Exploring the Motivation Behind the Accusation of “Self Annihilation”

pic stackIn this post I would like to discuss Thordaddy’s oft repeated sentiment that I am a “self annihilator.” I believe he accuses me of being a self annihilator because I have admitted that my wife and I use contraception. To clarify, we are both in our forties, have been married for 15 years and have had two children. I suppose this accusation annoys me a little because there is an intense energy of judgment attached to it. He is a self-identified white supremacist. As such I understand that to him, it is no insignificant act when a fellow member of the white race commits an act of self annihilation (such as the use of contraception) because such an act impacts the white race at large. In other words, the use of contraception by any member of the white race works to prevent other potential members of the white race from coming into being and accordingly makes the white race weaker relative to other races with higher birth rates.

The first problem with his “logic” is that in order to have an emotional investment (i.e. to feel) that the concept of racial preservation is important one must accept the proposition that a race is a real thing. This may sound like splitting hairs but I wonder where the white race begins and ends in his mind. Is it confined to Germany, Scandinavia, France and the British Islands? Does it include Eastern Europe or Spain? How far east does it go? How far south does it go? The point is that the divisions between the races (if they are even real distinctions) are not clear cut. Accordingly, if they are not clear cut perhaps the distinctions are merely gradations of the same thing and not distinctions at all.

The second problem I have with his “logic” is that people can use contraception and procreate. Accordingly the use of contraception is not necessarily self-annihilating in outcome. As I have stated, my wife and I use contraception and have procreated. To my knowledge we have not annihilated ourselves to the extent that we can do anything to keep ourselves alive through the process of passing on our genes to the next generation. Moreover, even if one of my acts (i.e., the use of contraception) is self-annihilating in nature according to his definition I also commit many other acts that are not self-annihilating in nature. I eat well, I exercise, I take care of my aged father, I provide for my family, I work, I write and create, I worship etc. Does he honestly think my use of contraception erases all of these other non self-annihilating acts such that in my entirety I should be labeled a “self-annihilator”?

The main problem with his accusation of “self-annihilation” is that it is both counterintuitive and lacks logical consistency. Apparently “self-annihilation” does not mean the actual annihilation of the self. This is evident by the fact that I have committed self annihilating acts and yet I still exist and I have procreated twice to boot. Nor does self annihilation mean “racial annihilation” as the following interchange indicates.

WS : When you say self annihilation you mean racial annihilation correct?

TD : No… When I write of self-annihilation, I am referencing the totality of annihilating all aspects of the self including the spiritual, intellectual and physical self. When I speak of racial self-annihilation, I am speaking of the annihilation of one’s racial self WHICH may or may not have spiritual, intellectual and physical relevance to he who annihilates his racial being?[sic]

It would make sense if he meant “racial annihilation” by the term “self annihilation” because the argument could certainly be made that my wife’s and my use of contraception is in fact preventing more white people from coming into being. In this manner In that I can see the logic behind saying that the use of contraception equates to an act of racial annihilation. However, he clearly denied that this was what he meant which leaves me scratching my head.

Nor does “self annihilation” mean the annihilation of the soul as the interchange below indicates.

WS : According to your belief system do these acts equate to the death of the soul?

TD : No… But they could render the soul interned in a state of genuine radical autonomy, ie., Hell DUE a real desire to annihilate one’s own being…

So then what are we left with? Perhaps the interchange below can shed light on Thordaddy’s obscure thought process.

WS : [H]ow [then] can a person annihilate themselves? …

TD : A person can annihilate his Self with acts of self-annihilations. The most obvious acts of self-annihilation being suicide and abortion, but more subtle acts being homosexuality, miscegenation and contraception…

In other words, if I read him correctly (and that is never a sure bet with Thordaddy) to be labeled a “self annihilator” one must only commit the acts that Thordaddy has predetermined to be self annihilating. It is the acts themselves that affix the offender with the label regardless of whether these acts are counterbalanced by non self-annihilating acts and regardless of whether the commission of these acts result in an actual annihilation of the self.

As with all things Thordaddy it necessarily involves a circuitous journey from point A to point B through an ocean of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo and ill defined terminology. His concept of “self annihilation” is no different in this regard. That said I do believe a couple of points can be distilled from the chaos.

The first point is that Thordaddy sees “self-annihilation” (whatever it truly is) as a morally negative or sinful act. This has no basis in Christianity as far as I can tell even though he often cloaks his use of “self annihilation” in Christian terms. He employs the accusation of “self annihilation” in an aggressive way that immediately puts the accused on the defensive. Because of this the question as to whether “self annihilation” as he defines it is in fact a morally negative or sinful act gets lost in the shuffle. In other words, it is not a given that “self annihilation” as he sees it is actually bad or wrong even though he discusses it as if that question has already been decided.

Second, Thordaddy connects “self annihilation” with his belief in white supremacy. As such, he connects this term to his racial identity. He therefore sees himself justified to judge the members of his race who are not acting or thinking as he acts or thinks. In other words, he sees these “self annihilators” as betraying the white race team which then gives him the moral justification to judge them. This is the “intellectual” veneer with which he covers his judgment. However, I suspect it is merely the excuse he is looking for to pry into and gossip about other people’s private affairs which I would not be surprised to learn is his true underlying motivation.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

68 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

68 responses to “Exploring the Motivation Behind the Accusation of “Self Annihilation”

  1. thordaddy

    wS…

    Radical autonomy always means dig deeper…

    • So you are admitting you are radically autonomous regarding your unique “Christian” beliefs?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… I am saying that your radical autonomy only grows more radical. You only dig a deeper hole and double down on your liberalism.

      • I’m not the one who has created my own personal form of Christianity in order to justify my racial feelings. It is you who is radically autonomous.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I have no personal form of Christianity.

        What does that even mean?

      • For example, your belief that because Christ was perfect you are entitled to ignore his teachings about love of neighbor. To my knowledge you are the only one who has ever held this belief.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You are absolutely wrong once again. In fact, you are the one defining a “neighbor” as a de facto “enemy” who must be loved to one’s own lethal detriment. It’s almost as IF you do not actually choose your neighbor?

        Think how absurd a command to “love thy neighbor” would be if the “neighbor” was actually the Devil?

        Your interpretation is liberated bunk.

      • Neighbor is defined quite clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We’ve been over this before. Just because someone is of a different ethnicity (e.g. Jew, Samaritan, white or black) does not necessarily make them an enemy.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The “neighbor” defined in the parable is the Good Samaritan and not the individual he helps in a neighborly fashion.

        But…

        This speaks nothing to the ideological imposition of hostile forces right next door and the insane idea that one must treat such hostile force as a “neighbor.”

      • Perhaps we can compromise that the default setting should not be set to hostile?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I have already stated that the “neighbor” in “love thy neighbor” CANNOT BE hostile unless the parable of the Good Samaritan ring false. YOU are TO BE THE “neighbor” of neighborly character just as the Good Samaritan defines the “good neighbor” to a needful stranger.

        BUT…

        This ^^^ IS WHOLLY SEPARATE from a liberal ideology of FORCED INTEGRATION of hostile aliens RIGHT NEXT DOOR… And you feigning such a monstrosity as a neighborhood.

        And now for your next act of radical autonomy, you will write to assert that you have neither witnessed nor heard of such a liberal ideology of “forced integration…” That you just do not “see” this phenomenon anywhere.

      • How would not witnessing something be an act of “radical autonomy”? This is yet another one of your catch phrases you have refused to define.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The “radical autonomy” is, in you, knowingly or unknowingly, claiming to not “see” the distinction made above between the Christian notion of “neighbor” and the disastrous liberal ideology of ENFORCED INTEGRATION to the detriment of REAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

      • In what way is that either radical or autonomous?

  2. thordaddy

    wS…

    IF *you* do not believe in “race” THEN you WILL NOT PERCEIVE your own racial annihilation…

    BUT…

    From the perspective of white Supremacy, YOU HAVE ALREADY killed and buried your racial Self by the very fact that you DENY the realness of race… Or question its realness… Or just concede “we” ALL belong to the human “race.”

    • Just as it is your obsession with race that creates the concept of a racial annihilation where it does not really exist in reality.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So how come you CLAIMED “we” are all apart of the human “race?”

        Race = father…

        But…

        “Racism” equals “evil.”

        Evil father = anti-racism.

        You will get there someday and hopefully break free.

      • thordaddy

        Edit ^^^

        So how come you CLAIMED “we” are all [A PART] of the human “race?”

      • In other words your view of race is limited to “whiteness”. If your concept of race was properly extended to the entire human race you would not have worry about racial annihilation.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        No… I do not take a “limited” view of “race” AT ALL…

        In fact, I take “race” for all that “it” really is whereas you relegate “it” to a meaningless aspect of Creation manifesting a self-evident absurdity.

  3. thordaddy

    wS…

    Can you not distinguish between the real human ability to destroy one’s soul (not possible per Christian doctrine) and the DESIRE to do such a thing? If one desired to destroy their own soul or the souls of others, “we” as wS COULD SAY such a deviant has committed spiritual annihilation.

    You lack imagination. You are STUNTED BY “equality” and you cannot even perceive this fact.

    • Why would anyone want to destroy their soul?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        They hate life… Hate God… Hate Perfection…

      • I don’t know of anyone who fits that description.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        And?

      • and your point is irrelevant because it does not apply to any real people.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you ARE DENYING God-haters? You are denying those who choose self-annihilation? You are denying those who hate good things with a passion?

        Sounds as if you live in Utopia?

        I’ll call “it” radical autonomy instead.

      • Give me an example of someone you feel fits this description of yours.

      • thordaddy

        You… And under the guise of Christianity.

      • I do not hate God. Nor am I a self annihilator. Can you give me an actual example of a person who fits your made up description?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I gave you my best answer. Denying it and then demanding another answer just as easily deniable seems rather pointless.

        But importantly, I just couldn’t give you an answer anyways as you have already denied the claim outright. Smells like dogma.

      • I know for a fact that your first example is false.

        You also claim to know what is in other people’s hearts and minds when you can only know for certain the content of your own.

        You also claim to know the true nature of God and reality when you have no more access to that information than anyone else. Sounds like a load of arrogant bullshit to me.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Now your pressing “universal equality” upon me?

        You don’t what I know nor have you clarified your metaphysical baseline.

      • I know you are wrong about me and based on what you have written here you clearly presume to know the mind of God and the minds of others. You are extremely judgmental and voyeuristically concerned with the private lives of other people.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Are you inferring that knowing other minds is evil or wrong? Or, are you inferring that one can know no other mind outside his own?

      • I’m saying that you presume to know something that actually do not know.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So you presume TO KNOW that I do not know that The Perfect God exists and you hate Him?

        And how do you know this?

      • Because I know that I do not hate God. You are absolutely wrong about that.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I said, “The Perfect God.”

      • I do not hate the perfect God.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I said, “The Perfect God” which is not equal to “the perfect God” unless capital letters just have no meaning to you?

      • Explain what you feel the difference is between “perfect God” and “Perfect God”.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Perhaps I will after you write with true conviction, “I love The Perfect God.”

      • How can I write that with conviction if I don’t know what you mean by it?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I think I’ve made my point as best as you will reveal.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Answer me this…

        Is “I love the perfect God” equal to “I love The Perfect God?”

        If so, does this mean capital letters have no inherent meaning to the language “we” utilize to communicate?

        Furthermore, explain how you can attest to the truth of the first claim and then claim incomprehensible the second assertion?

        I say that your Christian “God” is not really real to you or else He would be The Perfect God and not JUST “the perfect God.”

      • The fact that you refuse to articulate the difference suggests to me that there is no real difference in your mind.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I just did articulate the difference…

        My way is the PROPER manner in which to linguistically address the God of the Bible and yours is the IMPROPER way to address Him indicating a division between (p)erfection and God. Ergo, you are claiming Perfection equals perfection and thus God equals god.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        If God does not equal god THEN Perfect does not equal perfect, does it?

        Why do you refuse to acknowledge the (T)he (P)erfect God and His objective (S)upremacy as the God of the Bible is that which you worship with absolute love?

      • thordaddy

        Edit ^^^

        Why do you refuse to acknowledge the (T)he (P)erfect God and His objective (S)upremacy as the God of the Bible [and] that which you worship with absolute love?

      • I have made no such refusal. Why are you quibbling? I thought we were discussing how you presume incorrectly to know the mind of God and neighbor?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        There is no quibble…

        You do not love The Perfect God nor do you worship objective Supremacy and you will refuse to rebut either claim in clearly articulated written form.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        And I never claim to know the mind of God. I only claimed Him “Perfect.”

      • I worship God. I believe God is perfect. But I have never seen anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else that your way of addressing God is the only proper way.

      • You claim to know what is perfect

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I never claimed my way was the only way to properly address God. I only claimed your way was improper. I would actually suggest inadequate be a better descriptor.

        But the debate actually revolves around the existence of objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, AND whether white men may strive towards objective Supremacy AS white Supremacists?

        I say, “of course” and you claim such pursuit evil per Christian doctrine… A Supremacist doctrine.

        This is why you WILL NOT acknowledge (S)upremacy, but will readily acknowledge (s)upremacy. And you are an author to boot. You are oblivious to this cog-dis?

      • I address God the way He is addressed in the Bible. Seems perfectly proper and adequate to me despite your quibbling.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        I claim to know that The Perfect Man is He who wills all right. And one needs no extra special IQ to know such a self-evident truth. Yet, one does need a special skill for denial to reject such self-evident truth.

      • Who do you feel has denied this?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        How come you cannot actually write (P)erfect? Or, (S)upremacy?

        I think the answer is self-evident especially considering your habit for authoring.

      • I don’t see any grammatical reason to do so.

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        So god = God?

      • “God” is capitalized when it functions as a name because in that case it is a proper noun. The word “god” without a capital “G” is used to refer to the concept of a god.

  4. thordaddy

    wS…

    The DREAM is a separation from the self-annihilators.

    On its face, the desire is unassailable.

    ONLY A DIABOLICALLY DEGENERATE MIND would argue otherwise…

    But the hopelessly ignorant may just dispute those with a death wish actually exist?

    If they do, they are clearly not fit for leading a civilization.

  5. Alex

    I say 2 kids is enough. Self annihalating is having 20 kids and not being able to support them or yourself; come on guys you have to look at it from another angle as well.

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