Meta Comments

pic 8.20.16


I am not sure who else is reading these posts except myself and the white supremacist who has been obsessively commenting on my blog. I have now found myself in the situation where the subject of my blog posts concerns the comment section of the last blog post (which in turn concerned itself with the comment section of the post before that). The statistics WordPress provides me indicate that people from countries other than the United States are viewing my blog and I do get likes from people who are not the white supremacist so there are definitely other people reading. I cannot imagine why this is but if you (gentle reader) fall into this category please make a comment so I do not have to only read the comments made by the white supremacist which will make it easier to steer this blog in a much needed different direction.

The white supremacist has several clichéd catch phrases that he repeats over and over. Interestingly, this is a trait common to almost every conservative I have observed. I suspect this is a way of simplifying the world by labeling things and placing them into categories. Rush Limbaugh does this a lot for example. Among the white supremacist’s favorite catch phrases are “Radical Autonomy”, “Self-Annihilation” and “Objective Supremacy”. He has steadfastly refused to define either of these catch phrases in a satisfying manner. For example, he has accused me on many occasions of having committed the sins of Radical Autonomy and Self-Annihilation. As best I can tell one annihilates himself by being radically autonomous. I am not sure exactly what this means but I know that he connects these two terms with being a “liberal” (another one of these categories conservatives love to throw around). He has also accused me of “not believing in Objective Supremacy”. I have explained to him that I do not know the definition of “Objective Supremacy” and as such, I do not know whether I believe in it or not. He seems to take this response as a confirmation of his belief that I do not believe in Objective Supremacy.

The essential nature of these words is how they are employed in a circular manner to define each other. A liberal is radically autonomous and therefore a self-annihilator who does not believe in objective supremacy. He has made the argument that all definitions are circular within a “closed system” of thought. I agree that he is closed minded but I do not think that is what he means. I think what he means is that all definitions are ultimately circular because nothing can be defined without reference to something else. This is true, however he has not defined these terms in reference to other concepts except in one illogical instance.

When I pressed him for a definition of “Objective Supremacy” he provided a list of terms one of which included “God of the Bible.” I then asked him if Objective Supremacy means God why not just say God? He avoided answering this question which I found interesting. I have stated several times that I believe in God. So, if God means Objective Supremacy then by the transitive property I must also believe in Objective Supremacy. Accordingly, he either does not think that I believe in God (which he has not stated) or Objective Supremacy means something other than God. If so, he is logically contradicting himself. I have no doubt that he will deny this (see the inevitable comments below). I also have no doubt that the explanation he provides for his denial will raise more questions than it answers.

He has not made any comments in the past few days although I am pretty sure he has been regularly checking my blog because for a few days I have seen 1 U.S. visitor with a number of views. In a very real way it is a relief that he has not been commenting. The constant back and forth although on some level amusing is also draining and negative. I am confident neither one of us will ever appreciate the other’s viewpoint. But the exchange is ultimately not about proving the other wrong. As with all trolling it is about getting a reaction out of the other person and getting the last word in on the argument. If he does comment on this blog post I intend to press him to make clear the contradiction regarding his “definition” of Objective Supremacy. But if he does not comment on this blog so much the better.



Filed under Uncategorized

15 responses to “Meta Comments

  1. thordaddy


    Your “foreign” audience is largely European Catholics with ethnic animus for the “white race” in MRKA. In other words, your speechless spectators are anti-white Supremacists UNDER THE GUISE of “Roman Catholic” for the purpose of pressing “Marxist” ethos.

    THEY ARE NOT UP to tangle with a genuine (w)hite (S)upremacist.

    Instead, they “watch” and HOPE for *you.*

    • I don’t think you can know the religion of a person who views my blog. Also what the hell is MRKA?

      Also, please clarify the contradiction in your cliches. If “objective supremacy” equals God why not just use the term God? If it means something other than God please provide a clear definition.

      • thordaddy


        Do you or do you not recognize competing conceptions of “God?”

      • Define the conception of God as “objective supremacy”.

      • thordaddy


        objective Supremacy = Perfection = God of Bible = Faith in Christ = Christianity…

      • If objective supremacy = God then why not just use God? If it means something else what does it mean? You still have not answered this question.

      • thordaddy


        Then what is YOUR CONCEPT of God?

        Can you not yet “see” the connection between anti-(white) Supremacy and Nietzche’s claim that “God is dead?”

        You DO NOT KNOW God of the Bible as Perfection. You do not know God of the Bible as objective Supremacy. God of the Bible is “dead” to you ALTHOUGH you call yourself a “Roman Catholic.”

      • Once again you are wrong. I believe in God. I believe God is perfect. I simply do not know what your made up term “objective supremacy” means. Specifically, what purpose does your made up term “objective supremacy” serve if it means the same thing as God and perfection? If it means something other than God and perfection please define it.

      • thordaddy


        I used to state that the white male had the choice to either embrace “radical autonomy” or “strive towards (S)upremacy.”


        NO ONE knew what (S)upremacy meant OUTSIDE of the “racist subjugation of blacks.”

        NO ONE knew of (S)upremacy outside the LIBERAL CONCEPTION.

        “God is dead” = liberated State…

        When I felt the need to include “objective” so that the choice became the option to strive towards “objective (S)upremacy” thereby giving nod to the secular modernist’s bias towards “objectivity,” NOTHING CHANGED.

        Mass “white” male COULD STILL ONLY CONCEIVE the subjugation of “blacks” as the EXAMPLE of a white man striving towards “objective (S)upremacy.”


        objective Supremacy = (P)erfection…

        So the choice becomes the option to strive towards Perfection versus the self-annihilation that is the desire for “radical autonomy.”


        Nothing changed.

        EVEN for a “white” male to strive towards Perfection IS CONCEIVED OF AS THE subjugation of “blacks.”

        It’s a sickness, man. Liberals have it. But so do “Roman Catholics” and so many “Christians.” They REJECT (P)erfection. They REJECT THE CLAIM OF Christianity. And they reject this claim SNUGGLY HIDDEN inside the false front of anti-white Supremacy.

        And you are still in great denial.

      • The problem is that the terms you choose to use are inherently confusing. Most notably because they already have definitions that are not the same as the ones you want to give them . This is probably why people can’t follow you.

        For example, you seem to think the words “autonomy” and “supremacy” are antonyms when they are not.

  2. Alan Roebuck

    winstonscrooge, if the Father of Thor ever turns out to be an important person, then you’ve done us a service by engaging him in dialog and attempting to draw out his thoughts.

    It’s a thankless job, but somebody has to do it 🙂

    • thordaddy

      Mr. Roebuck…

      I’ve always admired your persistence “in faith alone” especially against those “Roman Catholics” who speak tolerance for the modern “church” outside of one side their mouth while slimultaneously rejecting the (t)ruth of modernism outside the other side of their mouth.

      In faith alone… Can you not embrace objective Supremacy… (P)erfection?

      • melizabeth52

        Isn’t that a bit assuming to label that an entire denomination does not have true faith in God? Isn’t it also unfair to assume that your point of view is the only one that counts and so everyone else is automatically wrong?

      • Don’t expect him to provide a coherent answer to your question.

    • Alan – Thank you for the moral support. If nothing else he has provided me with an endless amount of content to blog about. Let me ask you this… Can you clarify what he means by “objective supremacy”? Is this a term anyone else uses?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s