Spiral Dynamics

Over the past two months Leo Gura of Actualized.org has been creating videos explaining the theory of Spiral Dynamics developed by Don Edward Beck and Clare Graves. Spiral Dynamics is a developmental, psychological model designed to map the historical evolution of both people and the societies of which the people are constituent parts.

There are eight stages to the spiral, each with its own set of characteristics. The first and most primitive stage is Beige characterized primarily through individual survival with little to no cooperation with other people. Modern homeless people are an example of the stage Beige mindset. The second stage is Purple characterized by primitive cooperation among people typically at the family or clan level. Cavemen are an example. The third stage is Red where stronger individuals within the relatively egalitarian Purple start to assert their dominance over the weaker members. Viking civilization and tribal societies are examples. The forth stage is Blue where we see authoritarian, communal societal structures begin to assert themselves in order to reign in the excesses of stage Red. The Roman Empire and Medieval Europe are examples of the stage Blue mindset. The fifth stage is Orange characterized by a rejection of the stiff Blue societal structures with a greater emphasis on individual achievement, science and materialism. Modern, liberal, capitalistic societies are examples. The sixth stage is Green characterized by a rejection of the excesses of Orange and a return to spirituality and communal responsibilities. Modern hippies and left-liberals are examples. The seventh stage is Yellow characterized by a rejection of the excesses and Green’s failure to solve societal problems with an emphasis on systems thinking and individual achievement. Albert Einstein is considered to be an example of a stage Yellow thinker. The final stage is Turquoise characterized by a shift from the individual Yellow to a more holistic world view. Very few people and certainly no societies have achieved stage Turquoise at present.

One important observation the spiral articulates is that humans and the societies they create evolve alternating from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the community in a cyclical manner. From individualistic Beige to communal Purple to individualistic Red to communal Blue and so on. In a sense (according to this model), the development of mankind’s psychology is based on the confrontation between these two opposing forces. When one is taken to an extreme the other rises to counterbalance it.

Of interest to this blog is how well the system of Spiral Dynamics describes stage Blue. Specifically, the Orthosphere and Zippy Catholic (two blogs that I have been reading over the past couple of years) come to mind as two good articulations of the Stage Blue mindset. As described by the Spiral Dynamics Integral website, the general characteristics of Stage Blue thought are:

  • Values and norms, discipline, duty, regularity, and feelings of honor and guilt
  • WE versus They Thinking
  • Searching for meaning, order, routine and security
  • Self-control, discipline and loyalty to the doctrine and the rules
  • Absolute, literal and definite
  • Morality
  • Hierarchy, obedience and willing to sacrifice to a greater cause
  • Control and structures of authorities
  • Obedience based on a sense of duty and a sense of guilt
  • Organize, manage, concretize and structure
  • Values effort and responsibility and shows discipline
  • Rules, rights and duties are significant

This description seems to describe almost perfectly the mode of thought expressed on these blogs both by their contributors and the people who comment there. I suspect these people would reject the notion of Spiral Dynamics entirely. This would fit perfectly within the model. Because (according to the model) they see the world in essentialist terms and by definition reject nominalism they cannot see the world as evolving purposefully or in a healthy way. I suspect they would dismiss Spiral Dynamics without much consideration as a “liberal” idea. If the world is changing it must be for the worse because stage Blue (not that they would embrace the term “Stage Blue”) was the best possible stage. Anything, departing from stage Blue is ugly and it is appropriate to judge those who question stage Blue sensibilities and enforce stage Blue sensibilities through shame and guilt. This emphasis of “obedience based on a sense of duty and a sense of guilt” explains a great deal as to how my interactions with the people who comment and contribute to the Orthosphere and Zippy Catholic have played out.

Advertisements

166 Comments

Filed under Political Philosophy, Psychology

166 responses to “Spiral Dynamics

  1. thordaddy

    One important observation the spiral articulates is that humans and the societies they create evolve alternating from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the community in a cyclical manner. — scrooge

    Which is to say “we” progress by r/evolution.

    Which is ABSURD when contrasted by evolving per a DESIRE FOR (P)erfection.

    Imagine you have a choice BECAUSE…

    Free will.

    You could choose evolution by r/evolution or evolution by (P)erfection?

    Paradoxically, it’s a “no-brainer” question.

    And will readily expose the human self-annihilator.

    • I think the spiral demonstrates a continuous striving for perfection. I’m not sure what you mean by “progress by r/evolution” but even your oft repeated term “striving for perfection” suggests that a change must be made from an imperfect state to a perfect state. How is that different than “progress by r/evolution”?

      • thordaddy

        Progress by r/evolution is “progress” by “going in circles” such that “we” must always return to an exact same starting point. Obviously, a “spiral” breaks the “circle.” And in breaking the “circle,” no r/evolution is possible. Instead, “progress” is by desire for (P)erfection. To see a “spiral” versus a “circle” is to imply desire for (P)erfection.

        The active effect of a “spiral” meta-physical structure is the understanding that “we” cannot return to a familiar starting point by going in circles. Ergo, there is no progress in r/evolution BECAUSE r/evolution is a mass delusion.

      • If (and this is a big if) I understand you correctly, you are agreeing that spiral dynamics articulates what you refer to as striving for perfection. Moreover, this breaks with the contributors of the Orthosphere who seem to want to return to a starting point rather than progress forward to perfection.

      • thordaddy

        Remember…

        The First Law of (P)erfection:

        No (R)edundancy.

      • thordaddy

        No…

        What I’m saying is that in seeing “spiral dynamics” in the material meta-scheme, the authors are intimating their desire for (S)upremacy CONTRA “progress” by r/evolution, ie, “progress” by “going in circles.”

        A Roman (C)atholic is, essentially, a white (S)upremacist. Ergo, the original Roman (C)atholic is anti-r/evolutionary, ie., against “going around in circles.” An original Roman (C)atholic, ie., a white (S)upremacist, was a racially-incarnated Ascensionist.

        Now, we have roaming (c)atholics… Deracinatd (u)niversalists going around in circles giving rise to the illusion of “progress” by perpetual r/evolution.

        But clearly, to Orthopheans, there is no progress because r/evolution cannot bring Ascension and most people just don’t desire Ascension no matter how strongly they reject r/evolution.

        What I would say an Orthosphereans is to desire is a return to a genuinely expressed Roman (C)atholic ritual that has given way to a redundant habituation of deracinated equalism, ie., given way to r/evolution.

      • I think the only solution is to move forward. Turning back does not seem to be a viable option. I also don’t see the spiral as redundant but rather striving for perfection as you say.

      • thordaddy

        Striving for (p)erfection is not equivalent to striving towards (P)erfection. The conceptual collapse of these two realities makes for a “universal equality” that does not exist.

        The point of “spiral dynamics” as mechanism of evolution is that in “it” is the author’s realization of (P)erfection.

        What a proponent of “spiral dynamics” must concede is his desire for objective (S)upremacy CONTRA “universal equality.”

        In other words…

        Spiral dynamics OR “universal equality” because there cannot be both, simultaneously.

      • What are the rules by which you employ quotation marks, capital and lowercase letters and parentheses in your secret language?

      • thordaddy

        There are no rules where a language has been liberated and all interlocutors subconsciouly submit. So to the extent to which I use quotes, parentheses and uppercase versus lowercase it is to the degree in which the medium of communication ASSUMES “radical autonomy” amongst all participants.

        In other words, where a radical autonomist attempts to EQUATE “striving for perfection” to “striving towards Perfection” under the necessary auspice of “universal equality,” I must employ these valid linguistic mechanisms to bring said radical back into the realm of objective (S)upremacy.

      • I would think a person like yourself who claims to strive for perfection would want to employ a language that is understandable to the person to whom he is attempting to communicate. If we are to assume that the purpose of language is to effectively convey an idea from one person to another, wouldn’t a more perfect language accomplish this goal more effectively?

      • thordaddy

        Let me be more concrete on how some of these “things” arose.

        As for the quotes, it all started with “gay man,” as in, liberated journalists who print “gay man” WITHOUT QUOTES as though such an entity was in fact REAL.

        This, gay “man” was the counter-move bringing the reader back into the realm of objective (S)upremacy where “homosexual men” do not exist and cannot exist. Ergo, when I communicate the idea of “universal equality” to a radical autonomist, HE NEEDS THE QUOTES in order to understand that I am merely discussing a nonexistent “thing” that he, the radical autonomist, nonetheless, acts as though is real. Without quotes, he would assume I was a fellow radical.

        Developing separately was the use of upper versus lowercase and the parentheses utilized to trigger their actionable acknowledgment. In the beginning, I astutely recognized that neither the hard right, rabid left or any modest Christians in between could know objective (S)upremacy. Concurrently, I noticed that the journalists NEVER wrote “white (S)upremacy” and nearly always printed “white (s)upremacy.” Taken in conjunction with the added context of ideological “equality” as dominate meme and the phenomenon of anti-(C)apitalism (read: national socialism) was self-evident. In short, I capitalize a critical series of words for the very purpose of rejecting the anti-(S)upremacist assumptions of the radical autonomist and deracinated fascist order {{{zhe}}} seeks to impose.

      • Ok, so the “quotes” indicate that you believe the idea within the quotes is a false idea. Do you not believe gay or homosexual men to be real because a man cannot be gay or homosexual? How do you account for their existence then?

      • thordaddy

        I thought of an easier way to explain this. White America USED TO assume the reality of God. Modern “american” assumes no such assumption. Yet, a white American remnant MUST STILL communicate in English with the modern “american.” But! He cannot use strict English where his interlocutors only know a liberated English.

        So the very linguistic mechanisms I’ve utilized are those that bring the above reality to the forefront of the dialogue between believers and deniers.

        Modern “americans,” being radical egalitarians, have liberated the English language by collapsing it such that (S)upremacy equals (s)upremacy for one salient example.

        And because the fundamental issue is desire for (S)upremacy then it is paramount that a white (S)upremacist ALWAYS FORCE the radical autonomist to play on the metaphysical field SO AS TO transcend his physical r/evolution.

        The “radical autonomy” of a modern “american” using English and assuming no Creator God is self-evident.

        The English language is ORGANICALLY DERIVED from the assumption of Creator God. Ergo, effective communication in the English language assumes belief in Creator God.

        Capitals, parentheses and quotes make this case in the face of those attempting to collapse the English language.

      • Right, but if you make up a new secret form of English and don’t tell anyone the grammatical rules that govern this secret form of English and then refuse to explain the grammatical rules in a coherent manner, how do you expect to communicate? Why would you choose to communicate in this arguably secret form of communication? Perhaps communication is not your objective.

        By the way, I have observed others on the Orthosphere make this observation as well (Kristor for example) and he doesn’t seem to be a “radical autonomist” (not that I truly understand what you mean by that term either).

      • thordaddy

        “Homosexual men” do not exist. Homosexual exists. Homosexual male exists. But certainly, no man who is sexually averse to females and sexually attracted to males exists…

        UNLESS…

        Your definition of “man” is a male who is sexually attracted to boys and men and sexually averse to girls and women?

        Come on, scrooge.

        Are you this radical?

        And if so, I have to use the quotes around those entities that you claim exist and I claim do not. Homosexual “man” is just one instance.

      • Why create a new and secret definition of man when there is already a standard definition with which we can all use to communicate coherently? To wit:

        man
        noun, plural men.
        1. an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
        2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex…
        4. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind…

        Source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/man?s=t

      • thordaddy

        Because that definition has been liberated from (F)ather, ie., Creator God, by manner of disassociating “man” from heterosexuality and thus fatherhood. In other words, the above definition of “man” IS EQUAL TO the definition of a “homosexual.”

      • No it isn’t. It is a definition that includes all biological men which includes both heterosexual and homosexual men. This does not mean that heterosexual men and homosexual men are the same thing.

      • thordaddy

        No…. The liberated definition implies sexual orientation as meaningless in defining “man.” Thus, the definition is sexually liberated from (F)ather.

        BUT…

        This is the secondary dilemma.

        The primary dilemma is HOW DO two individuals who possess antithetical first assumptions COMMUNICATE using the same language?

        And the answer is that they cannot, really.

        And so it is r/evolution.

        Around and around we go…

        A homosexual is a male with sexual aversion to female and sexual attraction to male.

        A man is an adult male seeking fatherhood.

        “Homosexual male” is a social construction of the radical autonomist.

        You can disagree, but your language has to acknowledge as much.

        You say “gay man” without quotes to give the irreal realness…

        And I say “homosexual ‘man’” to let you know that we are ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT males sexually averse to females and sexually attracted to males AND NOT adult males seeking fatherhood.

        As an avowed Roman (C)atholic, your confessions are more of the roaming (c)atholic variety.

      • thordaddy

        It’s very straightforward…

        Only an obsessive submission to “universal equality” could have one believe that an individual who rejected the Creator God could embrace the exact same definition of “man” as one who believed in a Creator God.

        And because the above is an impossibility then our mutual language needs to reflect this reality. White (S)upremacists have a definition of “man” that is father-centric and radical autonomists have a definition of “man” that is homo-centric.

        Caps, parentheses and quotes help convey this reality to the reader.

      • It doesn’t help if nobody understands what you mean when you employ them and refuse to coherently explain the rules of your secret and arguably liberated language. That is, you have created your own secret language liberated from standard syntax.

      • thordaddy

        And again, you attempt to pull the casual reader back into the r/evolution.

        So again…

        Striving for (little p)erfection…

        IS NOT EQUAL TO…

        Striving towards (BIG P)erfection.

        The equalist, being an anti-(C)apitalist, does not recognize that:

        (G)od > (g)ods…

        And because of this a radical autonomist can realize a “gay man.”

        And a REALLY radical autonomist might call himself a “Roman Catholic.”

      • What is the difference between “perfection” and “Perfection” according to the rules of your secret, created version of the English language?

      • thordaddy

        Obviously, (P)erfection is Absolute where (p)erfection is relative to (P)erfection. Such is the defining nature of (C)apitalization in the English language. Per “universal equality,” this (C)apitalization is collapsed such that Perfection = perfection.

        The above reality MUST BE REFLECTED in the language spoken amongst believers and deniers.

      • But it’s not reflected in the language if only you understand it.

      • thordaddy

        To give a more poignant example, the radical autonomist has collapsed white (S)upremacy into “white (s)upremacy” thus leading the dull mass into believing that the former does not exist and the latter actually equals “white degeneracy.” The transformative mechanism is the deeply-INGRAINED assumption of “universal equality.”

        It really is this ridiculously simple.

        But ALL SIDES PLAY ALONG because white (S)upremacy is ascension and ascension is HARD STUFF.

        Self-annihilation is much easier and more pleasurable.

      • thordaddy

        Did you catch that equation?

        In the cyborg sub-verse of the crazy egalitarian…

        (S)upremacy = (s)upremacy

        (s)upremacy = degeneracy

        degeneracy = (S)upremacy…

        This is a radically r/evolutionary restructuring of the traditional Western mind and a dominate “radical autonomy” assures us that very few will ever take notice of the overwhelming evidence of cyborg sub-version in the communications amongst believers and deniers.

      • Here’s what I think. You are acting out in a passive-aggressive manner through your secret language. You enjoy it on some level when people react as I do and try to make sense of it. It makes you feel mysterious, like you have important, deep cryptic wisdom to pass on. But really you’re just “getting off” on the reaction. Ironically, acting out with passive aggression is about as far from “striving for Perfection” as you can get.

      • thordaddy

        That sounds all well and good and quite typical of your retorts…

        But…

        There is JUST NOTHING “secret” about anything I’ve written. Nor is writing things explicitly, passive.

        So your whole “secret language” diatribe falls to pieces. And you have once again attempted to pull your readers back into the r/evolution.

        YOU DENY objective (S)upremacy, ie., (big P) Perfection.

        And ALSO claim to be a Roman Catholic.

        This combination renders you a “radical autonomist.”

        Nothing secret about these claims.

      • I’m not the only one who has talked you about this. More than a few of your sympathetic brethren on the Orthosphere have edited your comments for being incoherent.

      • thordaddy

        That’s because they are seemingly stuck in the r/evolution just as you.

        You are attempting to make this about a humble white boy from Ohio when it is about you and your unwillingness to grant the existence of white (S)upremacy, ie., white men who desire (BIG P)erfection.

        Intuitively, you grok the ramifications.

      • According to Jordan Peterson, “If you’re rejected by everyone you are the problem.”

      • thordaddy

        Let’s not forget where this started…

        One important observation the spiral articulates is that humans and the societies they create evolve alternating from an emphasis on the individual to an emphasis on the community in a cyclical manner. — scrooge

        That’s you attempting to pull desire for (S)upremacy (spiral dynamic) back into the r/evolution (cyclical manner).

      • Possibly. But again, I don’t speak your secret language.

      • I don’t know what that means. However, your behavior follows a completely redundant pattern:

        (1) You attempt to engage someone in a thread using your secret language knowing full well that it is incoherent to them.

        (2) They inform you that they do not understand and ask you to communicate in a coherent manner.

        (3) You refuse and continue to attempt to communicate in your secret language.

        (4) They eventually delete your posts or ignore you in frustration.

        (5) You repeat step one in some other thread and begin the cycle anew and so on over and over again.

      • thordaddy

        That’s why some suggest he’s anti-Christ.

      • thordaddy

        Provide me one example of this “secret language” in effect and I’ll gladly unravel the supposed secrecy?

      • Any of your posts in this thread where you provide equations and words with oddly placed capital letters, parentheses and slashes would be a good example. Pick one.

      • thordaddy

        That’s a necessary cop-out…

        And there is no REAL (R)edundancy in speaking (T)ruth.

      • Okay let’s use that one.

      • thordaddy

        Ok…

        The charge is that speaking the (Big T) Truth over and over again is (big R) Redundancy.

        The motivation for the charge IS REALIZATION of “universal equality.”

        But…

        “Universal equality” is FALSE…

        So…

        There is no (R)edundancy in speaking (T)ruth over and over again.

  2. thordaddy

    The “individual versus community” still solely operates within the confines of “radical autonomy.” So, in fact, the meta-scheme is the constant chaos of the radical individual versus his former mob of radicals. The deeper reality is that this chaos dangles on the thin thread of those individuals who desire objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection.

    In other words, ONLY in a DESIRE for (P)erfection could one ultimately arrive at the r/evolutionary idea of “spiral dynamics.”

  3. Again, I’m not sure I follow. However, it’s hard to verify whether a statement is true or false if it is incoherent. And my motivation for pointing out your incoherence is certainly not to bring about universal equality. Where would you get that idea from?

    • thordaddy

      (P)erfection exists!

      True or False?

      And if one repeats over and over again that (P)erfection exists, is this a relative case of (R)edundancy?

      The answer is “no…”

      UNLESS one kneels at the alter of “universal equality.”

      Then…

      (P)erfection “does not exist” and to claim such over and over again IS (R)edundacy.

      There is no third way.

      Radical autonomy (you) versus white (S)upremacy (me).

      Except…

      YOU CLAIM to be a “Roman (C)atholic*” (as opposed to a roaming (c)atholic).

      *Original Roman Catholics are the archetype white (S)upremacists.

    • thordaddy

      Incoherence is “radical autonomy.”

      So to the extent that you perceive “incoherence,” you perceive “radical autonomy.” Yet, you KNOW “radical autonomy” and thus RECOGNIZE incoherence. In other words, you know the disassociating experience and thus are familiar with incoherency.

      TO BREAK OUT OF THIS “cyclical manner…”

      To enter a SPIRAL DYNAMIC…

      You MUST GRANT (P)erfection as the most real “thing” in all of the uni-verse so much so that no sub-versive narrative breaths “life” unless objective (S)upremacy wills it so.

      This is THE ASSUMPTION…

      Unless…

      You kneel at the alter of “universal equality.”

    • thordaddy

      Your point of pointing out my “incoherence” is for the very purpose of citing my “radical autonomy” CONTRA a claimed desire for (P)erfection.

      And in knowing the above, I can recognize your COHERENT attempt at denying the existence of (P)erfection based upon the above “failure.”

      It just doesn’t work.

      Your failure… My incoherence… That guy’s “radical autonomy.” All epiphenomena of an instinctual desire for objective (S)upremacy.

      REAL ROMAN (C)atholics knew all this intuitively THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.

      Modern roaming (c)atholics are a degenerated shell of their former selves on orders of magnitude by comparison.

      You need to snap out of the death spiral.

      • If one person points out your incoherence maybe it’s his fault. If many people do then it’s probably your fault.

        Also I never denied the existence of perfection or Perfection so I’m not really sure what your point is with that claim either.

      • thordaddy

        If you never really denied the existence of (P)erfection…

        Then you never really believed in (universal) “equality.”

        And you ALWAYS were sort of a white (S)upremacist.

        Nothing “incoherent” about these claims.

      • It depends what you mean by “universal equality”. I don’t believe I ever made a claim about that either.

      • thordaddy

        You still don’t understand how even someone as sharp and resolute as Kristor could have a very difficult time coming to grips with reality that as a ROMAN (C)atholic, he is a genuine white (S)upremacist.

        And even though you disagree with Kristor on many things, where it is acknowledging that AS Roman (C)atholics, you both are white (S)upremacists, you both play “radical autonomy” instead, ie., claim my “incoherence” is stating this reality.

        It doesn’t work.

        A Roman Catholic is a white Supremacist…

        True or false?

        You have to start HERE.

        Kristor has remained silent.

        And you are obfuscating with redundant retorts to “secret language” and “incoherency.”

      • No I’m not. I simply don’t understand you a lot of the time because you write in a peculiar manner.

      • thordaddy

        You acknowledge that I could be killed for this “new” understanding which is, in fact, in old understanding reworded to assimilate to the modern context?

        This is no game.

        Real ROMAN (C)atholics are white (S)upremacists.

        You haven’t even begun to understand the ramifications of this reality.

      • thordaddy

        I shouldn’t be so humble…

        Ours is a “spiral dynamic.”

        Even ROMAN (C)atholics never knew themselves to be white (S)upremacists.

        But this JUST IS the “modern context.”

        “We” NOW know the original ROMAN (C)atholic to be the archetype white (S)upremacist of lore.

        And it takes a woke roaming (c)atholic to reveal.

        And even incoherency is revelatory.

      • thordaddy

        Now…

        You could say that a ROMAN (C)atholic is not a “white (s)upremacist” and this would be true enough.

        But…

        You’d have to make a distinction between white (S)upremacist and “white (s)upremacist.”

        That you do not is either ignorance or DECEPTION?

      • thordaddy

        Unless you’ve been living under a rock, “white (s)upremacists” are fair game for public persecution. Per “universal equality,” a “white (s)upremacist” is a white (S)upremacist. Ergo, ROMAN (C)atholics are fair game. It’s the transitive property of dogmatic “equality.”

        Your “Huh?” is the suicidal tendency of “radical autonomy.”

      • No, it simply means I don’t understand you because you refuse to speak standard English.

      • thordaddy

        I guess I need to be more clear?

        A white (S)upremacist IS a ROMAN (C)atholic who knows “universal equality” as the Big Lie.

        Most self-proclaimed “Roman (C)atholics” would deny the above without acknowledging that they where at best, roaming (c)atholics, and at worst, demon spawn cloaked.

      • thordaddy

        Standard English assumes (P)erfection exists.

        “Equalists” using standard English are perverters of communication.

      • If standard English assumes “(P)erfection” exists then why don’t you use standard English?

      • thordaddy

        What language do propose I’m using? Secret English?

      • thordaddy

        Do you deny that there are white men who desire (P)erfection who actually exist?

      • thordaddy

        So you agree that the white Supremacist exists?

      • thordaddy

        And because you reject “universal equality,” you acknowledge that a white Supremacist IS NOT EQUAL TO a white supremacist?

      • It depends on how you define all these terms of yours.

      • thordaddy

        “Universal equality” is the collapse of Perfection.

        A white Supremacist is a white man who desires objective Supremacy.

        A “white supremacist” is a white degenerate.

  4. Do you see how you are the only person who understands these terms and when I ask you to define them you do so with other incomprehensible terms? How can we possibly have a meaningful conversation?

  5. I have long believed that thordaddy is Qanon. Even if he’s not, he’s sort of the qanon equivalent of quasi-Christianity.

    • thordaddy

      Wood…

      I’ll take that as a generous compliment.

      Vox Day likes to say that the “alt-right is inevitable.”

      But this is only because white (S)upremacy is real.

  6. And Winston,

    Your characterization of Zippy is just wrong. The man has laid out arguments that have withstood everything thrown at them. You disagree with that. But it is quite unfair to assume the worst motivations to Zippy (and folks like myself for whom Zippy is a hero) simply because he manfully stands with his arguments. In other words regarding politics, I think you are wrong. Why all the psychoanalysis behind why I think you are wrong?

    • What are you referring to specifically?

    • thordaddy

      Wood…

      I am now taking your “quasi-Christianity” characterization to meme that ROMAN (C)atholics ARE NOT white (S)upremacists?

    • thordaddy

      Wood…

      Kristor, Zippy, Bonald, Dr. Bertonneau and fellow Orthosphereans, including Dr. Charlton, all understand, intuitively, how explosive is the claim that the original ROMAN (C)atholic is the archetype white (S)upremacist and that modern “roaming (c)atholic” is a deracinated shell of his former self.

  7. If the world is changing it must be for the worse because stage Blue (not that they would embrace the term “Stage Blue”) was the best possible stage. Anything, departing from stage Blue is ugly and it is appropriate to judge those who question stage Blue sensibilities and enforce stage Blue sensibilities through shame and guilt. This emphasis of “obedience based on a sense of duty and a sense of guilt” explains a great deal as to how my interactions with the people who comment and contribute to the Orthosphere and Zippy Catholic have played out.

    Also, seriously go to qanon.app and tell me that ain’t thordaddy taking the proles for a ride.

  8. thordaddy,

    You have more than you know. By quasi I simply meant you don’t get to set the terms of Roman Catholicism. Heresy is a distortion of the faith. So by quasi I guess I’m blue stagingly calling you a heretic. Your very grammar is heresy. And [we have the servers].

  9. qanon,

    You say if Roman just is geographical genesis then that notion of Roman is deracinated. [OK]. The fact that you are equating Roman with geographical genesis shows yet again you don’t know what you’re talking about. Roman in this context means the See of Peter in the bishop of Rome. Nothing more. Nothing less. That you need to see all that as fundamentally racial is why – among other reasons – you are a heretic. Go back to 8chan and leave the Immaculate Bride of Christ alone.

    • thordaddy

      Wood…

      I didn’t “say” anything of the sort. I ASKED what the “Roman” in “Roman (C)atholic denoted?

      And it appears that “Roman” memes Jewish Patriarch of Catholicism?

      Yes or no?

  10. qanon,

    “Roman” in the sense of Roman Catholicism means the visible head of the universal church is he who holds the See of Peter as the bishop of Rome.

    As to what Roman in the sense of thordaddy R/o[man] (C)atholic[ism] means I’ll have to go ask the autists.

    • Good luck trying to get a straight answer from him.

      • thordaddy

        I’d be LUCKIER if you two could admit that so many whites (descendants of the ancient Romans?) who practice “Christianity” in this day and age are not a dime’s worth of different than your average liberated self-annihilator. And many “roaming (c)atholics” (deracinated and thus decarnated) are all about “self-annihilation for salvation.”

        And all of this seemingly centers around the deceitful translation of “Roman” in “Roman (C)atholic.”

    • thordaddy

      Wood…

      Where “Romans” actual people who converted to (C)atholicism, ie., Christianity? Wood we call such individuals, “Roman Catholics” or Roman “Roman Catholics?”

      And once again, are you saying that the “Roman” in “Roman Catholic” is devoid of racial meaning?

      You MUST BE AWARE of the anti-“Roman Catholic” critique coming from those insolent racist whites?

      By nearly all accounts, “Roman Catholicism” is self-annihilating.

      • Roman Catholics can be any race.

      • thordaddy

        Which is to say that “Roman (C)atholicism” is deracinated.

        Yet, “it” derives from the Jewish race.

        Interesting, no?

      • You could say the Roman Catholic Church is “deracinated” although that would imply that it was once “raciated” which I don’t think is accurate. I also would not say that it derived from the Jewish race but was rather an offshoot from the Jewish or Hebrew religion which is not the same thing.

      • thordaddy

        All members of every church are racially-incarnated (of the father(s)). And any church mapping itself to Absolute Truth recognizes this immutable reality. Now, it can be argued that a deracinated church leads its flock to self-annihilation.

        This is, in fact, the current reality of the “roaming (c)atholic” church.

  11. qanon,

    As is typical whenever you are presented a straightforward fact that is inconvenient to the Land of Make Believe, you retreat into quotation marks and qanonities. You asked what “Roman” in Roman Catholicism means. I answered. In the pertinent sense, the bishopric of Rome is devoid of the significance race plays on the trolley in the Land of Make Believe.

    • thordaddy

      So Bishops are not racially incarnated? And so Bishops should teach their followers, deracination? This is within the purvey of Roman Catholicism?

    • thordaddy

      If your church LEADS YOU TO self-annihilation then your church is evil.

      I don’t believe this is what most people believe the Roman Catholic stands for… But look around you, man. Self-annihilating “Catholics” are the norm.

    • thordaddy

      The issue Wood is your “radical autonomy.”

      I believe in The Perfect Man…

      As falsification of “universal equality” for ALL TIME.

      This is Absolute Truth.

      But…

      This belief is also a RACIST truth.

      Roman (C)atholics BELIEVE in The Perfect Man.

      But…

      Deny that theirs is a racist truth.

      So they falter and fall into the anti-racist abyss.

    • thordaddy

      In other words, Wood…

      I don’t have to MAKE YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING…

      When we are in complete agreement on Absolute Truth.

      Your anti-racist subconscious ills you.

      That’s what Wood needs to know.

  12. All members of every church are racially-incarnated (of the father(s)). And any church mapping itself to Absolute Truth recognizes this immutable reality. Now, it can be argued that a deracinated church leads its flock to self-annihilation.

    This is, in fact, the current reality of the “roaming (c)atholic” church.

    CHOO CHOO!!! Every statement here is false.

  13. You don’t know what deracinate means.

    • thordaddy

      It memes to kill your father(s). Self-annihilate.

      • I’m not aware of Roman Catholics killing their fathers to any significant degree.

      • thordaddy

        You are being literal as in strict patricide where I am being ideological as in anti-racist pathology.

        Anti-racism is ideological patricide.

      • Walk me through your thought process.

      • thordaddy

        The “roaming (c)atholics” are rabid anti-racists.

      • thordaddy

        Your race is your father(s).

        Anti-racism is to be against your father(s).

        An anti-racist “Roman (C)atholicism” is against the father(s). ALL OF THEM!!!

      • My father(s) is (are) certainly part of my race but I think the actual definition of race is a larger category.

        How is an anti-racist against his father?

      • thordaddy

        Who cares what you think…

        The “Roman (C)atholic” church is anti-racist.

        This is all that needs to be recognized.

      • Something tells me you’re not the right man for the job. No offense…

      • thordaddy

        Unless that “something” is (P)erfection, why would I concern myself with your judgment?

      • The number of comments on this thread suggest otherwise but I’ll take you at your word.

      • thordaddy

        The number of comments on this thread reflect the reluctance of two white “Roman (C)atholics” to understand themselves, in the modern context, as white (S)upremacists.

      • I think it’s more of a combination of (1) obsessive compulsion and (2) a refusal to communicate coherently. But it’s all good because you gave my monthly stats a healthy boost. Thanks for that.

      • thordaddy

        You shouldn’t think, but learn.

        “Obsessive-compulsion” is a term of liberated “English.” It assumes one has been dispossessed of God-ordained free will.

        The hard reality is that YOU CANNOT FATHOM being a white (S)upremacist, but in fact, you are one to the extent that you are a REAL Roman (C)atholic.

        Being relentless in enlightening you of this reality is not “obsessive-compulsion,” but rather, a desire for objective (S)upremacy.

        As a father, you want to tell your children ALL the Truth.

        This is desire for (P)erfection.

      • What has my English been liberated from exactly?

      • thordaddy

        Objective (S)upremacy…

        (P)erfection.

        Traditional English assumes objective (S)upremacy.

        Meme-ing

        Standard English KNOWS (P)erfection.

        Liberated “English” knows “nothing.”

        To know “nothing” is to be dispossessed of God-ordained free will.

        One who is dispossessed of God-ordained free will CANNOT SPEAK standard English. At best, he speaks liberated “English,” unwillingly.

      • Name one other person who agrees with you on this.

      • thordaddy

        I’d rather read where you disagree?

      • Is that because there are no other people who share your beliefs and language?

      • thordaddy

        To give you a more mundane instance of liberated “English,” think of the communications amongst moderns who monologue with their pets as though such fury creatures where their actual children?

      • thordaddy

        Your concept of “sharing” a belief in (P)erfection is clearly defective.

      • thordaddy

        Especially because you’ve already conceded a “shared” belief in objective (S)upremacy…

        And I work tirelessly against your r/evolution as you viciously circle back upon on our shared belief in (P)erfection.

        No one, but the demon lunatic, can deny (P)erfection once he is confronted with His universalism.

        The madlib does r/evolutionary “things.”

      • This exchange is becoming too redundant (your words). But I think there’s enough here to mine for a future post.

        Please take note: any further comments written in your incomprehensible secret language will be deleted. Coherent comments will be responded to as time permits as I will be busier over the next week.

      • Just answer the question. Your evasion is telling.

      • thordaddy

        The perception of (r)edundancy is the cause/effect of a desire for r/evolution.

        And because you desire r/evolution, you are BOUND to perceive (r)edundancy.

        The solution to this “vicious cycle…”

        The answer to this repetitious reality of perceiving (r)edundancy —> desiring r/evolution —> perceiving (r)edundancy…

        Is perceiving (P)erfection/desiring (P)erfection…

        Such that there is a “collapse” as is understood by the “universal equalists.”

      • Nope. The perception of redundancy is because you incoherently repeat yourself and refuse to explain your terms coherently.

      • thordaddy

        Wrong…

        You are giving the impression that you cannot “see” both the incoherent side and the coherent side SIMULTANEOUSLY.

        So…

        You KNOW “radical autonomy,” ie., the incoherent side.

        And…

        You KNOW (P)erfection, ie., the coherent side of objective (S)upremacy.

        What you SEEMINGLY DON’T KNOW are these two realities SIMULTANEOUSLY as antithetical to each other and thus as a True/False dilemma.

        One side “sees” incoherency as TRUE and coherency FALSE…

        And the other side “sees” coherency as TRUE and incoherency FALSE…

        And there is no synthesis.

        You, on the other hand, are jumping back and forth between the two in an attempt to position yourself in “no man’s land” as a quasi-synthetic solution.

        In reality, this is just incoherency, ie., another attempt at “radical autonomy.”

      • Is there one other person who finds this language coherent? If there isn’t then you are incoherent.

      • I do not necessarily equate coherency with perfection. Although, I suspect a perfect communication would be understandable to the person to whom it is intended to be communicated.

        I certainly do not equate incoherence with radical autonomy because I don’t know what radical autonomy is. If they are equated then you must be radically autonomous because you are incoherent most of the time.

      • thordaddy

        If you do not necessarily equate “coherency” with (p)erfection then (P)erfection is not necessarily coherent.

        This ^^^ is “radical autonomy.” Ergo, coherent incoherency.

      • Coherence is subjective obviously. I assume you understand the ideas you are attempting to communicate.

        I’m also assuming you are in fact trying to communicate. However, I am beginning to believe I am extending you too much credit as to that point.

    • thordaddy

      What “deracination” memes is that your intimate view of Roman (C)atholicism from within IS NOT EQUAL to my white (S)upremacist view of Roman (C)atholicism from without.

      BUT…

      “We” converge on belief in The Perfect Man and in our rejection of “universal equality.”

      And this is a RACIST phenomenon.

  14. Pingback: An Analysis of “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill: Part One – Introduction | Winston Scrooge

  15. Pingback: The Spiral Dynamics of “A Christmas Carol” | Winston Scrooge

  16. Pingback: Blue Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing | Winston Scrooge

Leave a Reply to thordaddy Cancel 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 )

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