your behalf? Your ‘self’ or your ‘ego?’ I was always suspicious of those that try to disassociate the two to the point of mutually exclusive ‘entities.’ Where my beliefs are strong, the ‘ego’ is silent. Where trivial efficiency comes into play, the ‘ego’ sometimes goes into overdrive.”

Here, I am pretty sure I understand his point. Again, the concept of ego can be used as a crutch or an excuse but also its existence can be reasonably called into question. Part of the confusion is that the term “ego” can be used in different ways. Freud’s ego is not the same thing as the ego talked about in a Buddhist context for example. When I say “ego” I refer to that inner voice. A person who deals with shame issues might experience an inner voice that is constantly criticizing him. It might tell him or make him feel that he is not good enough or is not entitled to certain things. It might recall embarrassing memories over and over or tell him he is doing something incorrectly. I believe a great many people experience the ego I am describing undeservedly. This type of ego results from an abusive situation where a person is constantly bullied or told they are wrong at a young age. This message is then internalized and never really goes away. Because of its chronic nature it has to be managed, otherwise it will result in maladaptive behaviors, anxiety, depression, anger and in some cases violence.

Periodically, in our discussions the white Supremacist would, rather than discuss the issues civilly, resort to making ad hominem attacks. It is my belief that his unchecked ego was the source of this behavior. When I pointed this out to him he responded, “But that is exactly the kind of disassociated, ego-emergent notion that neutralizes the rightful burden at the feet of the Self.” I assume by this statement he means that his ad hominem attacks were not only fully intentional but virtuous and praiseworthy as well. Putting aside the fact that making ad hominem attacks is not really a convincing or effective debate tactic, I have to admire that he is taking his philosophy all the way without compromise. I’m not sure what he is talking about half the time but he seems to believe it whole heartedly.

He went on to say, “What you call ‘ego’ had been assimilated by my Self where issues of first principle are involved.” By this, I take him to mean he has no ego or critical voice as I have described when survival is at stake. I can only take him at his word on this point. However, he seems to put almost all aspects of life under the umbrella of survival. He sees the white race as under threat of extinction and he sees the behavior of seemingly everyone but himself at fault for this. I cannot experience his psychology (obviously). I can only piece together the bits of reasoning I have sifted from his voluminous and largely incomprehensible writing.

Based on my meager understanding I still have to believe he has this internal critical voice whether he labels it an ego or not. He displays all the characteristics of a shame dominated person. He is highly judgmental of other people. He displays an “us versus” them mentality. He tries very hard to project an image of certainty and reacts with hostility when questioned. He is obsessive (one need only review the comment sections of the last four posts for proof of this). He has scapegoats too numerous to count. A person with a shame dominated mind has to find other people at fault for his problems. He has to point the finger elsewhere in other words. Else the only person to point to is himself and that pain is too much to endure.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part IV

It seems to me that it gratifies my white Supremacist’s ego to place himself in a position where he can look down upon, judge and shame other people. When I asked him if this was the case he became hostile.

That’s an interesting question for the mindset it seeks to project,” he said. “There is first the assumption that I CAN think in your terms… An assumption that all think in those terms. But, there is an implicit message in your question that says winstonScrooge does not ‘think’ like this…

I’m not sure what it is he is claiming not to be able to think in terms of. He surely cannot be claiming that he is not able to judge other people? He calls himself a “white Supremacist.” Does this label not outright claim a superiority (or at least the intent to have superiority) over other people? As for assuming all people thinking in terms of judging other people, I know many do but I certainly do not think all do. As for me claiming or implying that I do not judge other people, I do not make this claim and it is not my intention to imply this either.

I do try not to judge other people in most cases. I recognize that most judging of other people comes from a place of shame which is usually brought about by being judged and shamed by someone else. In other words, when a person judges or shames another person he usually does so because he suffers from a negative self-image and seeks to alleviate this feeling by making someone else have a negative self-image of themselves. This motivation is largely unconscious when acted upon. It is the ego at the helm in those instances. But of course Mr. white Supremacy will never admit to this (probably even if he believed it to be true).

Moving on. Then he made the following accusation: “This is your manner of radical autonomy. You impose a mindset on the masses that you are happily free from thus maximizing your autonomy in relation to the world.”

I asked him how he thinks I am imposing a mindset on anyone. After all, I write a blog that has gets 5 hits a day on average (not counting those coming from my white Supremacist reader). If this is my mouthpiece I fail to see how this influences, let alone imposes a mindset on the “masses.”

He responded, “By believing that your questions were comprehensible in the first place. Your question is in the form of ‘when’s the last that you beat your wife?’ My answer is feigned ignorance. I don’t understand your question. I know of [no] such ‘ego’ that you speak of? Can you articulate your question in a more concise and understandable way?

I am not sure what questions he is referring to. I think my questions are far more comprehensible than his inscrutable tirades. I don’t see how my asking him to tell me how he think I am imposing a mindset on anyone is like asking him about the last time he beat his wife when he directly accused me of “imposing a mindset on the masses.” I think he actually believes his writing is perfectly logical and straight forward and that I am merely feigning ignorance (as implied by his comment “My [meaning his] answer is feigned ignorance.”

Perhaps this is the impasse. He thinks I am being dishonest with him when I am actually trying to understand him. But he gets offended when I try to get him to clarify his argument. He reminds me a great deal of Admiralbill in this regard.

To be continued…

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

Thus sayeth my white Supremacist, “There seems [to be] a manner in which one steps beyond basic self-awareness to that creation of the original ‘ego’ set out to push one’s psychological envelope. From the internal monologue to the inter[n]ally manufactured dialogue with one’s ‘ego’ is that initial kickstart seeking to maximize one’s autonomy.”

Here again is the word “autonomy” which in his world carries negative connotations because it suggests an attempt to break away from God. As I said he never made it clear what actions are autonomous and what actions are considered to be in line with his so-called concept of “God-ordained free will.”

In response to his statement I attempted to bridge the gap by suggesting that we both are probably in agreement that the ego is a maladaptive reaction to a misconception of reality. Where our opinions differ is that I believe this process to be largely unconscious whereas perhaps he thinks it is intentional and thus incurring guilt. Of course, he proceeded to snatch this olive branch from my hand and slap me across the face with it.

He went on to profess, “I don’t see things in terms of adaptive and maladaptive. The fundamental human process in my view is perpetuating self-annihilators. I do not grant abiogenesis.”

The term “self-annihilator” is another buzzword of his which I think he uses interchangeably with the term “radical autonomist” in that a “radical autonomist” seeks autonomy from God by acting not in accordance with “God-ordained free will” and by doing so ultimately annihilates himself. I’m not sure what his remark about abiogenesis is in relation to as I never suggested that man arose spontaneously from inanimate matter nor do I know why he thinks that is relevant to the conversation.

He continues, “I ‘see’ an ‘evolution’ usurped by the self-annihilators. I ‘see’ the human being driven by raw desire with just enough good few ones choosing right to constitute an ascending continuum. The ‘ego’ really stands as one’s only truly trusted confidante or very worst enemy OR the appearance of one’s very worst enemy, but in fact one’s understood and very much trusted driving force…. This latter individual is the radical autonomist. His ‘ego’ is that which can get him off the hook with the degenerate masses.”

I’m not exactly sure what he is getting at here. I think he is suggesting that the self-annihilators have somehow exited the flow of evolution and it is the “good ones” who are evolving upward in an ascending continuum. Both types, however, have egos only one sees the ego as an enemy and the other sees it as a guide. But it is unclear what goes with what. His final statement about the radical autonomist using his ego to get him off the hook with the degenerate masses seems a little clearer to me. What I think he is suggesting is that to the radical autonomist, the ego is a clever trick used to absolve him of responsibility for his own actions. He can say, “it’s not my fault I robbed that bank, it was my ego.” To an extent he is correct that the concept of ego may be used in such a way. A sociopath might do that. But a person seeking to do right and act ethically and morally would not do this.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier blog post “Ego and Forgiveness” which this thread is in response to, is that there is a sense by some that guilt and shame should be perpetually carried around even once amends have been made and maybe for no other reason than being born the wrong type. Realizing that perpetual shame is largely the result of abusive situations imprinted on the psyche and formed into the ego is the way out of this situation and into authentic morality. For one cannot truly act morally if one is only doing so in order to avoid feeling shame. Morality should be exercised whole heartedly in other words. Otherwise it is an empty gesture.

To be continued…

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part II

My faithful white Supremacist reader goes on to say, “An ‘ego’ entirely detached from the self is nonsensical[; a]s nonsensical as an ‘ego’ without a dominant self. So in fact, the ‘madness’ of one’s ‘ego’ is the making of one’s dominant self. Identifying that dominant self will then help one understand the origin of his inexplicable ‘ego.’”

My reaction to this statement is first, to marvel at the consistency of his position as it relates to the ego, shame and race. It seems like all the aspects of these terms that I find negative he seems to value as virtuous. In my world one should strive to separate from one’s ego but he sees the ego as an essential. I see shame as damaging. He sees shame as the glue that holds society together. As for race, he is in favor of separating people according to race and that it is desirable that races should strive for supremacy over each other. This is consistent with his view of the ego which is the source of pride, envy, lust etc. These are all qualities that would lend themselves to one person competing with another. Shame of course is the other side of the coin from pride and (to the supremacist) is the rightful mindset for the person who does not share the supremacist’s viewpoint.

Next he says, “The presumption is a God-ordained free will [be] ABLE to envelope even those ‘acting’ as though they had no God-ordained free will. Likewise, presuming no God-ordained free will assumes an inability ‘to act’ as though one had God-ordained free will. But this is not the ‘act’ of the radical autonomist… He very much ‘acts on’ a god-like free will. He only ‘preaches’ no god-ordained free will for the idiots that ‘will’ buy it as the excuse for his reckless, self-annihilating, totally detached ‘ego.’

These terms “God-ordained free will” and “radical autonomist” are terms he frequently employs. I have tried on several occasions to get him to define these terms with specificity but he never has to my satisfaction. That is, the definitions he proposed did nothing to clarify the terms in my mind. He seems to take offense when I ask him to clarify his arguments, often accusing me of feigning ignorance. But I don’t think I would be alone in scratching my head trying to make sense of the passage quoted above.

As best I can tell based on other comments he has made, “God-ordained free will” means a free will whereby the actor chooses to do what God wants him to do. If true, two questions logically arise. First, how does one know they are actually acting in accordance with God’s will. Second, is this any type of free will at all? By contrast (again, as best I can tell) “Radical Autonomist” seems to mean someone who denies “God-ordained free will,” seeks autonomy from God and acts in any way that differs with my white Supremacist reader’s sensibilities. There is circularity to this argument. Since he acts with “God-ordained free will” his actions are correct and therefore anyone who acts differently is a “Radical Autonomist.”

It seems to me that the ego and shame are the causes of much suffering in the world. And I do not believe God wants us to suffer. Accordingly, it is my contention that detaching from one’s ego is the means by which one acts with God Ordained Free Will. By contrast, believing the ego to be the self is to align one’s self with the desires of the ego. Among these desires are envy and indeed supremacy. I could argue this is actually radical autonomy masquerading under the guise of God’s approval.

I am sure he will disagree but the longer this dialog goes on the more clues I have into deciphering his “Suprema-speak.”

To be continued…

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part I

I had an interesting exchange with my white Supremacist fan in the comment section of my last post entitled “Ego and Forgiveness.” The following is a summary of the exchange and commentary on the parts I found to be of interest.

It is my contention based upon personal experience that it is useful to think of the ego as a separate entity distinct from the true self. It is useful to do this because the ego is that part of the intellect responsible for pride, shame, lust, envy etc. and if I can gain a separation from the ego then I will not become identified with the ego and act upon its impulses unthinkingly.

My white Supremacist fan responded, “The ego is not ultimately separated from the … self. Every act requires the whole self to be wholly completed. Separating an “ego” from the … self is [how] the dominant side proceeds under the guise of the uncontrollable and unpredictable “ego.”

By “dominant side” I presume he means the main stream culture which oppresses his “side” with its way of thinking about reality through the social structures it creates. I assume he includes me in this grouping and furthermore sees me as some sort of representative mouthpiece of the grouping. As such (again I am making an assumption) he feels duty bound to refute the observations I make in my blog posts. I wonder how many other blogs he follows and comments upon so vigorously. I also find it interesting that he sees the world separated into antagonistic groups and these groups are all labeled and categorized in his mind. This is a trait I recognize because I had it when I was more dominated by shame in my past.

He goes on to say, “If one finds his self at battle with his “ego” [then] he can rest assured it is his dominant self seeking to proceed under the guise of a reckless “ego.” The radically autonomous “ego” is an example of liberationist myth-making.”

Again, notice the labels and the jargon. I assume the term “dominant self” relates back to his other label “dominant side.” I interpret his use of “dominant self” to mean the aspect of the self that buys into or has been brainwashed by the social structures created by the dominant side. He argues this dominant self uses the term “ego” not for the purposes of attaining better self understanding but rather to exonerate the self from any wrongs it has committed. In other words the dominant side uses the concept of ego to avoid taking responsibility.

I understand this argument very well because I lived it for many years. Its basic premise is (this is my ego talking mind you) that I am at fault and deserve to feel ashamed about it. If I am truly at fault and I recognize that fault, it is probably healthy to feel some degree of shame and take action to make right that which I wronged. But the ego tends to take things to an extreme. It has been my experience that my ego does not allow for a healthy resolution of shame but rather insists that I carry the shame around with me forever. This is why I think it is healthy to gain separation from the ego. But to a shame-based morality structure dominated by the ego this of course seems disloyal, immoral and indeed sinful.

To be continued…

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized