Exploring Why a Genuine White Supremacist Doesn’t Like New Years Resolutions

KKKApparently “Genuine White Supremacists” take issue with people making New Years resolutions. Last week I wrote a piece on New Years resolutions and true to form, my self-described “Genuine White Supremacist” neighbor launched into an accusatory tirade in the comment section. I strive to write at least one blog post a week and last week was inspired to write this particular post because I noticed that a previous post on the subject was getting a few hits. The idea of comparing my current mindset to my previous mindset struck me as interesting and off I went.

We have a little history, my Genuine White Supremacist neighbor and I. He has been somewhat obsessively posting in the comment section of my blog for some time now. For the most part I enjoy the back and forth we have. The fact that we are pretty much diametrically opposed on a number of subjects makes for a lively debate. Our interactions have given me a wealth of material to write about and the traffic to my blog has vastly increased ever since he started contributing. For all those reasons I am grateful. However, there is a certain hostile negativity to his posts which can take our interactions down dark paths from time to time. Fortunately, this is my blog and I am in control of the content so I can easily keep him in line if need be.

One thing I enjoy about him is that his hostility always takes me by surprise. His reaction to my post on New Years resolutions is an excellent example of this:

If you desire to control others then you are constantly attempting to break their “continuum.” The “New Year’s Resolution” is some such mechanism invoked on a mass scale to break the “continuum” of the people’s [mind frame]. There is on January 1st a sort of mass reboot infused with the idea of mandated recalibration and foundational inspection.

Making New Years resolutions is something I would imagine a great many people do. Because many people do this there is naturally a lot of chatter about it in the media. His reaction seems to view this chatter as some sort of top down, mechanism designed by the “media-entertainment complex” (his words) to control people by breaking their “continuum” for some unknown purpose. I suppose this breaking of continuum affected by encouraging people to make New Years resolutions in his thinking prevents them from achieving the clarity of mind he claims to possess by ignoring the custom.

My neighbor continued:

Those most susceptible [sic] to a Self/ego split antagonism will find much meaning in this break in the “continuum” as it essentially validates a perpetually gnawing personal experience AND helps to disperse a personal burden amongst the masses. In other words, your continuous breaks in your personal continuum is eleviated [sic] by the idea of a mass break in the people’s continuum. You find a “heartening” personal to collective relationship in the “New Year’s Resolution” based upon a shared brokenness in one’s Self/ego continuum.

If I read him correctly (and that is always a challenge) I think he is asserting that people who like the idea of a New Years resolution suffer collectively from a condition he refers to here as a “self/ego spit.” By this term I assume he refers to experience of an internal, self-critical voice (i.e., the voice of the ego). He seems to be passing judgment on these people and making the claim that he does not experience this voice, himself. I find this very hard to believe mostly because it has been my experience that people who are a judgmental of other people as he is are equally as judgmental of themselves thus giving rise to the self / ego split and the internal self-critical voice.

Also included is his judgment of the population contending with a self / ego split is the idea that the individuals within this population draw comfort from their neighbors suffering from the same issue. He contends that this is the reason or motivation behind the cultural phenomenon of making New Years resolutions on January 1st. I get the sense that he is also trying to imply that people drawing comfort from neighbors in this way indicates ignorance and weakness on their part which he sees as additional fodder to shame them.

He continues:

I take it as a given that the masses are being controlled from on high… Part of this control is the understanding that most possess a broken “continuum” (conflicting self/ego) and that it is in the validation of the broken “continuum” suffered by the masses as epitomized by the “News Year’s Resolution” that this control is refined and normalized. The broken “continuum” signified by the reboot of a new year’s “resolution” is the attempt to normalize the abnormal… The attempt to legitimate an annual massive reboot and foundational reinspection… The attempt to make regular the idea of a broken continuum in one’s existence.

In the paragraph quoted above he describes the making of New Years resolutions as the “attempt to make regular the idea of a broken continuum…” In other words a non broken continuum is mankind’s real state of affairs only it has been disrupted through cultural traditions like making New Years resolutions.

But what is the making of a New Years resolution? I see it as simply the acknowledgement that I could be better than I am and that I am making a renewed effort to strive towards perfection. Seen through the lens of Christianity (a tradition he claims to adhere to) we are all sinners and we should all strive to be without sin. Apparently he sees himself without sin which I assume is the reason why he sees himself to be entitled to throw the first stone.

He then chose to make things a little more personal:

Your fundamental stance is of a Self/ego conflict that is seemingly unresolvable? But, there seems to be no awareness on your part that you are not, in fact, trying to solve the conflict BECAUSE it is in this very conflict that you maximize your autonomy in relation to others in your proximity.

Remember, I am a GENUINE white Supremacist.

This rather cryptic section requires a little unpacking. Do I believe that the “Self / Ego split” is unresolvable? The answer to this question depends very much on the definition of “resolvable.” If “resolvable” means that I no longer hear that critical voice in the back of my head then no, I do not believe for most people the self/ego split is resolvable. However, if “resolvable” means that I recognize the self critical voice for what it is and am no longer governed by it to the extent that I was, then yes, I do believe it is resolvable. I believe this because I have experienced this resolution first hand.

I suspect my Genuine white Supremacist neighbor on the other hand has not really resolved this split the way he claims. At least he has not resolved it in the manner I just described. Put another way, his resolution of the self / ego split was to side entirely with his ego. In a sense he annihilated his self in favor of his ego. Interestingly, like all egocentrics, he defines himself in comparison to others. He is a “Genuine white Supremacist” afterall. In a sense he merely took his “self / ego split” and externalized it into a “self / other split.” From this lofty perch he can look down upon the masses who are unknowingly manipulated by the media-entertainment complex into making New Years resolutions for the purpose of breaking their continuum.

Advertisements

97 Comments

Filed under Judging

97 responses to “Exploring Why a Genuine White Supremacist Doesn’t Like New Years Resolutions

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    First, take a gander at the stock image imbedded with this post?

    IT SCREAMS, “Learned behavior.”

    IT SCREAMS, “Controlled by those above.”

    But more importantly are your odd responses MEANT to put “us” back in a place of disagreement when I already gave you the proverbial “yes.”

    IT WAS YOUR UNCERTAINTY over the nature of your new year’s resolutions THAT PROMPTED me to elucidate on how this uncertainty IS IMPRESSED UPON THE MASSES as a means of control. And because the assumption is that one who is in a state of uncertainty is more controllable than one who is in a state of certainty then it is to be concluded that one seeks certainty so as to avoid being controlled… Ergo, spiritual, intellectual and physical certainty equals genuine free will.

    So here you are creating animosity with a Good Samaritan. That’s radical autonomy, wouldn’t you say?

    • I would say the one who claims that Christianity should conform to racism is the true radical autonomist.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s only because you are sticking to the liberal conception of “racism” no matter what. And even as the term is found nowhere in the Bible, you will not relent and give racism its ABSOLUTE DUE. Or better yet, you will not clarify your position in claiming that Christ teaches hatred of the Father. I absolutely reject this liberal interpretation of yours. Racism is good because racism is love of Father and such relationship has nothing to do with the black man.

      • Christ teaches explicitly that love of neighbor is more important than love of one’s line of fathers.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Not at all… First, there is the Great Commandment to love thy Father with all thy heart. Secondly, there is no distinct prioritizing of “love” within the Bible. Lastly, the kind of vulgar racism that runs rampant in our society today is “hate for the (white) father.” You are in need of a total reframe and your self/ego war should be your number one indicator for such a reframe.

      • The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. Ranked below this commandment is to honor parents (not necessarily love). The plain meaning clearly contradicts your interpretation.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        If I command you to love spinach and also command you to eat pizza does that mean you MUST love spinach over pizza or you must hate pizza as compared to spinach?

        If you hate your father THEN YOU ARE READY FOR CONVERSION TO Christ… Ergo, you are ready for discipleship BECAUSE you are “anti-Christ.”

        You hate your father and so clearly and unequivocally you are not loving thy Father with all thy heart.

        And it is in your self/ego split that supernatural Father and worldly father are at bitter ends. Reality tells “us” this state of affairs is a self-annihilating state of affair. A way of operation IN DIRE NEED OF a righting… You practice a vulgar racism that sees to it that your entire worldly existence must be sacrificed at the feet of the God who made it so… And thus, you discount and undermine the reality of Christ and His saving act.

      • Prioritizing love of neighbor above honoring parents does not equate to hatred of parents. It just means honoring one’s line of fathers (as you put it) is not as important.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You put forward Luke 14:26 as Christ teaching hatred of father to gain discipleship.

      • That is what the gospel says. Which interpretation do you prefer; a literal hatred of father or a reprioritization in line with the perfect man stating that love of neighbor is more important than honoring thy father?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Neither/nor… Love thy Father with all thy heart… If you do not hate your father then you are not ripe for discipleship. There is no contradiction. Vulgar racism, ie., hatred of your fathers IS THE PATHOLOGY that the nonChristian is seeking to transcend to reach the Great Commandment.

      • You are the only one who has ever interpreted scripture in this way that I have ever encountered. This includes Augustine, Aquinas and others you cannot accuse of being modern liberals.

        Clearly you start with your personal racists opinions and then bend over backwards to conform Christianity to these opinions. I would think any reasonable person would see this as radically autonomous on your part.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I haven’t had to bend at all… I have only had to reject the “self-annihilation for salvation” meme for the absolute absurdity that it is… I have only had to CORRECTLY define racism (love of father) for the purpose of illuminating a vulgar racism (hatred of father) that then brings into ordered interpretation (anti-absurd) the Great Commmandment and Luke 14:26.

      • Explain in more detail the idea you are trying to express when you say “self-annihilation for salvation meme”. What does this mean?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It means that one must hate his father to be “saved…” One must be anti-racism to “redeem” himself. The fact of Christ is the objection to this very pathological mentality.

      • How does Christ promote racism? What is the scriptural basis for this?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Uh… The Great Commandment… Love thy Father with all thy heart…

      • The exact wording of the greatest commandment as articulated by Jesus in the gospel of Mathew is “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart…” What about that do you feel compels you to be a racist?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Racism = love of Father (not hatred of black man)…

        Anti-racism = hatred of father (not love of black man)…

        So The Great Commandment stands as a testament to racism…

        And this is exactly why nonwhite nonChristians AND liberal “white Christians” ALIKE are anti-racism…

        THEY DEFY The Greatest Commandment…

        They believe in WHITE “self-annihilation for salvation…”

        They BELIEVE that white man MUST HATE HIS FATHER to redeem himself… To absolve himself… To save himself… This hatred of the father… This VULGAR RACISM (anti-racism) is pathological. It is the act of self annihilation as one’s father is a part of one’s self. To destroy this part… These parts… Is to self-annihilate.

      • I understand all that to be your opinion however the greatest commandment is about loving God not you biological father. Furthermore I don’t know one white man who thinks he must hate his father to save himself. Your beliefs have no basis in Christian doctrine and are therefore in-Christian as far as I can tell.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The God of the Bible IS YOUR Father. You are his son. Your earthy father AS WELL as your own fatherhood is A CREATION of your Father’s AND your father’s and your fatherhood.

        You offered up Luke 14:26 as Christ teaching one to hate his father… As teaching one to be a vulgar racist, ie., an anti-racist… EVEN against The Greatest Commandment to love thy Father with all thy heart… To love ALL OF FATHER… To be racist in modern-speak.

        Your self/ego split is thus rooted in this self-imposed contradiction to love thy Father with all thy heart by hating thy father with all thy heart and deflecting this dilemma off onto a “strange” neighbor as the motivating psychological mechanism.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Just as abortion is first and foremost an act of motherly self-annihilation, ie., a “mother” literally killing a part of her self, anti-racism is that act of male self-annihilation… Hating your father IS hating a part of yourself… Wanting to kil your father BECAUSE that is justifiable hate is wanting to kill a part of yourself… An act of self-annihilation…

        The FACT OF Christ was to end this vicious and vulgar cycle of deracinating degeneration.

      • I neither hate my father nor do I want to kill my father so I’m struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Self-annihilation is “justified” when you hate your Self. But your rogue ego CANNOT BE DIRECT as your Self is not ACUTELY pathological… Only passively pathological… So your ego attacks your Self through the “father.” The Heavenly one, your own and you as father… You subconsciously AND CONSCIOUSLY acknowledge a rogue ego… A deleterious ego… An ego out to hamper, stump, stunt, corrupt and destroy the true Self. The mechanism is your vulgar racism… What you euphemistically identify as “anti-racism” and self-beneficially contrast to the “hatred” of a “racism” that preaches a love of father SO AS to avoid self-annihilation.

        Cognitive dissonance is inevitable.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Then how are you to become a disciple of Christ per your interpretation of Luke 14:26?

      • Obviously the love of God is not comparable to love of one’s biology. They are two separate thing entirely and one is clearly more important than the other.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        We need neither compare, contrast nor equate… We are to love thy Father with all thy heart AND THIS DOES NOT then mandate a vulgar racism turned deracinating self-annihilation in the ethos of hatred of one’s father, ie., anti-racism.

        Agree or disagree?

      • Disagree. I do not choose to ignore scripture when it conflicts with my personal feelings.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So your position is that Christ teaches one to hate his father and immerse himself in vulgar racism?

        And what are my “feelings?” There are no feelings involved in interpreting the Scripture that you have put forth as “proof” of Christ teaching vulgar racism, ie., anti-racism.

      • So your position is that God is a white man?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… That’s not my position. But God did create the white father and the white son to which you claim Christ teaches a mandatory enmity of the former by the latter. Do you stand by this self-annihilatingly vulgar racism?

      • I did not say that and you know it. Any additional misrepresentations on your part will be deleted.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You did not say what? I ASKED YOU A QUESTION and did not quote you…

        What is your interpretation of Luke 14:26? Do you interpret that passage as mandating a vulgar racism or not?

      • I have told you several times that my interpretation is in line with the standard interpretation. Love of family / bloodline is not as important as love of God. There is nothing vulgar or racist about it.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s not the argument… I’ve already conceded that love thy Father with all thy heart is The Great Commandment.

        THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS…

        Whether this is interpretated as hating your earthly father with all your heart?

        In other words, FOR YOU AND the “self-annihilation for salvation” crowd, hating one’s earthly father with all thy heart (your vulgar racism emboldened by misinterpreting Luke 14:26) IS THE METHOD by which you achieve the demand of The Great Commandment.

        True or false?

      • No one has ever said that except you.

      • thordaddy

        Wow… Now one assumes complicity in the annihilation of the white race and its nefariously manufactured connection to “Christianity” as motivating mechanism.

      • I have no idea what you are ranting about. If you can clarify without simply repeating your stock language or purposefully misrepresenting my position please do.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe that racism is so bad (loving your father) that you are compelled to propagate a vulgar racism, ie., an anti-racism… Er, a hatred of your earthly father as “good?”

        YOU WILL NOT CLARIFY YOUR POSITION…

        You only deny believing in what I insinuatingly ask, BUT STILL leaving ambiguous what you ACTUALLY BELIEVE?

        I have stated over and over again that I do not believe the white Christian’s path to Perfection mandates hatred of one’s earthly father… In other words, Christianity does not demand vulgar racism, ie., ANTI-RACISM.

        I cannot be anymore plain.

      • I believe racism does not equate to loving one’s biological father. I never stated “the white Christian’s path to perfection mandates a hatred on one’s earthly father” so you position makes no sense.

        Why do you keep misstating my position?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You believe racism = hatred of black man/other… This is your definition due Liberal ideology and/or belief in “universal equality” and rejection of The Perfect Man.

        I believe racism = Immersion into race… Love of lineage… Love of father… This is the commonsensical interpretation of race + ism… It’s a true study of the Self.

        The Bible itself SAYS NOTHING of the term “racism” or “racist.”

        BUT…

        It does say love thy God Father with all thy heart and that one is ripe for discipleship when in possession of hatred for his father…

        It like 1+1+1=3…

      • Luke 14:26 says one must hate his father, mother and children. This is clearly not a reference to
        God the father.

        You say your definition of Racism is simply a love of your own racism and not a hatred of other races. So then why not be indifferent to the subject of race when it comes to other races getting their due? You have expressed anger over white people voting for Obama but if racism simply means love of the white race and not hatred of the black race why would voting for Obama be a problem? One has nothing to do with the other according to your definition.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The charge was lodged against me in misrepresenting your belief over racism. The fact is that you believe both in a “racism” that means hating blacks/others and in a command from Christ to hate your father. You also concede the righteousness of The Great Commandment. The QUESTION IS what is the thread that runs through these beliefs to make this all coherent in your mind? Is it really Christianity or liberal ideology?

        On the other hand, I also believe in The Greatest Commandment and believe Luke 14:26 is telling “us” that the vulgar racist… The hater of his father… The SELF-ANNIHILATOR is ripe for conversion, ie., discipleship… And that none of this interpretation need invoke the black collective whatsoever. And the love the other/hate for the father as path to The Greatest Commandment is the work of Satan himself. And its antithesis, hate for the other/love for the father IS NOT the stuff of damnation WHEN the “other” is pathologically parasitic. How this doesn’t register with you only says “radical autonomy” to me.

      • You have misrepresented again my interpretation of Luke 14:26. I can only surmise that you continue to do this in order to misdirect attention from the flimsiness of your position.

        Christ’s teachings consistently and clearly prioritize a love of God and love of neighbor over honoring a material, biological bloodline. You ignore the plain meaning of the gospel in order to accommodate your personal racist belief and then you attack anyone who exposes the blatant silliness of this position. This is the shame based behavior of a person who is utterly dominated by his ego. Such domination is self annihilation by definition. It is also an expression of radical autonomy but it is your ego that desires autonomy from yourself which is ultimately impossible.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Huh? What are you even arguing at this point?

        WE BOTH AGREE in the The Greatest Commandment WHICH renders ALL notions of “priority” null and void.

        We AGREE THAT THE white Christian, ie., the white Supremacist, is to love thy God with ALL THY HEART. Other priorities need not apply.

        WE DISAGREE on the meaning of “racism.” You STAND BY THE LIBERAL DEFINITION and I stand by the the traditional UNDERSTANDING… Ergo, you believe “racism” equals hating blacks/other/neighbor and I believe racism to be study of, immersion in, theory about race… The study of OUR fathers. Neither of these conceptions can be influenced by a Bible that makes no mention of “racism.”

        And lastly in Luke 14:26, there is an “if” versus a “must” in competing interpretations that either renders the passage a mere statement of fact or is interpreted as an actual command. I interpret the passage as a statement of fact… One is ripe for conversion when he truly hates his father… ThIs rings absolutely true to me. You, on the other hand, SEEM TO BE interpreting this passage AS A COMMAND to hate your father IN ORDER TO BECOME a disciple… Er, to be Christ’s disciple, you must be anti-racist…. Against your father… And for his enemy?

        Please correct the record or my faulty interpretations?

      • If a commandment is “greatest” it is by definition is greater that (i.e. prioritized above) the other commandments. It does not make other commandments null and void. Why else would Christ say the 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor (i.e. not be racist) as yourself?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Haven’t we now reached the point where it is clear that there exists two antithetical mindsets, one liberal “Christian” and one white Supremacist and that these antithetical mindsets cannot properly function when forcefully integrated? And it is, in fact, the liberal “Christian’s” will to use the force of government to maintain an integrating regime that WILL NOT ALLOW a separation of the white Supremacist? Is it not really more true for you to state that you would not sanction any territory to the functioning of white Supremacy?

      • You are the one who has come to my blog to comment on every post I make. You are more than welcome (in fact you are encouraged) to set up your own white supremacist blog and I guarantee you that you will never receive one comment from me.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Clearly, there is NO PRESSURE for you to live amongst white Supremacists. ie., the greatest of spiritual white warriors…

        And…

        There is UNRELENTING pressure… Even to the point of potential mob violence… To FORCE the white Supremacist to live amongst those that murderously hate white Supremacists, ie., murderously hate the greatest of spiritual white warriors. You recognize such a savage creature, no?

        So the state of your radical autonomy is the degree to which you will go to deny the above FACT of reality.

      • Please provide one example where liberals employed mob violence to force white supremacists to live with them.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What do you think “integration by law” means? Does it not mean “law against separation?” And how can one ENFORCE integration against a natural separation? Mainly through mob violence… Or appeal to some higher morality. But those at the forefront of forced integration do not possess a moral code. They simply desire radical autonomy relative to a mas fearful of separation and “forced integration” is a manner in which they obtain this maximized autonomy.

      • Forced integration of schools paid by public taxes came about through the application of constitutional law not mob violence.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You have simply not yet fully conceptualized your desire for “universal equality” and its myriad of deleterious consequences. The degree of denial has you stuck somewhere in the late 50’s, early 60’s. A fascinating display of radical autonomy.

      • So you are back tracking on the liberal mob violence thing?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Not at all… INHERENT to “universal equality” is threat of mob violence.

      • If so, then please provide one example where mob violence has been used by liberals to force white supremacists to live with them.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        This is what I actually stated:

        “There is UNRELENTING pressure… Even to the point of potential mob violence (emphasis added)… To FORCE the white Supremacist to live amongst those that murderously hate white Supremacists, ie., murderously hate the greatest of spiritual white warriors. You recognize such a savage creature, no?”

        Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

        I believe you have already conceded that the liberal “Christian” ALONG WITH his fellows liberals WILL NOT ALLOW separations of the wS? I believe you have already conceded that you are hell-bent on forced integration and your desire for “universal equality” is all the evidence one needs to make this assessment?

      • When did I concede that liberals will not allow separations of the “wS”?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Wherever and whenever one demands “equality,” ie., “universal equality,” one demands FORCED INTEGRATION and thus threat of mob violence to obtain it.

      • So you reject 2000 years of scriptural interpretation, scientific consensus and the US constitution. How is that not radical autonomy?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you image Perfection and “universal equality” as coexisting “paradigms?”

        How so?

        Perfection CANNOT BE redundant.

        “Universal equality” IS The Redundant Phenomenon.

        Perfection DOES NOT EQUAL The Redundant Phenomenon.

        Please explain your false equivocation and the manner in which you obtain it?

      • You don’t believe that laws should be applied equally to all citizens?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Equal application of the law sounds good in theory. In practical terms though, it cannot manifest amongst a collective of radical autonomists.

      • I don’t know what that means.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It means “equality under the law” does not equal “universal equality.”

      • Equality under the law is my equality doctrine.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you are against forced integration?

      • If public tax money is used to fund public schools then integration is an appropriate measure to take because it serves the principle of equal justice under the civil law. Racists such as yourself are perfectly free to home school your kids or establish a discriminatory private school.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… You are wrong. “We” are absolutely not “perfectly free” to homeschool our children and you might want to try and “see” just how free you are in pursuing such an endeavor.

        Again, the drive is towards “universal equality” with your token gesture to “equality under the law” not applicable in MRKA 2016.

      • What is stopping you from home schooling your children? I know lots of people who do that?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You went from “perfectly free” to “who is stopping you?” But all you have really done is backtracked on “perfectly free” and now believe I must provide particular actors?

        NO MAN!!!

        “We” are talking about a PEOPLE LIKE YOU hell-bent ON TOTAL INTEGRATION… Universal Equality… FORCING THOSE WHO WANT TO SEPARATE FROM YOU to assimilate into a degenerate collective through a myriad of ways UP TO THE potential threat of mob violence.

      • What is stopping you from home schooling your kids?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s the wrong question BECAUSE I do not seek to “homeschool” my children although my younger one’s are “homeschooled” and in the case of my older children who were “homeschooled” for the first 8-9 years… My folks in particular and their integrationist ideology in general.

      • You do not seek to home school your kids but they were homeschooled? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The “homeschooling” movement is not a wS movement (so there is a continuous revelation) and therefore just an aspect of the zeitgeist.

        AND THE QUESTION is in regard to mob violence to suppress a white Supremacy that, in principle, necessitates a TOTAL separation from the zeitgeist.

      • But you are free to teach your unique values to your children and they need not be exposed to other races in publicly funded schools correct?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Define “free?”

      • Don’t you teach your kids to be racists like you in your home school?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Again, you must define “racist” and then ask one’s self whether one is “free” to teach one’s children “racism.” I say “no” no matter which way you define “it.”

      • So you have not instructed your children in your beliefs regarding race?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        They certainly are not aware of all they need to know… But either are you… It takes time. And none of this answers the question of whether a father is “free” to teach his children of “racism” or not.

      • Are you in the process of home schooling them and has a mob of violent liberals ever tried to stop you?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I am currently physically separated from my children. I cannot speak to the status of my children’s education… I value their spiritual freedom too much.

      • I will assume this means that a violent liberal mob has never stopped you from homeschooling your kids.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You shouldn’t assume anything due your desire for “equality” and this your subsequent inability to coherently define “violent mob” IN YOUR OWN MIND.

        I GRANT YOU THE BENEFIT of consensual definition.

        Now, I don’t. And I am more truthful in doing so.

      • I use the standard definition of violent mob I would venture to guess anyone other than you would use. Violent (employing unwanted physical force) Mob (a group of people acting outside the rule of law).

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There are no standards for those that proclaim “universal equality.” It is the entire motivation beneath the desire… Anti-objective Supremacy… Against The Standard.

      • What does that have to do with the violent mobs of liberals you claim are preventing you from homeschooling your kids (even though they were homeschooled apparently)?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Quote that “claim” or concede I made a point too precise for your comprehension?

        INHERENT to desire for “universal equality” IS THREAT of violent mob to ENFORCE a totalitarian integration.

      • When have violent liberal mobs prevented you from homeschooling your kids?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Whenever and wherever liberals demand “universal equality” is threat of mob violence FOR ALL that reject it.

      • So you are saying it has not happened yet?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It all depends on how you define things?

      • I use the standard definitions.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There is no standard definition in a liberated society such as the one we operate within… In fact, the feeling of a threat is all one needs to know for there to be a legitimate threat. Such is the nature of “universal equality.” But, if you are actually asking if a mob tried to violently beat me then I think you can look at that avatar and answer your question to a claim I never actually made. Then again, the liberal mob wouldn’t have any real idea whether I sent my kids to school or not. So the “mob” I speak of is more intimate, working in ways that are wholly subservient to the zeitgeist’s presumed monopoly on violence.

        But how could you understand when you are so very compliant and a liberal in good standing?

  2. thordaddy

    wS…

    Friendly reminder…

    White Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards* objective Supremacy.

    *Note that this “believes in and therefore strives towards” need not be related to, intimate with, dependent upon or otherwise connected to the black collective AT ALL.

  3. thordaddy

    wS…

    I have a Self and an Ego. They just are not “split.” They get along. They don’t try to undercut each other. They don’t variate and run “game” on each other. They are good brothers… Trustful of each other… Both recognizing their role as Brother Self and Brother Ego. They are in concert AND NOT IN NEED of yearly re-resolution.

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