The Logic of a White Supremacist

ssAt some point I have to ask myself if there is any value in continuing this conversation with the self proclaimed “white Supremacist.” I say this because it is now evident that his world view is not indicative of some larger movement. His mindset and belief system is really just his own (and perhaps an Australian blogger he referenced to have been influenced by). In spite of his solipsism he has hijacked the labels “white Supremacist” and “Christian” but truly he is neither in the traditional senses of these labels. I say this only because he specifically denies being a part of a community of fellow white Supremacists or fellow Christians who share his beliefs. As such, what I am really investigating when I debate him is the content of his mind and nothing else. No larger truths are revealed in this process; at least no larger truths concerning white Supremacy or Christianity.

Another aspect of our relationship I must acknowledge is that he has given me a wealth of material to write about which has significantly increased the viewership of my blog. I suppose I should be grateful for his assistance in helping me to get my message out. Ironically, he started commenting on my blog for the specific purpose of expressing his displeasure with my message.

But interacting with him is a negative business. I have been over this before. It does not uplift my spirit in anyway. On the contrary, it drags me down to his egocentric level. It is criticism, comparison, degradation and shame. It has a painful and depressing quality to it. Of course I am bringing this up to also acknowledge that this dialog must at some point come to an end because ultimately it serves no positive purpose. It is akin to internet trolling or addiction in that it provides a moment of entertainment value but is actually void of higher purpose value. It is almost as if Thordaddy (the white Supremacist’s handle) is a reincarnation of Admiralbill from Sistertrek.

It must end at some point. I am thinking Lent might be a good time to cut the chord. The great thing about this sparing match taking place on my blog is that I can end it at any time simply by deleting his comments. I did not have this luxury on Sistertrek with Admiralbill. As such I was always in the position of hoping he would not respond so that I could maintain my possession of the last word.

Before I cut the chord there is a little more to discuss. Notably, he recently wrote a comment wherein he laid out a five point logical proof of his belief system:.

  1. The Perfect Man [is an] empirical fact.
  2. No such “thing” as “universal equality” [exists].
  3. Ergo, [the] white man strives towards Supremacy.
  4. We call such white man a “white Supremacist”.
  5. Blacks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 1-4 beyond simply … showing an enemy face.

His first assertion is “The Perfect Man [is] empirical fact.” By this he means that there is documented evidence of eyewitness accounts testifying that Jesus Christ existed. This documentation is the New Testament. He refers to Jesus as the “Perfect Man” but it is not at all clear in what sense he sees Jesus as perfect. I suspect he does not believe Jesus was racially perfect in that he was ethnically a Semite. Perhaps he means that Jesus had a perfect mindset. If true, I would argue that Thordaddy does not seek to emulate this mindset. I suspect he would argue that my interpretation of scripture is corrupted by modern, liberal influences and that Jesus in fact advocated white Supremacy which I suppose would make him prejudice against himself.

His second assertion is that there is “[n]o such ‘thing’ as ‘universal equality’. By this he means that humans are not inherently equal. The implication is that I or liberals in general believe that everyone is equal. I am not sure why he holds on to this assertion so tightly but it seems very important to his belief system. People are clearly not equal. Some are short and some are tall. Some are strong and some are weak. Some are rich and some are poor. I do believe in equality before the law. I am not sure if this is what he is referring to in terms of “universal equality” but I suspect not. He once said something to the effect that equality before the law works well on paper but not when managed by “radical autonomists.” I think the stronger argument is that equality before the law would not work well when managed by racists.

His third and fourth assertions are the “white man strives towards Supremacy” and that “[w]e call such white man a ‘white Supremacist’.” He has repeatedly argued that when he uses the word “supremacy” he actually means “perfection” and not “superiority over other races.” In other words, the fact that he seems to hate other races should not in anyway be considered as it relates to his racial superiority. This seems like he is not willing to fully own his racism which in turn suggests there is an undercurrent of shame at work. This has been my point all along. It is a point that seems to get under his skin which in turn suggests there is some truth to it.

His final assertion is that “Blacks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 1-4 beyond simply agreeing or showing an enemy face.” But I think “Blacks” have everything to do with his first four points. He seems to want to hate “Blacks” but justify this hatred with a pseudo-spiritual / philosophical system. His denial runs strong and deep. I know that I will never convince him that he is wrong and he will never convince me that he is right even though this is the mode in which we converse with each other. So really there is no purpose in continuing this dialog which is the point that started this piece off in the first place. There is an entertaining quality to it, true. But there is also a negative, ego saturated quality to it as well. It is this negative quality that will ultimately motivate me to put an end to it.

Advertisements

144 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

144 responses to “The Logic of a White Supremacist

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    I guess I’ll give you your last chance to bear false witness. I do appreciate your inquiries though.

  2. thordaddy

    In other words, the fact that he seems to hate other races should not in anyway be considered as it relates to his racial superiority. This seems like he is not willing to fully own his racism which in turn suggests there is an undercurrent of shame at work.

    He seems to want to hate “Blacks” but justify this hatred with a pseudo-spiritual / philosophical system.

    I hate evil.

    I hate niggers.

    And I am NATURALLY suspicious of the “black” collective.

    AND ON ANOTHER LEVEL

    I desire objective Supremacy as a white man (RACIAL FACT). Ergo, I am a white Christian JUST AS YOU CLAIM to be.

    BUT… This means WE are also white Supremacists… White men who believe in objective Supremacy… Perfection… The Perfect Man… Jesus Christ… HE WHO WILLED ALL RIGHT…

    THIS ^^^ IS THE REAL DESIRE… You don’t have “it” and you HIDE under silly, LEARNED, liberationist arguments.

    YOU DENY being a white Supremacist…

    So YOU DENY BEING A Christian.

    So you are “useful idiot” to zeitgeist…

    • What does objective supremacy mean? You have never defined this term specifically.

      • thordaddy

        Objective Supremacy (secular-speak) = Perfection (absolute) = The Perfect Man (relative) = Jesus Christ (empirical fact) = falsification of “universal equality” (Liberalism)…

      • What specifically do you do to be perfect?

      • thordaddy

        Think… That “it” is even possible.

      • Couldn’t any person of any race do that?

      • thordaddy

        Sure… What’s your point? Other than to ask whether some race “will do it” more fervently and faithfully than others?

      • How is believing perfection is possible equal to being perfect? That seems like a pretty low bar.

      • thordaddy

        It’s not a “low bar” if you demand “equality.” And it is the highest bar if you demand “universal equality.”

      • I don’t understand what that means. Why can’t you clearly explain what you mean by perfection?

      • thordaddy

        IF I must tell you what Perfection is or what “perfect” is — and I have on numerous occasions and will do so again in short order — THEN you are telling me that you have no intuitive concept of Perfection and/or perfect and must subsequently be mired in a state of radical autonomy and ultimately highly susceptible to dogma.

        In secular “game” parlance, the surest path to victory is executing all the right moves… Uh… Being perfect

        This was the LIFE OF Christ… “Executing all the right moves” TO SAVE YOU… He is truly victorious for your sake (hint hint).

        Furthermore, His Father IS Perfection. Truly Omnipotent (more powerful than any radically autonomous gods). OBJECTIVE SUPREMACY Revealed as OUR operating paradigm (thus extant) through His Perfect Son as EMPiRICAL FACT… A MODEL OF PERFECT THOUGHT AND ACTION… Up for scientific scrutiny.

        ALL THIS IS STANDARD Christianity… The Christian Assertion.

        But there are those “Christians” who believe that the “perfect” thought and action is simply adhering to “equality dogma” and those white Christians who believe the will to do all right is the basic desire. We call the former liberal “Christians” and the latter white Supremacists.

        The “black” collective is only relevant if made relevant and even then for liberal “Christian” the relevance of the “black” collective is ideologically self-imposed. For the white Supremacist, there are either black Supremacists or there are not. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY? All OTHERS are some degree of “black” liberationist AND thus some degree of anti-white Supremacy… AGAINST WHITE MAN EXECUTING ALL THE RIGHT MOVES… Against white man with a will to do all right… Against the white man desiring to be perfect

        Are you this clueless about the current state of affairs?

        Are you not aware of Trump and his bid for the Presidency?

        Where are great Christian white men getting the spotlight for anything other than concession to “equality dogma?”

      • So being perfect means to execute the right moves. In the Christian conception of reality how could executing the right moves be different than following the teachings of Christ?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Being perfect = executing ALL the Right moves = doing everything right from beginning to end…

        This is what the Christian CLAIMS of Jesus Christ…

        And this CLAIM is REVELATION of His Perfect Father…

        THE DEBATE is whether SOME RACE OF MEN takes these CLAIMS more seriously than others…

        “Universal equality” SAYS no such race of men exists who in fact take these claims more seriously than any other race of men…

        BUT…

        This claim of the “equalist” IS ROOTED in the absurd and stunted idea that such is in fact the case because “races of men” do not actually exist…

        Even while…

        Out of the other side of their mouth is the relentless insistence of “racism” all about.

      • If races of men don’t actually exist then a belief system based upon race would be foolish, no?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Sure… But even MORE FOOLISH is going around screaming “racism” WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING that race doesn’t exist. Fortunately, for those that believe races of men exist and that racism is actually the endeavor to define these races of men such that some race of men strive towards Supremacy and some race of men “strive” towards “equality” for instance, “we” are not actually stunted by YOUR cognitive dissonance.

      • Excuse me. You are the one who has come to my blog preaching a Christianity of racism.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Wrong…

        I AGREE with you on the CLAIM of Christianity…

        And DISAGREE with you over the REALITY OF race…

        And there is no cognitive dissonance between the claim of Christianity and the facts of race that delegitimate white Supremacy, RATHER, a cognitive dissonance is HIDDEN within in the claim made by liberal “Christians” ASSERTING the meaninglessness of the facts of race.

      • What is my claim on Christianity that you agree with?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        We both agree that The Perfect Man exists as empirical fact… The Christian Assertion.

      • Do you agree that his teachings as portrayed in the New Testament provide instructions on how to be perfect?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s the NATURE of The Perfect Man… He is THE MODEL… The Instruction to being perfect.

        This DOES NOT mean Christ made race irrelevant or meaningless or inconsequential.

        It ONLY means “we” embrace Christ’s instruction within the racial context and not interpret Christ’s instruction to escape the racially-created context by way of self-annihilation.

      • So explain to me again how you brush aside the command to love neighbor within this context?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Not only have I not “brushed aside” anything you’ve asked, I’ve answered every inquiry over and over again in order for you to attempt at any crack in the coherency.

        The command is “love thy neighbor AS THY SELF.” So the order is clear… One JUDGES the degree to which one loves thy self AND IS THEN COMMANDED to love thy neighbor in commensurate fashion. So there is no racial conflict… No DEMAND to love a predator next door… No mandate to love the radical “black” collective. None whatsoever. YOUR compassion towards the “other” MAKES YOU THE “neighbor” to the “other” and does not make the “other” a neighbor to me.

      • You are the only one in the 2000 year history of Christianity who is ever interpreted love thy neighbor as permission to be a racist.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Well, that’s wonderful… But since that is not what I am actually attempting to do WHETHER “we” define “racism” in your liberally-influenced manner or whether it is simply defined as race + ism = immersive study into things racial THEN what is your point other than to obfuscate.

        LOVE THY FATHER with ALL thy Heart…

        Love thy neighbor AS thy LOVE thy self…

        Cannot you not conceptualize the RIGHT OUTCOME in one properly willing these commands?

        WHY does it look to you like deracinating yourself?

        Why is it telling you that “blacks” MUST BE MY NEIGHBOR by FORCE OF LAW?

        What is in there that says mass jihadist immigration into Europe is “rightfully” necessary?

        I was willing to grant to you that is says NOTHING racial… And that “we” need not interpret it racially in any manner. That “we” determine our neighbors through our own compassion towards the other. This is just and sensible.

      • I never said the 2nd Great Commandment means that “Blacks” must be your neighbor by force of law.

        So that aside it looks like we have some common ground here.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You never say a lot of things… And there is a reason for this. It maximizes your autonomy.

        But no need to stop at “blacks.”

        To be against forced integration is the principle… The radical “black” collective is just the most potent wedge by which the mad integrationists ply their degradation.

        The reality is that if one hates thy self then he will most likely choose “neighbors” that hate thy self…

        But, forcing upon ME a hateful “neighbor” DOES NOT MEAN I now hate thy self. It does not mean I love thy self either. It only means that mad liberationists are in power and creating chaos to which I must forcefully act..

      • I like to focus on one issue at a time so that our discussion remains focused and does not become muddled. I am a lawyer by training. That is why I also want the terms we discuss to be well defined so that I know we are talking about the same thing.

        This has nothing to do with maintaining “autonomy”. Which, by the way, is another term you refuse to define.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        SO WHAT if I define my terms? In NO WAY must you abide… This is the AIM of maximizing your autonomy. Certainly as a lawyer, you understand “autonomy” because YOU KNOW ABOUT “getting away with a crime.” Getting away with a crime EQUALS radical autonomy. A lot of lawyers PROPHIT (prophet + profit) in maximizing the autonomy of criminals to a radical extent… Such that they lead a “life of crime” IN CONJUNCTION with their criminal clients.

      • Autonomy is a term that requires an object to be autonomous from. If you believe I am attempting to become autonomous from God then you must explain in what way I am making this attempt. You cannot hide behind vagaries.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        By perverting, subverting and LIBERATING His Logos as a lawyer is BOUND to do.

      • Admiralbill hated me being a lawyer too. I see a lot of similarities in the two of you.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Well…. I’m no admiral bill… Only making what is now an obvious link to your lawyering. And your lawyering is less offensive than your claim of being a deracinated “Christian.”

      • Lawyers speak with specificity and logic. We also back up what we say with authority. Why would you find that offensive?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Lol… Certainly you jest?

  3. What about lawyering do you find offensive?

  4. I really have no idea what you mean. Are we back to the thing where you are claiming that I am pretending to not understand you vague and incoherent statements?

    • thordaddy

      wS…

      You DO NOT KNOW that some lawyers profit by fighting for criminals to walk free? And this reality is “offensive?” But more offensive are those lawyers who PRETEND to not know this reality.

      • According to our system of justice the government must prove its case. Accordingly criminal defense attorneys play a crucial and noble role.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Lol… Does the “system” talk to you? How “noble” would you be if you lawyered a white Supremacist free?

      • The American legal system is more important than white supremacy as such I would feel noble indeed to play my part.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I wholeheartedly disagree… There isn’t even a real legal system outside of genuine white Supremacy.

      • It makes perfect sense to me that a racist would not believe in a system that strives towards equal justice.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Define “racist,” “equal justice” and please tell me how this “system” that you are so fond of can exist and even come into “being” without white men of the past putting their minds on objective Supremacy?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Imagine how radically different would be your lawyering in an all white society? No kudos for setting guilty “blacks” free and a real moral dilemma in seeking to set guilty whites free. You NEED FORCED INTEGRATION for your own PERSONAL well-being.

      • But we do not live in an all white society. America has always been a diverse culture and it draws its strength from this diversity.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You’re not even real.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I do appreciate the opportunity to expound all at one space and in a short time frame. I guess we’ll “see” how long the blog stays up?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You’re like a liberal cliche now…

        “Diversity is our strength…”

        Who’s strength? Tell me exactly how “diversity” made YOU stronger? Tell me what “diversity” has done other than provide you a “profession?”

      • The USA is the strongest country by far in terms of military power. We also have the largest economy. If diversity is weakness as you say how could this be possible?

      • thordaddy

        And no… America wasn’t always a “diverse culture.” That’s nonsense. But I digress… What’s this have to do with those who believe unity is strength and seek separation so as to resume a regenerate existence?

      • When was America not a diverse culture?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Can a “thing” be born of diversity? What does it even mean to say America was a creation of “diverse culture?”

      • Black people and white people are capable procreating despite what you might have read in Mein Kampf.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What a meaningless, stupid retort…

        PS. I’ve never read the “book” that you radical liberationists cling to justify any means necessary.

      • Well if you do you’ll see he talks about the same stuff you are talking about. I understand your need to distance yourself from Hitler but what he did is probably what would happen anytime a white Supremacist holds the reins of power.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Didn’t we already have the discussion over Hitler? He was an anti-white SUPREMACIST and helped usher “it” in for your convenience. You need not make a single, cogent argument for what you actually believe.

      • So you are saying you don’t like it when someone affixes a label to you that you don’t feel is appropriate?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… I’m saying your “argument” is stupid and learned like a Pavlonian dog. That, in fact, you don’t even know what you are actually arguing for or against.

      • Hitler was a white Supremacist just like you. If he had been successful I am pretty sure you would not be trying to distance yourself from him.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… In fact, Hitler was a “German” anti-Supremacist… A socialist anti-Christian… Nothing white Supremacist about him. And honestly, I don’t need to embrace or distance myself from Hilter any more than I need to embrace or distance myself from Christ to make any argument for white Supremacy. I voluntarily allow “us” to stay mired in your stunted reality. I cannot expect you to be able to operate above and outside that stunted reality. But, you have already conceded to believing in objective Supremacy and a rejecting of “universal equality” and forced integration. So now, it’s time for real world application.

      • I do not know what you mean by objective supremacy and universal equality because you have never defined what you mean by those terms. Also, I do not recall saying I was against forced integration in public schools.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Last time or “we” just mutually recognize your conception retardation.

        Objective Supremacy = Perfection…

        “Universal equality” = Total redundancy…

        And one rejects forced integration IN PRINCIPLE or he does not reject “it” at all…. A caveat that states a rejection of forced integration EXCEPT for public school where one can brainwash the masses into forced integration is just the type of weaseling lawyering one should expect from a liberated lawyer.

      • “Objective Supremacy = Perfection” does not clarify anything because you have never explained what you mean by perfection. Is is acting morally? Is it following the law?

        “Universal equality = total redundancy” doesn’t clarify anything either. I just don’t know what you mean here.

        Forced integration in public schools was established through the rule of law under the principle that the spending of public money on education should not favor one race over another.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you are telling me that you cannot conceptualize either Perfection or “total redundancy?”

        And of course, your interpretation of “forced integration” would be much easier to swallow if you just stated that the “decision” was simply judicial fiat. I mean seriously, what exactly makes sense about equally distributing tax monies (unequally obtained) so that no race gets more “education” than any other race thereby wasting trillions of dollars on fantasy beliefs of “universal equality…” On fantasies of all people and races being the exact same… Totally redundant?

      • I am saying that I do not know what YOU mean by the terms “perfection” and “total redundancy”. If we are going to have a meaningful conversation about these terms we need to be speaking the same language.

        We live in a country where all citizens are equal before the law. I suspect this is not what you mean by “universal equality”.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How about YOU DEFINE “Perfection” and “total redundancy” and we’ll work from there?

        And I cannot believe you actually still believe that tripe about being “equal under the law?” What’s that have to do with affirmative action education and forced integration?

      • You are the one using these terms. I assume you know what you mean when you say them. It is very curious that you refuse to define them.

        Equality under the law is the standard upon which the US legal system is built. That is the goal. The Supreme Court ruled that separate schools for black and white children was unconstitutional in 1954.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Lol… I have defined those terms over and over again… At some point “we” just come to the conclusion that YOU can go no farther conceptually.

        As a Christian, you know Perfection as the Creator Father… He who wills all right… You also know perfection as the The Perfect Man… Creator Father’s perfect son… Jesus Christ… He who wills all right.

        Then there is perfection as it relates to degradation and general entropy… Perfectiion as it relates to acts of self-annihilation SO THAT in rejecting all acts of self-annihilation is desire for perfection.

        If you desired to BE PERFECT then you would desire to possess and execute all the right thoughts and actions.

        Total redundancy TAKES ALL THIS AWAY… There is NO REDUNDANCY in Perfection.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Separate schools “unconstitutional?” Lol… And 62 years to “see” the colossal blunder…. And yet WE MUST still operate under the delusion as a matter of “constitution.”

      • Why do you feel it was a colossal blunder?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Think of your lawyering instinct to have me repeat myself over and over again thinking that I do not noticeably perceive your anti-Supremacy… And then to have you contemplate what it means to be an anti-Supremacist lawyer… That you do not, in fact, desire PERFECT justice.

      • If you defined your terms clearly you would not be asked to provide clear definitions. (Your last definition of perfection was a little better by the way).

        In terms of “supremacy” (your term) I just don’t look at the world in terms of race on every issue. I don’t see how that means I do not desire justice.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How about you define Perfection and “total redundancy” by whatever terms that you can conjure up so that “we” can “see” where you stand?

        Infinite regress would be another conceptualizing of “total redundancy.”

      • I would use the standard dictionary definitions.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So a standard dictionary is a superior source to the Bible?

      • I don’t think the terms “total redundancy” and “infinite regress” are in the Bible. As for “perfection” do you feel the Bible asserts a definition that is incompatible with the standard dictionary definition?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How long will it take for you to “see” that YOU MAY SEPARATE DESIRE for Perfection AND “hatred” for “blacks” QUITE EASILY IF you want DESIRE TO DO SO?

        YOU DO NOT DESIRE TO DO SO…

        And you do not desire that others may be able to.

        That’s a mental pathology.

      • I have never once considered “desire for perfection” and “hatred of blacks” to be either separated or connected. I don’t even know what you mean by desire for perfection anyway since you do not adhere to the dictionary definition and you refuse to tell me your made up definition. I also don’t spend any time caring about what you do or do not do. I know you really want me to care about that so it fits with your theoretical construct but I just don’t. Please don’t project your mental pathology onto me.

      • thordaddy

        And this pathological mindset is called Liberal ideology AND NOT Christianity.

      • I think we both know who is being pathological here. (I’ll give you a hint… It’s you.)

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Then you should desire a real separation? Buttjew don’t.

      • A separation between what and what?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        A separation of antithetical mindsets… Should conflicting minds be separated when no reconciliation is possible? And what do “we” call the phenomenon where one forcefully integrates contradictory belief towards dysfunctional ends?

      • Separate yourself please. I would suggest moving away from Southern California to accomplish this.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Where to go and not be under the assault of liberal madness? Any suggestions?

        Just out of curiosity, do you encourage your children to date “blacks?” Or, do you just tell them to love whatever they want to love?

      • There are other less ethnically diverse and less liberal areas of the country than Southern California. Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming … Look it up on your computer.

        In answer to your second question if the “black” in question was a nice boy and treated my daughter well I would have no problem her dating him.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Wow… Some of you liberal “Christians” are really that far gone… I just can’t imagine how Christianity got you there?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        “I have never once considered “desire for perfection” and “hatred of blacks” to be either separated or connected.”

        DOES NOT JIBE WITH THIS…

        “His final assertion is that ‘Blacks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 1-4 beyond simply agreeing or showing an enemy face.’ But I think “Blacks” have everything to do with his first four points.”

      • You are confusing my description of my point of view with my description of your point of view.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No, I’m not confusing anything… You believe “blacks” to have originated “white supremacy,” but you are only correct in the relative sense… In the absolute sense, it’s an absurd claim. And even where you are correct, you are pig
        ignorant as to motivations and desires for such “creation.”

      • I don’t believe “‘blacks’ to have originated ‘white supremacy'”. I don’t even know what that means. It’s just another one of your gibberish phrases that you expect everyone else to understand but only makes sense in your radically autonomous mind.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        “His final assertion is that ‘Blacks HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 1-4 beyond simply agreeing or showing an enemy face.’ But I think “Blacks” have everything to do with his first four points.”

        Explain to me how “blacks” “have everything to do” with whites striving towards objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection?

      • Your point #3 begins with the word “Ergo” which I assume you know means “therefor”. By using this word you are saying that “the white man strives for supremacy” logically follows from the prior point “there is no … universal equality.” It logically follows that your striving for white supremacy logically follows from your belief that the white race is superior to other races. I assume you mostly fixate on “blacks” as the other race based on much of your previous rhetoric.

  5. Since Christianity teaches me to love my neighbor (defined by their behavior and not by race) there is no conflict.

    • thordaddy

      wS…

      BUT THE POINT is that you ONLY “love” your “neighbor” IF he IS LIBERAL… Er, NOT AT existential cross-hairs with you… And “seeing” that you perceive no actual existential crisis then you will “love” only a “neighbor” lacking that same perception. BUT FOR THE “black” collective this does not exist. The “black” collective IS DEFINED BY ITS “existential crisis,” ie., its “genocide.” So you are deluded in part about the nature of reality and what certain actions mean and predicting their inevitable consequences.

      A second point is that there is no longer a place in MRKA where one may operate outside “liberalism.” If there is, where is it? Where can one operate without recourse as a white Supremacist? Where exactly? Not even here in this “little,” “insignificant” spot in the virtual world can wS operate without recourse.

      • Wrong. I have both liberal and conservative neighbors and everyone gets along because we treat each other with respect. I suspect your general lack of respect for anyone who does not share your beliefs (which is everyone apparently) probably explains a great deal.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How could one possibly respect the belief of the self-annihilator ON ACCOUNT of its mass consensual embrace?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What are your “conservative” friends conserving?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        By the way, my social skills are second to none. This is all very formulaic now. Memetically-formulaic. But you have brought it all together in one place and at one time. I appreciate this… Your desire to know seems genuine at least.

      • Is that why you are separated from your kids?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I’m separated from my children for a host of reasons, but reaping what one sows must always take precedence, no?

      • So you are saying your social skills have nothing to do with the situation?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I am saying that the social realm is distinct from the family realm and my social skills are not relevant to my family concerns. Regardless, you have never laid witness to my social skills and so your assessment is empirically vapid. I could just as easily assert that your togetherness with your children is simply the sin of male submissiveness and there is evidence of you showing no willingness to steer your family right in that very display of submissiveness?

      • You have no knowledge of how I raise my family just like you have no knowledge that I am radically autonomous (if that even means anything). The fact that you obsessively post on my blog with you strange accusations tells me a great deal about your social skills.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No, it actually doesn’t. I would say a bouncer of 20 years JUST PLAIN NEEDS the best social skills. All a lawyer must do is convincingly lie on behalf of a criminal with half-truths which is very anti-social.

      • Do you think all lawyers practice criminal law?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… But that doesn’t speak to the question as to why all lawyers fail to acknowledge those of their profession who profit from a “life of crime.”

      • Lawyers are disbarred for ethical violations all the time. Most of the lawyers I have practiced with do not fit with your misperception of the profession.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There is no misperception… There simply exists NO PUBLIC ADMONISHING OF criminal lawyers BY THE larger lawyering mass.

      • Well that’s just not true. But I would expect someone with a facile knowledge of the law to know what the function of a criminal defense lawyer actually is.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        “Facile knowledge of the law?” What can that even mean? Laws are to make right. Anything outside of that is lawless.

      • Right, but you clearly don’t understand criminal procedure, the rules of evidence and the over arching philosophy behind our sophisticated legal system. Despite this fact, you presume to speak with authority on the subject just like you do with Christianity.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Where exactly was that made clear? Can you copy/paste a particular quote? And what’s this have to do with lawyers who profit by setting criminals free? Are you claiming this does not happen AND is not INHERENT to the profession? Are you claiming to practice innocent until proven guilty? Where is there evidence for that in our discussions?

      • You made the claim that all lawyers lie and profit by “setting criminals free.” Neither claim is true but probably appears true to people who don’t know anything about the legal system.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… I didn’t actually make that claim… I said all lawyers lie about the criminal class of lawyers within their midst… And that there is no public admonishment of those who profit by setting criminals free. And you still have not acknowledged this reality.

      • Criminal defense lawyers do not set criminals free. They do represent their client’s best interests which they are ethically bound to do.

        Now, you say they lie when doing this. What do you base this overly broad assertion upon?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Quit being so sloppy with your words… Criminal defense lawyers get paid to aid criminals avoid prison… And some DO THIS KNOWINGLY… They MUST KNOW THIS… Hiding behind stated notions of ethics, procedure, due process, etc. IS JUST THE KIND OF RHETORIC that a pacified, sheep-like mass desire to hear so as to assume all is well in the “legal system.”

        BUT… “We” know lawyers are rabid liberals… And they sure aren’t genuine white Supremacists!!!

        And you still have not acknowledged the lawyers that lead a “life of crime.” So anecdotally, you are bolstering my point.

      • On the contrary I am being precise with my language. You are being sloppy. But I think this is because you simply don’t understand how the criminal justice system works. The purpose of the criminal defense attorney is to force the prosecution to prove their case. So yes, if police use unconstitutional means to acquire evidence or get a confession it is the criminal defense attorney’s job to make these arguments on behalf of his client.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Think how disingenuous is your claim?

        IT IS YOU that does not know that OUR “legal system” is rooted in white Supremacy… White men SEEKING Perfection… White men desiring objective Supremacy… In this context, as “matter of law.” The first law of which is white man strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection. Your attempt to immerse “us” in all things “blacks” by way of lawyering is a despicable endeavor… And then to hide under a claimed understanding of “our” legal system is doubly despicable.

        And you still refuse to acknowledge that cabal of lawyers profiting from a “life of crime.” But this is the price to be paid when one trades in his individual autonomy for the brute force of a mob collective.

      • Lol. I guess I missed the White Supremacy class in law school.

        You don’t understand that it is the purpose of a criminal defense attorney to defend their clients and that they are allowed to be paid for their services?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        If you are FORCED to serve clients, well?

        And what is “our” legal system based upon… What is the fundamental claim of the “legal system?” What does “it” seek to realize if not a perfected state?

      • You don’t seem to understand that criminal defense attorneys are necessary to the system of criminal justice in America. Trust me, they are.

        Now, you ask what is our legal system based upon? I think the two best places to find the answer that seems to be alluding you is in the Declaration of Independence:

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        And the preamble to the U.S. Constitution:

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        I hope this clears up your confusion.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Criminal justice lawyers are necessary to our legal system to the extent that they protect innocent individuals from a corrupted State… To the extent that criminal justice lawyer profits to set a criminal client free due the myriad of missteps attributable to their legal peers in the system, they ARE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

        The foundation of the white Supremacist’s legal system is “get it right.”

        The “problem” here is not that actual criminal lawyers are inherent to criminal justice lawyering, but that you STILL REFUSE to acknowledge their existence.

      • That does not make any sense. When have I refused to acknowledge the existence of criminal defense attorneys? Haven’t they been the topic of discussion?

    • thordaddy

      God doesn’t tell us to love everything or anything nor did Jesus Christ teach such self-evident LUNACY.

      REALITY “tells” us to love the right things or face a self-annihilation for “loving” the wrong things.

      Christianity is in strict accordance to reality in the “necessity” of loving all the right “things” if one desires a regenerate existence.

      • Scripture tells quite plainly that the 2nd Great (not Greatest) Commandment is to love thy neighbor. Neighbor is defined by Jesus himself in the parable of the GS as a person who shows compassion regardless of their ethnic background.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        NO… It is “love thy neighbor AS thy love thy self.”

        The command IS IN THE RELATIONSHIP…

        YOU love yourself to this degree WHICH you are then commanded to love your neighbor to an equal degree. This IS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON ONE’S suicidal tendencies. Ergo, if you hate yourself THEN you will choose “neighbors” who hate themselves. Likewise, if you are of healthy mind, you will choose neighbors of healthy mind. None of which speaks to the parable of the Good Samaritan where one shows THY SELF to be neighborly through a show of compassion to one in true need. One need not bring any racial aspect to the teaching. And none of this speaks to FORCED INTEGRATION by way of mob threat.

      • Integration through legal channels is by definition not mob enforced.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How is judicial fiat by legal means? Come on, man… Pretend like you are conversing with a sentient being? Do you believe in the right of self-governing by those who can self-govern? Or does your lawyering negate the possibility for self-beneficial reasons?

      • Judicial review of laws has been an important part of the American legal system since the case of Marbury v. Maddison in the early 1800s. This particular matter was litigated by legal scholars on both sides for many years all the way to the Supreme Court upon which sits 9 of the greatest legal scholars of their time. This was no arbitrary decision and was securely based in constitutional law.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The only law a liberationist understands is “constant change,” ie., radical autonomy. Ergo, the NEXT radical step for the absolute autonomist is (white) Supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You understand that laws exist TO BE OVERTURNED in a society that deems itself liberal.

  6. In what way does my response tell you that I am not a Christian?

  7. Pingback: Similarities between Trolls and Terrorists | Winston Scrooge

  8. Pingback: How to Get More Traffic to Your Blog | Winston Scrooge

  9. Pingback: Exploring Intellectual Conservatism: Essentialism v. Nominalism | Winston Scrooge

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