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…