Monthly Archives: November 2015

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part V

HitlerHe has a schizophrenic take on the ego. In the past he defended the ego as a vital force for survival. But sometimes he dismisses the ego as an antiquated concept. True to form, however, he does so in a vague and inscrutable manner.

Again, the “ego” is yesterday’s psychological wedge.

By “psychological wedge” does he mean the ego is literally splitting the psyche in two or does he mean the ego is a wedge issue that separates one group of like minded people from another?

Now the “ego” battles multiple Selves and is left susceptible to the Law of Diminishing Return. The “ego,” quite linearly, did not manifest with the intent of “combatting” multiple Selves. The “ego” must now choose which Self to speak to where “it” was once the dominate “voice” in one’s head.

I think what he is getting at here is that the ego is conceptually a different “self” living within the psyche of a person. Clearly people are aware that they have different and sometimes conflicting motivations from time to time. This is evidence of multiple selves. Then there is the part of the self that is self critical. This is further evidence.

I tend to lump this self critical aspect together with the part of the self that is self destructive, jealous, vain, racist etc. and I refer to it all as the ego. It might not be technically correct but that is how I look at it. As I said earlier, in the past he has defended the ego (or the qualities of the ego) as a positive force for survival. It is interesting to think of his preoccupation with race in this context. Really, race to him is merely an extension of his ego through time and space. In this sense his philosophy remains consistent.

But what is an “ego” to “say” to one with antithetical Selves self-created for the very purpose of submitting the “ego” to an internal silence?

From my perspective the ego is the cause of a great deal of suffering in life. It was a watershed moment in my life when I learned to separate myself from my ego and observe it. Through this process I ceased being governed by my ego to a large extent and I also gained insight into how my ego functions and the role it plays within my greater self. This liberated me from a great deal of depression and anxiety which had dominated my existence before hand. If ever I acted in accordance with what he calls “God-ordained free will” in my life this is the greatest example. However, if I take the pro-ego perspective, what I have just described appears as a subjugation of the ego. This is the idea I think he is attempting to convey in the passage quoted above.

Again, at one time the conception of a “man with a ego” was a man very Self-aware and thus very aware of outside his Self [sic.]. His “ego” was that first self-creation that functioned as an “outside observer and advisor” to the dominant Self. Over time, the “ego” was liberated and became only a reflection of the bad Self. Now the “man with the ego” is a stunted man, isolated in his own mind, privy only to a “reality” of his own desires and impenetrable to competing realities. This “ego” is a fundamentally transgressive ego where it was once a self-created feed back loop utilized to obtaining a fuller grasp of the total reality.

I am in full agreement that the ego is a natural process originally designed for survival. To the extent it aids man in his survival it is beneficial. Where the ego tends to run afoul is when it perceives threats that are not real and acts inappropriately to defend itself from these “threats.” The origin of the ego run afoul is typically bad parenting or some other form of abuse. If ego separation is not achieved then it is passed on to the next generation. I suspect this is the motivating force behind his white Supremacy. In a sense it is his ego that is the white Supremacist and he has ceded control of his greater self to his ego.

So now these two extremely antithetical conceptions of the “man with the ego” provoked a reaction from the dominant Self. Which of these “egos” is the one to trust, the one to distrust or how can I, the dominant Self, exploit the trusted ego and the distrusted ego? How can I, the dominant Self, silence the transgressive ego and hear more clearly the trusted ego? Such questions require the application of multiple selves manifested concretely from the dominant Self to test the “ego” in all ways possible. A loyal ego is a silent ego. A disloyal ego is a noisy ego.

There is a choice that must be made. Do you choose the light or do you choose the dark? The ego is tricky and can be very convincing at times. I can now clearly see my ego sits on the dark side of the spectrum and I have made my choice not to ally myself with it. He seems to have made a different choice and has constructed an elaborate philosophical and spiritual system to hold it all together. To the extent he can live a peaceful, happy life and not interfere with anyone else’s life I wish him well.

Postscript:

Tomorrow is the first Sunday of Advent and I would like to shift gears a little. This white Supremacist series, although interesting, has introduced a certain negative energy into my life that I do not want to have present during Advent. As such, I will be taking a break on this subject for a while (perhaps permanently). In keeping with the theme of ego I would be remiss if I did not point out that this series has been ego gratifying for me. If I am being honest I have to admit that part of me (my ego) enjoys the arguments in the comments section. And the times when I felt I got the better of him gave me a short term rush of adrenaline. But this is all ego and vanity. It ultimately does not lead to happiness. In fact, it leads in the opposite direction despite its entertainment value.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part IV

CIOne of the many recurring themes in his writing is his concept of “God-ordained Free Will.” Like all of his concepts he seems to have this underlying belief or expectation that I should know what he is talking about even though it is not a common term. If I express that I do not know what he is talking about he typically accuses me of feigned ignorance. As I said in Part III, I wonder if these terms are a part of a belief system with multiple adherents or if this is something he came up with on his own. There seems to be at least some overlap between his beliefs and what I could find about the Christian Identity movement. I suspect he would deny an association with them. As yet he has not clarified whether he is part of a larger movement or organization.

If one sincerely rejects God-ordained free will THEN he CANNOT POSSIBLY act as though he had it in his possession.

Here he seems to imply that I reject God-ordained free will. I do reject it to the extent that I do not know exactly what he means by it. He has never adequately defined this term to my satisfaction. As best I can tell, it seems to imply a relinquishing of actual free will (i.e., to act as one wishes to act) and instead to act according to God’s will. The problem here (in addition to being confusing) is that he seems to assume that it is perfectly obvious just what God’s will is. He rejects the notion that scripture is a reliable source of this knowledge when it conflicts with his ideology. Instead he falls back on notions that racial supremacy is a natural consequence of being born into a particular race. So from the outset this concept is illusive but he continues to talk about it as if it is not.

Let’s assume I do know what he means by God-ordained free and proceed from there. He says that if I then sincerely rejected God-ordained free will then I could not possibly act like I had it in my possession. By “reject” I assume he means that I do not believe God-ordained free will exists at all. It is unclear what he means by I could not possibly act as if I had God-ordained free will in my possession. I can assume he thinks his racial theories are in accordance with God-ordained free will and according to his radically circular logic, because I do not accept his racial theories I would not only therefore reject God but I would also not be able to act as if I did not reject God.

BUT, if one did believe in God-ordained free will THEN he could certainly ACT as though he did not.

But on the other hand if I do believe in God-ordained free will then I would be able to fake not believing in it. I hate to sound like a broken record but again, it is unclear why he makes these assumptions that one person could pretend to be other than he is convincingly and the other could not. It is also unclear why he feels this distinction is important.

Accordingly, whether this was attributable to his god… This false front was mandated by his god? That’s a question to be asked and answered by the rival worshippers of the competing gods.

I am ultimately not convinced this false front he describes exists. In essence he is castigating non-existent people for holding non-existent beliefs and worshiping non-existent other gods. This is why I wonder if he belongs to a larger movement. It would shed light on whether he is living in his own self-created fantasy world. If so, it would explain a great many things, chief among them, why he finds it so hard to believe that his concepts are not self evident to me.

For the white Christian, God-ordained free will is that “free will” which does not provoke the shame of the self-annihilating ethos NOR provides a false “peace of mind” for the toleration of said self-annihilation.

Here we find a clue (albeit an indirect clue) as to what exactly God-ordained free will means in his mind. If I read him correctly, a person knows when he acts in accordance with God-ordained free will because he does not feel shame. However, he must be on guard because he could merely be in a state of not feeling shame but still not be acting in accordance with God-ordained free will because he has somehow been able to undeservedly side step this shame.

So where does that leave us? I still do not know what he means by this term but I am sure in his mind this only confirms that I am a radical autonomist because a white Supremacist would know what this means. Circularity wins the day in his mind apparently.

63 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

He pontificated poetically on white Supremacy in general:

White Supremacy isn’t precise, but suffice… Isn’t deficient, but efficient.

I wonder if this is an actual slogan of his movement. I wonder if he even has a movement. There are other self proclaimed white supremacists out there but I have never heard one communicate as he does. I have never heard his taBOANke on Christianity from any other mouthpiece. As such, I wonder if his philosophy was taught to him from a group or whether he is a lone wolf who cooked all this up on his own. His language quoted above reminds me of the rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan. The implication is that his ideas carry more legitimacy if the words used to express them rhyme. I have never seen him use this technique before which may suggest he heard it from someone else and is merely parroting it. Then again it may just be an idea that popped in his head that sounded good to him in the moment and so he wrote it.

It casts a wide net so as to catch a very few perfect fish.

I am reasonably certain this statement refers to an idea he has articulated on a number of occasions. This idea is that 99% of the world’s population are degenerate masses who either knowingly or through ignorance pursue a path of “radical autonomy” and ultimate “self-annihilation.” As we have discussed, the self annihilation he speaks of works on two complimentary levels. One level is on the material or racial level. That is, the radical autonomist does not value his unique racial history and practices sexual deviancy (contraception, abortion etc.) and in doing so is undermining his race and ultimately bringing his race to extinction. The second level is spiritual. That is, the radical autonomist seeks autonomy from God and practices sexual deviancy which separates him from God and in doing so brings about his own annihilation.

Opposed to this 99% of the population are the 1% who act in accordance with “God-ordained free will” which protects them from self-annihilation. I am not sure what he means when he says white Supremacy “casts a wide net…” I assume he counts himself to be one of the “perfect fish” but his philosophy is necessarily narrow in the sense that it restricts itself on racial grounds to white people of northern European racial extraction. Perhaps he was again attempting to be poetic but there may be a deeper meaning that I am not catching here.

There are indestructible memes and destructible mindsets [that] manifest those memes in concrete form. There are attempts to create new memes based around understood mindsets and understood mindsets set out to create new memes.

This seems to be a more difficult nut to crack. I am reasonably certain the “indestructible memes” he is referring to are the liberal ideas and philosophies espoused by the degenerate 99%. By indestructible I assume he is suggesting that these ideas will always be around to tempt man into annihilating himself. The “destructible mindsets” are the people who believe these ideas or perhaps he is referring to the beliefs themselves. They are destructible in that they will not always be around because they will annihilate themselves or perhaps can be changed or converted to right belief. These mindset and memes work together as a self reinforcing mechanism.

But there is ALWAYS a greater paradigm enveloping it all. Perfection or Nothing. What YOU choose will have the most profoundly just consequences either way.

According to the white Supremacist, underlying these false ideas and the system that propagates them is the greater paradigm of “Perfection or Nothing.” This makes sense from the standpoint that there are circumstances where there is truth and untruth. Science makes this point clearly. The truth or untruth of any theory is born out through experimentation. Truth is more difficult to prove in spiritual matters because spirit cannot be measured like matter. As such, it is easy enough to say that one can choose between perfection and nothing. But what exactly is “perfect” can be difficult to know. He seems to think his version of perfection should be perfectly obvious to everyone. But most people do not see racism as a “perfect” philosophy. But in his mind if you disagree with racism then not only are you not perfect but you are also part of the degenerate 99% of the population. I wonder if he can see that his memes and mindsets are equally as self-reinforcing as the liberal ones.

107 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part II

“Abiogenesis is the manner in which a radical autonomist pays lip service to the legitimacy of one’s origin in the barest and basest sense so as to not appear absolutely nutty if he were to pontificate on his TRUE belief about Origin which means NOTHING to him and so he embraces abiogenesis like the circular jerkular that he is… Still, he maintains his perpetuating self-annihilation.”

The definition of “Abiogenesis” is “the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter.” According to the white Supremacist’s pronouncement above I assume this is what he thinks I believe as a “self-annihilating radical autonomist” (his labels). Moreover, I gather he thinks the reason I believe in abiogenesis is because, although I do not care about my ultimate spiritual origin or racial origin I must at leaPeriodic_table_svgst acknowledge that I have an origin otherwise I would appear crazy to some hypothetical outside observer. I will attempt to address each “point” in his theory in the paragraphs below.

First of all, I do believe that life is constructed with non living matter. In other words the types of atoms that make up my body can be found on the periodic table of elements. At least some of the types of atoms found in my body can also be found in non living matter; iron for example. So in a sense I do believe in abiogenesis in that human bodies are constructed of the same material stuff that makes up everything else in this material universe in which we live. I suppose wrapped up in his accusation is the assumption that there is nothing special about life or that life is somehow an accidental byproduct of materiality coming together in random combinations. In other words, the belief in abiogenesis must also deny the existence of God or spirituality.

But this is not true. The belief in biochemistry can exist side by side with a belief in God. For the record, I do believe in God. I also disagree with his assessment that I believe in abiogenesis because my origin is not important to me. Let me repeat, I do believe in God as my origin and final destination and that is important to me. I suppose he is also suggesting that I do not hold my racial origin as important. This is true to an extent. I am interested in cultural history and I do have a certain affinity for the “white” race having been born and raised within that culture. But my whiteness certainly is not the most important part of my life or even something I think about very often. So he is correct when he states that my racial origin is not important to me in that I do not think it is ultimately important whether one race goes extinct over a period of time. This has been happening since the dawn of man. And races do not truly go extinct anyway; they interbreed with other races, produce mixed offspring and the genetic code is passed on. In this sense the concept of race is really an artificial construct, somewhat illusory and literally skin deep.

Although he has never clearly articulated the point, when he calls me a “self-annihilator” he seems to be doing so on two separate but connected levels; the material and the spiritual. On the material level he believes me to be a self-annihilator because my wife and I use contraception and have limited our offspring to two children. This (I believe he thinks) is self-annihilation on the racial level. Other races reproduce in larger numbers than white people and will edge white people out of existence eventually. On the spiritual level, I am a self annihilator because by using contraception I am disobeying God’s will and am acting autonomously. Accordingly, I am pulling myself away from God and in the process annihilating my self ultimately. As an interesting side note, on the material or ultimately less important level my use of contraception seems to affect a larger group of people than myself (i.e., my race) however on the spiritual or ultimately more important level my use of contraception only affects myself.

Finally I must address another interesting aspect of his accusatory statement regarding abiogenesis. Part of his false assumption regarding the motivation behind his other false assumption regarding my belief in abiogenesis is the notion that I am somehow concerned that other people will think I am “nutty” if I profess no belief what so ever as to my origin. The difficulty I have of even articulating this idea suggests how muddled and confused his thinking is on this subject. I am not sure who he thinks I fear will judge me on this belief I do not in fact have. What is more interesting is that this is an example of the subtle, psychological current of judgment and shame that surfaces from time to time in his ideas. This, I believe, is the true underpinning of his beliefs, the reason he compares himself to others, the reason he blames others and the reason he so desperately clings to his beliefs despite their logical flaws. Shame is a powerful yet subtle force that shapes the way a person views the world and treats other people.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized