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…

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part II

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    The only reason that we can go forward is because I establish boundaries to your radical autonomy. Again, you deficiently define “free will” in relativistic fashion whereas I define free will absolutely. So where your “free will” is a measure of action amongst related individuals (zero-sum game), my free will is an experience absolutely unrelated to the “other” and only ultimately connected to my unimpeded connection to objective Supremacy.

    You fail to “see” the crime of preventing a white man from striving towards Supremacy so as to experience true free will as equivalent to the crime of preventing said white man from breathing oxygen.

    You are ONLY ABLE to “see” “white supremacy” as white degeneracy ALL THE WHILE claiming to be a Chrisitian WHEN you are clearly of the mindset of a radical liberal. A true Christian is a Supremacist… A faithful believer in objective Supremacy… Perfection. Furthermore, a true Christian IS NOT deracinated, ie., not given to fits of self-annihilation. So in fact, your claim of being a Christian (as a white male) is a claim of being a white Supremacist. Yet, you are not a white Supremacist. Ergo, you are not a true Christian. Hence, you are a radical liberal UNAWARE that he is a radical liberal. Thus, you are in a state of radical autonomy… A state of self-annihilation UNDER the false dressing of Christianity.

    When I say you are in a state of radical autonomy, I am saying that you are either ultimately unaware of why you do what you do (self-annihilate) or you are totally aware and meticulously hiding that awareness from the outside world because the self-annihilating desire is still taboo explicitly stated AND/OR you are a “preacher” of self-annihilation as a manner in which to maximize your autonomy in a zero-sum game?

  2. thordaddy

    Who is the more powerful God?

    He who wills All Right?

    He who wills anything?

    White Christians believe in the God who wills All Right and the radical autonomist believes in the god who will do anything. And so the degenerate clearly defines omnipotence as a god who will do all wrong for if a god who will do anything can clearly do all right then in relation to that God who wills All Right, his omnipotence is in his will to do all wrong.

    So what this means for wS is that unless he can willfully change his frame from one that falsely “sees” LIMITS to free will in embracing white Supremacy to one that understands the self-imposing slavery of a will to do anything then one cannot come to any other conclusion than you desire to remain in a stunted state of relativity. In your world, white man CANNOT do all right… Should not attempt to be perfect… Shall be pathologized for even BELIEVING that Perfection exists and is the operating paradigm of our reality.

    This makes you a radical autonomist.

  3. thordaddy

    The anti-white Supremacist — which ultimately comprises 99.9% of the global population — IS AGAINST the white man who seeks Perfection AND ESPECIALLY those white men who seek Perfection collectively.

    Read this ^^^ over and over and over again and understand that this is the mindset of the global sheepwalkers… This is the docile mob that can stampede due sheer numbers

  4. thordaddy

    When you someday tell your children that their race doesn’t matter, ie., brainwash them into believing in the “goodness” of deracination versus its true pathology, you will be telling them that their father doesn’t matter and their father’s father doesn’t matter and their father’s father’s father doesn’t matter all the way to the God-father. Your race is you, the father, and your line of fathers. One father necessitates all fathers. When you seek Perfection, you seek Perfection as a white man, a father, a husband, a son, a brother?, etc… This means something different in every instance.

  5. thordaddy

    wS…

    At this point you should be able to understand the ABSURDITY in pathologizing a desire to seek Perfection as a wholly constituted white man? You should recognize that this attempted pathologizing IS ITSELF A PATHOLOGY…. The pathology of deracination and ideologically-induced anti-white Supremacy.

  6. thordaddy

    wS…

    On a finite playing field… Zero-sum… Wholly interdependent… All “arguments” are circular, ie., bounded by the closed “system.” And therein lies the very conscious violence. The imposition of a stunted, zero-sum, relativistically-finite reality that literally denies the experience God-ordained free will AND the absolute power inherent to those who do all right. Such a conscious imposition DEMANDS separation or self-annihilation. And there is manifest shame in self-annihilating in the face of a personal unwillingness to do all right.

  7. thordaddy

    I remember when it first came to me that the First Law of Liberation is Supemacy equals degeneracy such that the degenerate life is “god.” All anyone could ask is “what do you mean by ‘Supremacy?'” It didn’t dawn on them that the answer didn’t really matter firstly because if one genuinely couldn’t comprehend the equation then I could define Supremacy in any manner I please and one would be none the wiser. But the more plausible reality is that most sentient, semi-intelligent human being AT LEAST have a conception of “supremacy,” most likely “white supremacy” and the requisite LIBERAL understanding that “white supremacy” equals white degeneracy.

    Now that things are this stark, one “white” liberal must answer for his insistence on the degeneracy of genuine white Supremacy.

    What’s the REAL SUBSTANCE that has you exalting this equation:

    White Supremacy = white degeneracy

    Over this equation:

    White Christian = white Supremacist?

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