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…

Advertisements

74 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

74 responses to “Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part VI

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    You are still stuck in a relativist paradigm. Which is equivalent to asserting that you have no absolute sense of things. I did not claim that I never felt shamed. On the contrary, I KNEW exactly when I felt shamed BECAUSE it is a degrading experience… A self-annihilating experience. You are attempting to reject this type of shame BECAUSE you desire self-annihilation. So your frame is always a “shame” that is a false indicator of a self-annihilating behavior. Self-evidently, one SHOULD FEEL shameful over thoughts and desires for annihilation, no? The logic then dictates that once one rejects all forms of self-annihilation then it is nearly impossible for his to feel shamed because he will have embraced his God-ordained free will. In other words, if wS TOTALLY embraced his God-ordained free will then how could he truly feel shamed either by his ego or an external accuser?

  2. thordaddy

    wS

    White Christians are going the way of the dinosaur. And you’ve already alluded to the understanding that your type of “self-annihilation for salvation” “Christianity” is the reason for this existential crisis. What else needs to be said?

  3. thordaddy

    wS…

    On the contrary, labeling you a “radical autonomist” is not confining you in my head at all. It is the observation that you know no boundaries, limits or impediments to your autonomy. That despite calling yourself a Christian, you are really nothing in particular at all. You could reasonably argue that calling you a “white man” is confining you in my head. ANY LABEL I impress upon you whether true or false is irrelevant to the fact that you are always seeking to maximize your autonomy and now it appears to a radical extent?

  4. thordaddy

    The meek inherent the earth because they are not saved and the barbarians are annihilated.

  5. thordaddy

    wS…

    And again…

    IF YOU WILL NOT…

    Conceptualize white Supremacy IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE…

    THEN…

    You WILL NOT BE ABLE to reconcile it with a PRO-creative white Christiianity.

  6. thordaddy

    Can one be meek AND merciful? Is a peacemaker making peace with other peacemakers or evil itself? How does one make peace with evil?

  7. thordaddy

    wS

    If in the First Commandment one is compelled to glve ALL his love to God THEN HOW is there any love left for the “neighbor?” So in the context of the First Commandment is a Second Commandment THAT REALLY SPEAKS to one’s own self-created alienation. Ultimately, to love thyself like thy neighbor is to not be alienated in and of one’s self just as one shall not be alienated from his neighbor. Consequently, an internal disassocation of the type that sets an “ego” against the Self reverberates into a disassocation outside the Self in relation to the external world. An emergent disassocation renders one unable to faithfully follow the Greatest Commandment.

    • Why then have a second commandment at all?

      • thordaddy

        Because we’re human and seemingly, at least in the collective sense, fail The First Commandment quite spectactularly…

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What does it actually mean to “love thy neighbor like thyself?” What does it actually mean to “love thyself?” Not hate one’s self? Not be alienated from one’s self? This is the message. Do not be alienated from your neighbor as such would indicate a dissolution of your community.

        YET, this is exactly the practical aim of the deracinated “Christian.” He is destroying neighborhoods by creating alienated neighbors BY THE EFFECT OF ENFORCING HIS CORRUPTED CONCEPTION of the Greatest Commandment in the masses. He is in this sense a totalitarian.

  8. thordaddy

    wS…

    Your “ego” shames you for your self-annihilating ways… YOU DO NOT LIKE THIS… Self-annihilation is the only true source of shame. You then strike back at your “ego” by disassociating your Self from this critical ego. You fashion an ORIGIN for this “ego” outside yourself and manifest in your particular environment. In other words, *your* “ego” is a sum total of all your negative environmental experiences. And because ultimately these experiences WERE NOT NECESSARILY incidences of shaming you for your self-annihilating behavior, but rather, just the petty, mundane resentment and anger of an “authoritative” adult world then your understanding of the true source of shame became stunted until this very day.

    So instead of your “ego” representing a higher awareness of any self-annihilating behavior, your “ego” was actually created to allow you to wistfully revel in self-annihilation.

    • I’m not even sure you know what you’re talking about. But we shall address this point in good time.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s way too passive to even respond to beyond what I’ve already just stated.

      • Feel free not to respond if that’s the case.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s exactly the aim of the separatists and exactly what the integrationists aim to destroy… That freedom in not ALWAYS responding as the only conception of freedom.

      • More categories of people for you to judge…

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I’m a bouncer. I get paid to judge people. “Don’t judge me” is the often heard phrase of the usually 21 plus “white” female who is literally asking the world not to condemn her in her increased intoxication. In other words, she is asking me not to notice her self-annihilation. Sorry sweetie, it’s too obvious not to notice…

        So when you told me you were a “Christian” who “thought” contraception was “responsible family planning,” I knew I was dealing with a “don’t judge me” self-annihilator donning the cloak of a Christian.

        We all have work to do…

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Think of the contrast…

        The young, immature “white” female says, “don’t judge me!”

        It’s self-evidently CHILDISH, but AGGRESSIVE AND ASSERTIVE.

        You, on the other hand, are mature and seasoned, fully aware of the juvenile display that an aggressive “don’t judge me” plea is to be perceived by the “adults” and therefore can only passively imply that your primary desire is to not be judged AT ALL… Even when you perpetuate acts of self-annihilation.

        Think about what you are asking of fellow Christians?

      • I’m looking at it from the perspective that you enjoy judging other people. It gives you pleasure. I can tell because the judgment does not come from a place of love. There is an underlying energy of anger, resentment and hate. You want to cloak your judgment with pious morality but really you’re just getting off on it.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        But this ^^^ is just your stock response… The stuff of mediocre psychology… An “ego”-initiated SELF-defense mechanism. The “don’t judge me” meme is one ALWAYS thrown in my face AS A FIRST MOVE… The UNPROVOKED DEMAND is a POWER PLAY… A way to soften up MY DEFENSES in order for you to reign freer EVEN AT MY OWN DETRIMENT. So in effect, the young “white” female is DEMANDING RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET that I allow her to get increasingly intoxicated EVEN IF it would cost me my job. You are operating under the same protocol JUST at a much higher frequency.

  9. Your analogy fails on two levels and I suspect you know this because rather than discuss the substance of the argument you chose to ridicule it with name calling. This is an inherently weak argument from the outset.

    First, unlike the white female you disdain you have no jurisdiction over me. I am not a patron of the bar you bounce for so you have no authority to judge me.

    Second, your analogy does not address the fact that your real motivation behind your judgment is not morality but rather you judge because it gives you pleasure to put yourself above (i.e. have supremacy over) other people.

    Further, you fully admit to have no love for your neighbor or yourself. How else do you fill this empty hole without love? You make yourself feel better by judging other people. In other words you make yourself better relative to them. This is ironic given your claimed disdain for relativism.

    • thordaddy

      wS…

      You keep trying to impose this value JUDGEMENT on me at the very same time that you are attempting to delegitimate me making a value JUDGEMENT about you. This is evidence of your radical autonomy.

      • I am not the one assigning labels to people. You are. I have done nothing to delegitimate you that you have not already done to yourself. There is nothing particularly radical about me. In fact, any reasonable person would see you as the radical.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You’ve already conceded that the white man is, collectively, dying. And this means that Christianity AS YOU KNOW IT, ie., the Christianity of the white man, is dying. And you’ve already conceded that your deracinated mindset is the very cause of such a most probable extinction. And NOW, you call yourself “normal.” My only disagreement is that yours is a “new normal” of the “white” self-annihilating for “salvation” “Christian.” But this is not the normal normal by any stretch of the imagination. This is the “normal” of the radical autonomist whose most “cherished right” is the “right” to self-annihilate.

      • I don’t know that the white race will die out. However, I don’t think it really matters ultimately.

        As St. Paul says, “Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.” Col 3:2

  10. thordaddy

    wS…

    In order for me not to be negatively associated with mainstream “white” Christians, I must LABEL MYSELF a white Supremacist. But now it is my turn to impose my will and POSITIVELY associate mainstream “white” “Christians” to deracinated and dispirited liberal self-annihilators.

    • By associating your identity with the white race you have made yourself a self-annihilator.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You mistake origin for relations. You keep conceptualizing “white” ONLY as an unwanted attachment AND not your more specified origin. You are anecdotal evidence that a person can detach from his race (deracinated). I can certainly imitate this detachment by MERELY referring to myself as a Supremacist — just a man who believes in objective Supremacy — but then you WOULD REALLY KNOW LESS about me… You would have no clue as to my origin and thus no initial insight on my motivation to strive towards Supremacy. So in effect, that is your intent as you detach from your “whiteness.” You are detached from your origin and seek to keep others in the dark about your motivations to detach from your race. I gather that you are just simply ashamed of the white race and you, like many other “white” radical autonomists, have been able to unilaterally disown your own race (your line of fathers) without consequence. This is, I foresee, going to come to a rapid end as the existential crisis becomes exponentially more acute. And you are simply on the side of the “white” self-annihilators.

      • I’m unclear now what you mean by “supremacy.” I assume you mean supreme relative to other races. It seems as if you might be pointing towards some other definition. Please clarify.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You ONLY KNOW “white supremacy” IN RELATION to “blacks” (itself a self-annihilating collective) and so YOU POSSESS a “black mind” on the issue of “white supremacy.” In other words, you are deracinated.

        BUT…

        You are smart. You UNDERSTAND that YOU CAN CONCEPTUALIZE white Supremacy in the ABSOKUTE SENSE, ie., NOT IN RELATION to “blacks” or ANY other human being. YOU CAN CONCEPTUALIZE white Supremacist as…

        A white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy… A white Supremacist.

        And…

        You don’t even need to know the definition of “objective Supremacy” to recognize the absolute coherency of above concept… Yet, I can provide such a clarification.

        Objective Supremacy = Perfection…

        And Perfection AD REVEALED TO THE white Christian is Jesus Christ, The Perfect Man and the falsification of Universal Equality. As the revelation of The Perfect Man is the revelation of The Father of Inequality… The Father of “nothing is equal.”

        When one desires equality, he will get “nothing” AS ORDERED.

        TO NOW DENY that you are a white Supremacist IS TO DENY being a Christian… And a submission to radical autonomy and self-annihilation, high IQ NOT WITH-STANDING.

        When you hear of America’s massive “intelligence failure,” it must be translated into the failure of America’s most intelligent.

        I DO NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED with this latter group in coming years. It may very well be frighteningly deadly.

      • Supremacy is a relative term. If you are saying you want to emulate Jesus that would be understandable. However, I find nothing in the scriptures to support your interpretation of white Supremacy as it relates to Christianity.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Objective Supremacy is an absolute “thing” (in our less than all-encompassing language) that white men may strive towards…

        If you reject this absolute conceptualization then you ARE NOT REALLY saying “supremacy” is a relative term…

        YOU ARE SAYING that Perfection does not exist…

        Ergo…

        You DENY being a Christian.

        One “white” male is either a white Supremacist or a radical autonomist.

        I’m just saying… Are you denying? What’s the third option?

      • I am doing none of those things. Supremacy is a relative word in that it compares one thing to another. If you mean perfection why not just use perfection?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Because that’s not how the dots connect…

        You are not to be a white Supremacist…

        NO ONE fears the white Perfectionist.

      • Why do you need people to fear you? And doesn’t your desire to instill fear in other people suggest you desire supremacy in the relativistic sense?

      • thordaddy

        And there is no relative term without absolute meaning, your stunted vocabulary again not withstanding.

      • So you concede supremacy is a relativistic term?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I concede that YOU THINK “it” as ONLY a relativistic term and PRETEND that you cannot think “it” in the absolute sense.

      • I see “supremacy” as a relativistic term because it is by definition. If you choose to redefine it you cannot accuse me of not understanding your definition unless you explain with specificity what your new definition is. To date you have not done this and this is one reason why I find it hard to understand the points you attempt to make.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I don’t need people to fear me… Some just do and murder and maim the likes of your kind in their own personal proxy war. And for what it is worth, I’m only motivated and largely self-inspired to strike fear in the truly evil and I don’t yet “see” you as a REAL activist for white self-annihilation so that is not my objective whatsoever.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        By conceding to a relativistic definition of “supremacy,” you have, BY DEFINITION, conceded to a conception with limited application, ie., not universal. So my charge still stands, you “see” “white supremacy” AS THOUGH of the mind of a “black” man and PURPOSELY FAIL to “see” the white Supremacist as YOU striving towards OBJECTIVE Supremacy… A Supremacy with universal application.

      • I have not conceded to a relativistic definition of “supremacy.” The definition of the word simply is relativistic. A person can only be supreme relative to another person. You have conceded to having no love for your neighbor and wanting to live apart from other races. Why not just admit to what is obvious to everyone?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        “We” already understand the LIBERAL RELATIVIST’S definition of “white supremacy.” “We” already know what the liberal relativist believes about “white supremacy.” And because “we” already know these things then I know that you are a liberal relativist in the cloak of a Christian. And in order FOR ME not to be like you, I MUST BE a white Supremacist! It is your kind and its ubiquitous presence that forces MY separation motivated by genuine white Supremacy, ie., blooded Christianity. And it is also your belief that separating from your kind is an assertion of superiority to your kind. BUT, it may be no more than escaping your inferiority complex due your zealous embrace of total integration, ie., “white Christian” self-annihilation. A thought of superiority need not factor in at all SINCE the personal endeavor is to reach Perfection regardless of ALL others.

        Again, you are attempting to impose a state of stunted relativity on my consciousness… A partial reality limiting my scope of autonomy to the existence of “blacks” and all others JUST BECAUSE of the way you are constituted. Perpetrating a reality where one’s self is not absolutely extant and is only really “alive” in relation to others. I am a totally social creature, but not one of desired solitude is your claim. It’s bogus. White man desires solitude when immersed in chaotic self-annihilating degeneracy. You would define that “evil.”

      • Supremacy is a relativistic term by definition. If you want to change the definition and not clearly explain what you are changing it to you shouldn’t be irritated when people don’t know what you are talking about / accuse them of trying to impose their values upon you.

  11. thordaddy

    wS…

    We’ve reached the end… Objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, does not exist according to you… Is not the Christian’s “operating paradigm” and thus “we” are forced into the redundant dialogue where you simply ASSERT that OBJECTIVE (read: not relative) Supremacy does not exist anywhere in our reality.

    The only problem is your failure to accept the consequences of your belief?

    • I never said “objective supremacy” does not exist. I simply stated you have not explained what you mean by this term in a coherent manner.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I have defined objective Supremacy as Perfection on multiple occasions. I have even utilized the equation objective Supremacy = Perfection = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ JUST FOR the Equalists such as yourself. Now, if it is your claim that you do not understand what I mean by “strive towards objective Supremacy” then just say so? But you are a self-identified Christian so you will have to excuse me in my erroneous assumption that you would understand exactly what I am saying. If you do not understand what I mean by “he who will do all right” versus “he who will do anything” then just state this clearly. If you can’t distinguish between “he who WILL be perfect” versus “he who WILL be anything or nothing at all” then just state this? But, it is in your insatiable desire for total integration and its subsequent FEAR and loathing of separation that would have you impose a self-annihilating totalitarianism on all rival autonomists.

      • I like it when you pull out new labels. I believe this is the first time you used “equalist.”

        So if supremacy merely means perfection then I don’t understand the racial component. Are you saying that white Supremacist means a white guy who strives to be perfect and not live around other races but not necessarily be supreme over them?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You are still not connecting the dots…

        You still cannot “see” that you WERE MADE INTO an anti-white Supremacist FOR THE VERY PURPOSE of becoming a “self-annihilating for salvation” “Christian.”

        Two birds, one stone… And you are the “synthesis” in real time.

      • If by not connecting the dots you mean I have no idea what you are saying you are correct. Please explain more clearly.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        A deracinated “Christian” = dead Christianity…

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Christians are Supremacists… Believers in objective Supremacy.

        White Christians are white Supremacists…

        Thus…

        The anti-white Supremacist is an anti-Christian IN GENERAL and anti-white Christian IN PARTICULAR…

        AND because you are a white man who self-identifies as Christian, but who is in fact an anti-white Supremacist and thus not a Christian at all THEN this “makes” you a radical autonomist.

        And I’m trying to help you “see” the light and connect the dots?

        WHY???

        Why are you not to be a GENUINE white Supremacist?

        And don’t start off with, “I just can’t see the…”

      • Why do you feel Christianity is connected with supremacy? What is the scriptural basis for the separation of races in your way of thinking?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Christians worship objective Supremacy and true acts of worship must be wholly constituted, ie., not deracinated. The separation of the races is inherent in Creation itself. There is no universal equality and so the insatiable desire for total integration is doomed to failure. Some want to walk away from the sinking ship. And some are willing to violently oppose that exit.

        You are still in dream state inside your luxury cabin.

      • Jesus himself was from Palestine. Do you consider him to be white? Also, what is the scriptural basis for these assertions you make regarding Christianity? Did you come up with them on your own?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I’m not concerned with debating Christ’s ethnicity… All that matters is the empirical Perfection He revealed. And for our purposes whether “we” can strive towards Supremacy AS white men… And of course, “we” can… “We” must or “we” perish. There is no need for Scriptural validation. Such is self-evident EXCEPT in the mind of the anti-white Supremacist.

      • I can understand striving for perfection (or as you say somewhat confusingly supremacy). I don’t understand the necessity for the racial component and how you see that connected to Christianity. That is far from self-evident. It sounds like you just made it up frankly.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Are you kidding? This is what I’m talking about… Trying to integrate that which is fundamentally separate (this is radical autonomy). You’ve never heard of “white supremacy?” You’ve never heard about the “white Christian bigot?” You’ve never heard about the Christian who only cares about the unborn child and not the poor black kid mired in poverty? You’ve never heard about those “horrific” Crusades? You’ve never heard that the white man is inherently “racist,” ie., “white supremacist” in passive-liberal speak?

        You DO NOT KNOW ABOUT any of these phenomena, BUT “we” are both American born and raised, Christian white males, 40 plus with children?

        If white Christians COLLECTIVELY strive towards Perfection THUS AUTOMATICALLY creating separation from all others, does that make each white Christian an evil racist?

        If white Supremacists COLLECTIVELY strive towards objective Supremacy THUS AUTOMATICALLY creating separation from all others, does that make each white Supremacist an evil hater?

        You have yet to take a real leap of faith.

      • I don’t see how striving towards perfection necessitates a separation of races. Perfection in the Christian sense is an inward transformation and not on the skin level. Not only is there no scriptural basis for your made up philosophy, the scriptures dictate a completely opposite instruction. Rend your heart not your clothing. Love your neighbor. Blessed are the meek. You really have to jump through hoops to make any sense out of your brand of “Christianity.”

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s because you are infected with “equality doctrine” and BELIEVE all moths fly to the light equally. If, on the other hand, you were cognizant of actual reality then it would become readily apparent that some men are more equal than others as it concerns their desire for Perfection. IT IS THE VERY RECOGNITION of this reality that the evil tsunamic force of “equality doctrine” is “born.” You cannot “see” why race has anything to do with Christianity because a) you’re deracinated and b) you do not desire to “see” a connection. In the very least, you MUST BE a Christian FULLY CONSTITUTED. Meaning, you CANNOT REALLY BE a deracinated Christian because in effect you are a dead Christian. Your internal transformation has no outward effect and so “it” only remains “true” to you and nonexistent (read: dead) to all others.

        You haven’t even yet affirmed that objective Supremacy is your “operating paradigm…” MUST BE your operating paradigm to claim Christian status?

      • Jesus never said anything about race. In fact he told his disciples to proclaim the gospel to all nations.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Who is greater?

        The Christian, the white Christian or the white Supremacist? Or, are they equal?

      • Why do you ignore the lack of scriptural support (direct or implied) for your theories? Wouldn’t you think that would be an essential part of arguing your theories have any relationship with Christianity?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Your concept of Christian Universalism is self-annihilating. Instead of conceiving Perfection as the universal paradigm of Christianity and even with “us” as imperfection do “we” still have connection to Perfection, you conceive of an Imperfect paradigm where God has “us” all equally striving for Perfection through acts of self-annihilation (sacrifice) which REALLY HAS THE EFFECT of hampering those most desirous of Perfection to the unwanted and undue benefit of those with the most desire for imperfection.. You only need understand human nature to know the inevitable failure of this religious socialism.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There is no theory… No need for Scriptural support. Do you need Scriptural support to live? Does one need Sciptural support to breath? Does one need Scriptural support to love his wife and children?

        I need no Scriptural support to strive towards objective Supremacy AS a white man. None whatsoever. The demand only exposes the absurdity of the assertion. And the absurdity of the assertion IS A SUBMISSION to the liberal ideology of “equality.”

        A Christian is not more than a white Christian is not more than a white Supremacist. And these entities are only equal in their presumptive faith in the existence of Perfection as Absolute Truth. Beyond that, perhaps light years apart? Can you discern these divisions AS REAL?

      • If you reject scripture what do you base your self label “Christian” upon?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I neither reject Scripture as I embrace it where I know it and where I don’t, I do not know it yet, but have faith it is true by all accounts, nor do I call myself Christjan. I’m a white Supremacist in virtual reality and white Christian in reality. The goal is a convergence where, ironically, a separation is desire by the LIBERAL “wings” of both realities.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I neither reject Scripture as I embrace it where I know it and where I don’t, I do not know it yet, but have faith it is true by all accounts, nor do I call myself Christian. I’m a white Supremacist in virtual reality and white Christian in reality. The goal is a convergence where, ironically, a separation is desired by the LIBERAL “wings” of both realities.

      • Please define what you mean by virtual reality and reality within you theoretical construct.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I gave you three iterations of “Christian.”

        Just Christian…

        White Christian (also “white” Christian and “white Christian”)

        White Supremacist (also “white” Supremacist and “white supremacist”)…

        The level of autonomy that each of these entities reaches DEPENDS upon the reality “we” are speaking of…

        As just a quick, understandable example; a white Supremacist has much more autonomy within the world wide web (virtual reality) than he does IRL. And quite reciprocatingly, just a Christian has less autonomy in the world wide web than IRL where he has virtually no obstacles to his self-annihilating deracination. And for the white Christian IS THE MILIEU of teetering in between two realities and their competing attempts at maximizing the Christian adherent’s autonomy.

      • If you do not rely on scripture for your interpretation of Christ’s teachings regarding racial perfection where did you get this information from?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You are stil missing the forest from the trees… Stuck in a deep egalitarian mindset that refuses to “see” that some race of men take to Christianity more fervently than others… Even more true is to say some particular ethnics take to Christianity more equally than others…

        In your mind this somehow undercuts the “universalism” of Christianity when it does no such thing. It only confirms what “we” already knew which would then be the antithesis of the above scenario… A race of men most feverishly averse to Christianity. This is confirmation of Christianity’s Universal Truth. Your aversion to this reality is rooted in its violation of “equality doctrine.”

      • Where have I expressed an equality doctrine?

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