The Zero Sum Game of White Supremacist Love

KKKThis post is an analysis of the statements made in the comment sections of my previous two blog posts Deconstructing A Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity Part I and Part II by the self identified white supremacist Christian named Thordaddy. For the record I self identify as a Roman Catholic Christian but not as a white supremacist. The particular comments I would like to analyze in this post are the ones he made pertaining to love with specific emphasis on the Greatest Commandment which is to “[l]ove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and the Second Greatest Commandment, to “[l]ove thy neighbor as thy self.” (MT 22:36-40).

Thordaddy has repeatedly taken the position that the Second Greatest Commandment does not instruct a Christian to actually love his neighbor as a general proposition but rather to love his neighbor only to the extent that he loves himself. Accordingly, if a person does not love himself he is under no obligation to love his neighbor. He uses this as a license with the blessing of Christian dogma to hate his neighbor if he so chooses. I find this to be a rather unique and novel interpretation of the commandment chiefly because, it has been my experience that with the exception of Thordaddy alone, all Christians seem to agree that there is an underlying assumption imbedded within the Second Greatest Commandment that a person would naturally love himself.

Moreover, Thordaddy’s interpretation of the Greatest Commandment is logically inconsistent with his unique interpretation of the second great commandment. His interpretation of the Greatest Commandment is to give all love to God such that there is no love remaining for the self and less still for the neighbor. In other words he sees love as a zero sum game in which there is a finite amount of love to go around and if all of a person’s love goes to God there is none left for anyone else. I would argue that the plain meaning of the Greatest Commandment speaks to the intensity of love and not to the percentage of love available. Furthermore, Thordaddy’s interpretation of the Greatest Commandment eliminates the need for the Second Greatest Commandment. That is, it would not make sense for Christ to specifically emphasize the Second Greatest Commandment in the gospels if the Greatest Commandment effectively rendered it moot.

His unique interpretation of the Second Greatest Commandment is made more peculiar still by the fact that he is obsessed with the concept of the (presumably sinful) act of self-annihilation which he seems to take delight in accusing other people of committing. I asked him point blank if he loved himself and he repeatedly dodged this question which surprised me. I would think a person who feels so strongly that the act of self annihilation is so morally wrong would naturally love himself. I assume, however, that he does not want to admit to loving himself because by his own logic he would then be compelled by the Second Greatest Commandment to also love his neighbor. In this light, his reluctance to admit to loving himself seems to prove that even he is dubious of his unique interpretation.

The final piece to this puzzle involves progeny. He has repeatedly argued that the use of contraception is an act of self-annihilation because it prevents more of the self from coming into the world. I asked him why he would want to bring more of himself into the world if he did not love himself. To this question he made the surprising response, “because we love our children.” This would imply that he sees his children as distinct entities separate from himself. But if that were the case then how could he at the same time see children as “more of himself” brought into the world which are frustrated through the use of contraception and which is therefore labeled as self-annihilation?

Thordaddy makes one seemingly legitimate point that the commandment to love thy neighbor involves a reciprocity between self and neighbor. Let us overlook for the moment this is logically inconsistent with his asserted right to hate his neighbor because he does not love himself. This concept of reciprocity seems right in that one should not be compelled to love another person who is actively hostile to him just because that neighbor lives near him. In fact this belief would require a certain love of self as someone who did not love himself would not logically be concerned with others who did not love him. In fact, if he truly believed himself to be unlovable on some level he would agree with his neighbor who held the same feeling in his heart. However, assuming (as most people logically would) that a person did love himself in some capacity he would also want neighbors who were not actively hostile towards himself. For this reason, although Thordaddy choses not to admit it I believe he does actually love himself. He perhaps loves himself to an unhealthy degree in that he cannot love other people who do not resemble himself which is the definition of the racism that his self described white supremacy refers to.

Indeed it is a twisted web that Thordaddy has woven for himself. Put another way, Thordaddy has constructed a radically autonomous box of subjectivity in which he can sit and believe that what he subjectively feels to be true is in fact objectively true for everyone. The fact that no one else seems to believe (or has ever believed) what he believes particularly with respect to his interpretation of the Greatest and Second Greatest Commandments seems to confirm this.

Advertisements

68 Comments

Filed under Religion

68 responses to “The Zero Sum Game of White Supremacist Love

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    You are an awfully confused fellow at this point…

    BUT…

    AT LEAST “we” both agree to the deleterious effect of “radical autonomy.”

    In you, this ^^^ is making claims that I NEVER MADE. I have never claimed to love thy self, hate thy self, hate thy neighbor, etc.

    You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that you possess an infinite love equal to God so that you may infinitely love as a god?

    Yet, you DENY striving towards Perfection?

    You think because you psychologically force others to love the most strangest and suspicious amongst them all the while dubiously questioning their love to the coldest and most intimate THAT YOU are actually making a point for Roman Catholic Christianity…

    And I say you are…

    The point being HOW pathologically deracinated is your religion. So pathological that your grand interpretation of Roman Catholic Christianity is “self-annihilation for salvation.” Ergo, you must self-sacrifice at the Alter of the Other.

    • thordaddy

      Edit ^^^

      You think because you psychologically force others to love the most strangest and suspicious amongst them all the while dubiously questioning their love to the [CLOSEST] and most intimate THAT YOU are actually making a point for Roman Catholic Christianity…

    • I think it is you who are confused. When did I say that I love infinitely like a God? When have I denied striving for perfection except to ask you what you mean by this phrase? When have I forced anyone to love anyone? When did I claim to speak on behalf of Roman Catholicism? When have I ever endorsed the phrase “self-annihilation for salvation”? I don’t even know what that means.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Can you state explicitly what you are arguing for or against or what EXACTLY YOU BELIEVE Roman Catholicism tells you about reality?

      • That’s a pretty broad question. I would say Roman Catholicism has taught me that God is love and love of neighbor (not racism) are two central tenants of Christianity.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        But when YOU get to define “love” and “racism” then what’s this really mean to any particular individual outside you?

        You are making the claim that white Supremacy and Christianity are incompatible…

        BUT…

        Are unable to “see” that this incompatibility is DUE you stunted LIBERAL conception of both “things.” So “white supremacy” is the evil failure to acknowledge “universal equality” and Christianity JUST IS evidence for “universal equality.”

        You are wrong on both accounts, ABSOLUTELY.

      • Assuming your description of my beliefs is correct (which for the record it is not) on what authority do you base your feeling that I am wrong?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You are wrong in the idea of Perfection EQUALING “universal equality.” And so you are wrong in the idea that faith in Christ equals faith in “universal equality.” Faith in Christ is the belief that Perfection is above and about any and all “equality” to speak of.

      • To my knowledge I have never used the phrase “universal equality” and therefore you are wrong that I ever equated it to your as yet undefined term of perfection. These are terms you use not I.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Radical autonomy eschews explicitness when implication does a better job. So I use these words and phrases explicitly in place of the implications to your actual beliefs.

      • I have no idea what you are talking about.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You don’t use the word “equality” to define your belief in Christianity? Your Roman Catholicism does not teach you about the truth of “equality?” You do not know that equality = universal equality in effect? So you do not understand that when I define your belief as a belief in “universal equality” that this is equivalent to your belief in “equality?”

        Then…

        You are radically autonomous.

      • To my knowledge Roman Catholicism does not teach that everything is equal to everything else. Again I don’t know what you are talking about.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… Your belief is that “we” are to love ALL equally including the Self. And this is your basic interpretation of Roman Catholicism. I say “it” is just rank liberal ideology… A primitive and regression belief in total redundancy.

      • Wouldn’t it be easier if you stopped calling yourself a Christian? Then you would not have to reconcile your doctrine of bigotry with the fact that your perfect man was “fagotty talking” (your words not mine) Semite.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I do not call myself a Christian. I call myself a white Supremacist. And on the issue of the existence of The Perfect Man… There is no schism between white Supremacist and Christian. The only chasm is on the issue of salvation. My side choosing healthy regeneration and your side choosing self-annihilation. You call yours “Christianity.” I actually vehemently disagree as a white Supremacist and believer in The Perfect Man that yours represents the path to a heavenly everlasting afterlife. I’ll assert any religion calling for an all-out self-annihilation is false and that a religion, by definition, must regenerate with healthy regard. A belief in pathological deracination disqualifies the individual adherent from a healthy regeneration.

      • Neither I nor my religion calls for self annihilation so again I don’t know what you are talking about.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Of course not, as such explicitness would be a self-evident cry of pathology. So “it” is all in the implications of your interpretations.

      • I’m satisfied that you acknowledge the fact that your unique beliefs are in no way a reflection of or related to Christianity.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It’s not clear what your “Christian” belief actually is???

      • I’ll tell you what it is not…

        My Christian belief is not that a perfect man once existed who’s race was not perfect and his fagotty talk was not perfect but somehow he was perfect despite these imperfections and because he was perfect I can ignore his teaching and hate my neighbor.

        If you desire a positive description of my Christian beliefs you might find the Nicean Creed to be informative (although somehow I suspect you will not).

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You’re not making any sense*.

        Your CLAIM is STILL the incompatibility of a being a Christian and a white man who strives towards Perfection. You STILL CLAIM that Christianity, rather than explicitly calling for such a seeking, in fact, prohibits such a life-long endeavor. And all you do in order to defend this take of yours is cite a liberal interpretation of the Bible wherever you can. I can now understand why early Protestant Americans were extremely weary of a Catholic “leadership.”

        * Under what belief system says The Perfect Man can only exist if his race was perfect and because a race is not perfect then no perfect man can exist?

      • In what way do you believe Jesus was perfect if not his race and his teachings?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Obviously, His will…

        Perfect will = perfect man..

        Perfect race = perfect race…

        Perfect teachings = speaker of Absolute Truth…

        But nothing in Christianity speaks to the empirical perfection of the Semite race. On the contrary, there is much talk of its desire for anti-Supremacy and the degeneracy this inevitably follows.

      • Ok, so according to your point of view, perfection is achieved by having a perfect will. Is this correct?

      • thordaddy

        Edit ^^^

        But nothing in Christianity speaks to the empirical perfection of the Semite race. On the contrary, there is much talk of its desire for anti-Supremacy and the degeneracy [THAT] inevitably follows.

      • You are the one claiming that Jesus was the perfect man. Usually when people use the term “perfect” they mean that what they describe is wholly perfect, not this part is perfect and this part is not. Such a state sounds more like imperfection to me.

        However, a simple remedy to the glaring logical flaw in your thinking could be to agree that all races are equally perfect. Then it would not be a problem that your perfect man belongs to an imperfect race.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I’m pretty sure Roman Catholics still believe Christ to be sinless… Flawless… Without imperfection… Perfect.

        So perfect…

        That He JUST IS the empirical evidence for God.

        Where you disagree, you do so as a radical self-annihilator.

        Remember The First Law of Perfection?

      • I agree he is perfect, race and all.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Ok… And the implication of His race being perfect = Master Race…

        “We” have come full circle.

      • His race is perfect in that race is irrelevant to perfection.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That makes no sense.

      • It is your incompatible feelings regarding racism and the Perfect Man that make no sense.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Learning of The Perfect Man through racism, ie., through the father, makes absolute sense. Knowing of “racism” ONLY AS liberal ideology is inexplicable at this point.

      • But he is not of your race and of a race you have described as imperfect. How do you reconcile that with you racism?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You don’t have a consistent definition of “racism” in which to make an answer to your question comprehensible.

      • Just use the standard dictionary definition.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So Roman Catholicism also teaches you that the Jews are the perfect race because Christ was perfect and all other races are imperfect, but this isn’t standard issue liberal “racism?”

        Please clarify WHAT YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE?

      • All humanity is the human race. We are all descendants from Adam. Your concept of race is an illusion.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So (R)ace is really real, but (r)ace is just an illusion AND Catholicism teaches YOU this?

      • We are all children of God regardless of what “race” you feel people belong to.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Does Catholicism teach this ^^^ and what of those who reject such teaching to the point of deliberately destroying God’s “children?” What of those who preach self-annihilation to God’s “children?” What do YOU do with them? Just let them be?

      • I know of no one who preaches your red herring “self annihilation.”

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It seems in your crazy “Catholic” world one lambasts those who wish to separate from the self-annihilators and cradles and coddles those who would annihilate God’s “children?”

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Huh? How do you think a “jihadist” attains seventy-two virgins for eternal smashings?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What do you think teaching “homosexuality” as “equal” is to the individual other than teaching the normalcy of self-annihilation?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        What is BLM other than public self-annihilation?

      • I don’t know what you mean by self annihilation. You said that self annihilation does not mean racial annihilation nor does it mean the annihilation of the soul. If everyone is mortal what exactly is a person annihilating? If someone commits a self annihilating act (as you say) what exactly is being annihilated?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        It’s quite clear now that your “Christianity” and liberal ideology are so intimately intertwined as to be indistinguishable in your mind. Ergo, you simply cannot conceive a Christianity* that is not just the liberal ideology of total “equality.”

        And you REALLY DO NOT KNOW what self-annihilation means just as you cannot articulate the meaning of contraception beyond a type of “technology.”

        *The Christianity I learned was of an ultimately indestructible soul that could nonetheless be damned by a person’s own choosing. In other words, one can try to annihilate his soul only to be damned for all eternity in return.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The annihilation of the soul is impossible per Christian doctrine. But the human desire to annihlalte the soul CLEARLY EXIST in many individuals.

        Deracination is a PARTICULAR type of self-annihilation… A racial self-annihilation… An annihilation of one’s self rooted in a hatred for his father(s). Ergo, anti-racism is self-annihilation on a broad scale. And its particular effect is dutifully ignored by those who are pathologically deracinated.

      • I think this is probably the source of your confusion. Because you are obsessed with race you view everything through that lens. This is the only way you are capable of seeing the world. As such it would make sense that you cannot understand seeing the world from a different perspective and naturally view that perspective as pathological.

        Just because I don’t view the world through a racially obsessive lens does not mean that I hate my father.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You have exactly backwards.

        The OBSESSSION is amongst the anti-racists partly due a delusion of widespread “racism.”

        The OBSESSION is of an anti-racist world by any means necessary.

        The OBSESSION is amongst those so full of hate for the highest standard set before them.

        Barely anyone YOU KNOW thinks obsessively through the lense of ABSOLUTE racism and before this exchange, you would have probably never spoken REAL racism to anyone?

        What are you so afraid of?

      • You sound a little paranoid. The only time I ever think about race is when I exchange comments with you. The only reason I exchange comments with you is because you keep commenting on my blog. In other words you brought your racism to me uninvited. As far as I am concerned you can keep your racism to yourself and you will have no problem from me.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You’ve just reiterated everything I said.

        YOU are deracinated. The “racial” aspect of your Self is dead and nonexistent. And to the extent you give “race” any credence is simply the concession to a human “race.”

        BUT…

        Your main problems are a) your inability to distinguish “racism” from racism and b) the conflation of “racism” with white Supremacy.

        And in each case, “equality” is your diabolical mechanism.

      • Explain to me what you feel are the differences between “racism”, racism and white supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        “Racism” as YOU CONCEIVE “it” is an evil ideological belief system where certain whites believe themselves to be superior TO BLACKS because they are white.

        Racism, as ABSOLUTELY CONCEIVED, is simply an immersion (spiritual, intellectual, physical) into one’s father(s), ie., his race.

        “white supremacy” is YOU LITERALLY UNABLE TO WRITE white (S)upremacy and acknowledging how dangerous it is for you as a liberal to give credence to objective (S)upremacy… How dangerous it is for YOU to concede as a Roman Catholic that you worship Perfection… And the absurdity that manifests in your denial that white men MAY WORSHIP Perfection collectively and such a collective endeavor means something very profound.

        You simply refuse to go down this road. And you use perverted and liberated interpretations of Christianity to stunt your progression.

      • I might give credence to objective supremacy if I knew what you meant by the term. For some reason you refuse to define it and then throw a tantrum when I don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Lol… “Tantrum?” Someone is reverting to an old “self” that he assiduously attempted to annihilate.

        And again…

        You LITERALLY REFUSE to write objective (S)upremacy while failing to concede that mentioning (s)upremacy JUST MUST infer knowledge of (S)upremacy…

        And…

        I have defined objective Supremacy over and over again.

        Objective Supremacy equals Perfection.

        Must I now define (P)erfection for you AS THOUGH you possessed no conception of “it” at all… As though you were RADICALLY AUTONOMOUS?

      • Your definitions are vague and employ circular logic. I guess it suits your purposes to keep your belief system veiled in fog because it make it easier to defend?

        We seem to be going in circles at this point. Unless you have something new to contribute to the discussion I’d like to move on to something more interesting.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you cannot define Perfection nor conceive the God of the Bible as Perfection, absolutely? And you cannot define The Perfect Man as He who wills all right and self-evident empirical proof of the Truth of the God of the Bible?

        So “circular logic” IS ALL YOU GET under the stunted reality of Liberalism and granting its materialist claim.

      • You are the one presenting your unique position. I am trying to understand what YOU mean by the terms you use. Moreover, you have a history of creating novel definitions that do not match the standard dictionary definitions most people agree to use. Accordingly, the burden of defining these terms is with you.

  2. thordaddy

    wS…

    The problem with asking if i “love thy self” is that it reeks of faggotry. Grown men do not talk about loving themselves. That’s faggot talk. But, because you are radically (sexually) autonomous then you cannot actually perceive this (it — faggot talk — had been normalized in you). It is also why you spent so much effort attempting to cut the Second Commandment in half and nixing the “as” as though the final interpretation were not a call to stability and reciprocity amongst men in close prolixity as opposed to the faggotty notion that one MUST “love thy self” and equally “love thy neighbor” (but still hate your father, mother and children to become a “disciple”).

  3. thordaddy

    wS…

    The zero sum game belongs to those who desire infinite “things” within a finite playing field.

    I GRANT an infinite “playing field” and pay heed to truly finite things such a man’s capacity to love in relation to objective Supremacy.

    It’s not clear at all what you actually believe?

  4. thordaddy

    wS…

    When you can prove to loving the most littlest thing THEN I might consider your claim to love all things equally.

    But…

    Probably not.

  5. thordaddy

    wS…

    You’re trying to stuff The Greatest Commandments under the stultifying ideology of “universal equality” instead of seriously critiquing the ideology of “universal equality” IN THE CONTEXT of The Greatest Commandments.

  6. thordaddy

    wS…

    One’s children are both UNIQUE and a “part” of their parents. One has the capacity to love both their child’s uniqueness to this world AND that part of the child that seems a reflection of one’s self. None of this NEED then beckon a call to answer the question of whether one “loves thy self.” Nor does it stop one from rejecting all thoughts and acts of self-annihilation.

    At some point you will “see” that it is this last part that really gets your goat. And it is your demand to love all equally fully aware that man has FINITE capacity to truly love (even BEFORE he attempts to submit ALL that capacity to God) that manifests an utter hopelessness and despair leading to the annihilation of the Self.

  7. Pingback: Attempting to Understand the Alt Right Part III | Winston Scrooge

  8. Pingback: Message Boards and Comment Sections | 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