Striving for Perfection Based in Shame

In John Bradshaw’s powerful book “Healing the Shame that Binds You” he talks about the many manifestations of “toxic shame” (as opposed to healthy shame), how they are generated and how to heal them. One important way in which toxic shame is generated is through cultural systems that require or encourage a striving towards perfection in thoughts, emotions and actions.

Perfectionism denies healthy shame. It does so by assuming we can be perfect. Such an assumption denies our human finitude because it denies the fact that we are essentially limited. (1)

Healthy shame, according to Bradshaw, is a feeling that informs a person of his limits. For example, when a person makes a mistake or engages in a shameful behavior the feeling of shame kicks in and informs the person to go no further. By contrast, toxic shame becomes internalized. Instead of a person being made aware that he has made a mistake and perhaps vowing to to better next time, the toxically-shamed person will feel that he, himself is a mistake and intrinsically flawed. This is an excruciating feeling to experience and one that cannot be easily remedied.

Unfortunately, according to Bradshaw, the modern incarnations of religion have played a role in this dynamic.

Religion has been a major source of shaming through perfectionism. Moral shoulds, outghts and musts have been sanctioned by subjective interpretation of religious revelation. The Bible has been used to justify all sorts of blaming judgment. Religious perfectionism teaches a kind of behavioral righteousness. There is a religious script that contains the standards of holiness and righteous behavior. These standards dictate how to talk (there is a proper God voice), how to dress, walk and behave in almost every situation. Departure from this standard is deemed sinful.

[Moreover, what] a perfectionistic system creates is a “how to get it right” behavioral script. In such a script one is taught how to act loving and righteous. [According to this system it is] actually more important to act loving and righteous than to be loving and righteous. The feeling of righteousness and acting sanctimoniously are wonderful ways to mood-alter toxic shame. They are often ways to … transfer one’s shame to others. (2)

Shame begets more shame because it is an uncomfortable feeling. This often inspires the person feeling the shame to engage in a mood-altering behavior. Consuming alcohol is a prime example of mood-altering behavior but it is not the only one. Interestingly, shaming another person (i.e., causing them to feel shame) has mood altering effects as well.  For this reason, many toxically shamed people will feel compelled to shame other people in order to temporarily relieve their own feelings of shame. This has the effect, however, of begetting more shame in both parties.

In this way, when a person claims to “strive for perfection” ostensibly based on religious grounds he is very likely motivated by shame. When this claim is also associated with behavior or rhetoric designed to shame others, this motivation is only confirmed. This is not to say that people should not strive to be the best people they can be, however, this striving is called into question when it involves internalized shame and the shaming of others for mood-altering purposes. It is called into question because at its heart it is really an attempt to obscure the truth disguised as an attempt to improve the self morally or in some other positive way.

(1) Bradshaw, Michael. Healing the Shame that Binds You. Health Communications, Inc. 2005. p. 88.

(2) Ibid. p. 94.


Filed under Psychology

215 responses to “Striving for Perfection Based in Shame

  1. thordaddy


    We’ve altready been through this deconstruction. I think in some ways you are projecting. There was this imposition to “strive towards (p)erfection” upon you as a young child and maybe even to this day as a father? On the other hand, my notion of “striving towards (S)upremacy” was more a revelation in accordance with seeking answer.

    Your “church” does NOT want you to be a white (S)upremacist, ie., a white man who strives towards (P)erfection. You don’t ask “why.” You embrace the liberated paradigm.

    • My church certainly has moral teachings and embraces an ecumenical stance on race (with which I assume you take issue). Since you’ve never adequately defined what you mean by “(P)erfection” I can’t speak to your claim that it does not want me to strive to achieve that state.

      As for my OP, the point is that perfectionism can be motivated by shame and this can be problematic.

      • thordaddy

        Anti-racism can be motivated by shame in one’s race, too. So as is, one either seeks more viable motivations for his anti-racism or he develops a higher conception of race not as easily suspectible to the shaming of anti-racism.

        You don’t seem to be wiling to venture either avenue in regard to (p)erfection?

      • If by “anti-racism” you mean hatred of one’s own race then I would agree this is likely motivated by shame. But if “anti-racism” means not judging a person based on their skin color then I would say there is no reason to believe this to be motivated by shame without additional information.

      • thordaddy

        I would say that those concepts of “anti-racism” run together although the emphasis on the latter concept is the tactic used to give “viable” cover to the first concept. In other words, “anti-racism” solely focused on white man’s unfair appraisal of non-white man is for the purpose of hiding white man’s hatred for his race. So in fact, the more a white man is ashamed of his race, the more he will protest the unfair judgment of the non-white races.

      • I understand that to be your opinion but I don’t think it is reflective of reality or most other peoples’ opinions. In fact, I suspect you believe the two are connected in order to justify your own racism.

      • thordaddy

        That’s just silly. My racism needs no justification. My racism just is. What needs justification and explanation is one’s anti-racism. And that justification/explanation for “anti-racism” is the “wrongness” of judging non-whites qua non-whites, ie., not in relation to whites. This ideology almost certainly stems from a hatred of one’s white race.

      • If one claims to be a Christian (as I think you do) then the justification for anti-racism should be obvious. That is, love of neighbor. I believe it is your shame that motivates you to come up with your justification for racism. It is a means of passing the blame/shame onto another group of people.

      • thordaddy

        Again… if you understood your race as your fathers then it’s not at all obvious that Christianity is anti-racist. Secondly, sane white man is trying to pull out of the game of anti-racist relativism. In other words, where sane white man strives towards (S)upremacy, non-whites are irrelevant.

      • I understand my father, mother and other relatives as part of my race or ethnicity. But I would not say that my race is my father. Nor do I think that is relevant to this conversation.

      • thordaddy

        And so recognize your corrupted frame that you attribute to the “church.”

        White man only strives towards (p)erfection out of shame and/or in relevance to non-whites. He does not strive for (S)upremacy as a white man because of the Church.

      • To clarify, I said perfectionism can be motivated by shame not that it always is. When it is motivated by shame it is problematic because the “striving for perfection” is a way to mask one’s sense of being flawed. It seems very logical and natural that racism would go along with this motivation.

      • thordaddy

        And by not possessing any particular conception of race, you possess no particular conception of anti-racism.

      • I have a conception of race but it is not the same thing as my father.

      • thordaddy

        Yes… But you have a concept of race (father, mother, relatives, etc.) that does not cohere with your concept of “racism” (judging non-whites unfairly). This is a very resolvable issue.

      • Explain to me (without going to heavy with your secret language) why you feel my concept of race does not cohere with my concept of racism.

      • thordaddy

        I cannot explain what is incoherent other than to reiterate the cognitive dissonance between your concepts of “race” and “racism.”

        If your race is your mother/father/relatives…

        And race-ism is “judging a person based on their skin color…”

        Well then, how do these two concepts come together in your mind? It seems clear to me that you will have to modify either your concept of race or your concept of racism in order to present a coherent description of reality?

        PS I have provided my coherent description of race and racism. Your race is your fathers and racism is the immersion into the fathers. Anti-racists are, paradoxically, irrelevant obstructionists.

      • Again, my relatives are not my race but members of my race. My race in general shares basic physical characteristics. Racism is the practice of discrimination based on those perceived physical characteristics. Since we live in a multi-racial country, adopting an overly racist point of view is to choose to live in a constant state of dissatisfaction but it may also be an effective way to distract yourself from the shame you don’t want to feel.

  2. thordaddy

    My race in general shares basic physical characteristics. Racism is the practice of discrimination based on those perceived physical characteristics. — wS

    So again, this make sense to you, but on what account?

    To me it says that you need a more particular concept of “race” and a higher conception of “racism” BEFORE you can bring these ideas together coherently OTHERWISE these “concepts” are just the form-fitted answers to “liberalism.”

    • “Liberalism” is not a question. As such, to say my conception of race and racism do not properly answer liberalism is incoherent.

      • thordaddy

        Huh… I said your concept of “race” and “racism” fit “liberalism” to a tee. As such, you need a more particular conception of “race” and a higher conception of “racism,” otherwise, you’re spewing nothing less than ideological “liberalism.”

      • They fit the common definitions that are used by the English speaking world. If you are talking about something other than these common definitions why not use different words?

      • thordaddy

        What I find fascinating is that jew are unable to entertain an alternative reality. “We” are really back to where we began with the “liberal” cultural taboo against white men striving towards (S)upremacy regardless of nonwhites. I recognized this all-pervasive taboo some ten years ago as a simple inversion of the “white (s)upremacy” boogie man of the crazed left. This singular taboo obliterates the supposed “left/right” political spectrum and points directly to the racial factioning of reality. So some races seek perpetuation and some races seek annihilation.

      • Why use “Jew” instead of “you”? What are you attempting to imply here?

      • thordaddy


        Jew act like jew is above waging psychological war when, in fact, that is the very consequence of jew beliefs. And liberated “Catholics” are so very equal.

      • thordaddy

        This is psychological war right here, winston, between jew and eye. What jew see and what eye see are unequal realities. Buttjew insists on “universal equality.” So this is the “he/art” of zhe’s war.

        When your daughters ask you what their “race” is and hence what is “racism” and all jew can do is give them a common answer based on English “definitions” then jew have failed them. And eye don’t need to see “why.” It just is a failure, intuitively. And as such, this is the psychological war jew wage.

      • When you make juvenile, nonsensical and antisemitic comments such as these you belie your claim that your racism has nothing to do with other races.

        Please note: if you insist on communicating in your secret language rather than common English I’ll have to start deleting your comments. I will do this not because I disagree with your arguments but rather because your arguments are incoherent and therefore nonproductive and make the exchange redundant.

      • thordaddy


        You keep trying your darnedest to make this about me.

        This is about jew and the hatred for white men who strive towards (S)upremacy.

        Your niche as liberated “catholic” is to introduce the “shame device” whereas white men who strive towards (S)upremacy do so out of “shame.”

        This TOGETHER represents a coherent psychological war against the races of white men.

        And jew go “radically autonomous” in the face of such provocations.

      • I’m not saying all white men (or any other race of men or women) strive for perfection out of shame. I’m saying some do and this can be a problem. I’m also saying I suspect shame is behind your claims to strive for perfection as your comments in this thread seem to confirm.

      • thordaddy

        And as I said at the beginning, anti-racism can be driven by shame. The question is whether you have a solution to either scenario?

      • The first step to solve toxic shame is to be aware of its existence. Then one must be willing to drop his false persona and expose his true self to the world. Are you willing to do either of these things?

      • thordaddy

        Are you claiming that the “toxic shame” in “striving for Perfection” is equal to the “toxic shame” in embracing “anti-racism?” And isn’t “striving for Perfection” more in line with “exposing” one’s “true self” to the world than, say, embracing anti-racism? Or, is embracing anti-racism the manner in which you expose your true self to the world?

      • I don’t know what it means to say one instance of toxic shame is equal to another instance of toxic shame. The point is that toxic shame (according to Bradshaw) required the person to create a false self because they believe their true self to be flawed. We see this in the Book of Genesis when Adam and Eve were “without shame” before they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Once their eyes were opened they became ashamed and hid themselves from God.

      • thordaddy

        If I am reading you correctly, I falsely pretend to be a white (S)upremacist when I am not. In other words, I am really just another degree of “liberal” like everyone else. And this may all be well and true IF this were about ME. But it’s not. It’s about a perverse paradigm with seemingly no escape. It’s about being brainwashed by the most simple inversions of reality. It’s about being conditioned to perpetual annihilation via “anti-racist” ideology.

        And jew are “radically autonomous” about it all.

        And call yourself a “(C)atholic” in your double-down.

      • You are not honest in the way you communicate. You purposefully use a secret language only you understand and refuse to define your terms. Then you act surprised when people don’t understand you. I am not the only one to point this out btw.

        If this is not a false front then what is it?

      • thordaddy

        Are you true, wS? Are you even trying to be true? What’s this even meme to be one’s “true self?” Are you perfected at this “point” of “true self?” So aiming towards your “true self” is equal to “striving towards perfection?”

        What’s going on here, winston?

        How can jew rid yourself of the “toxic shame” for “striving towards perfection” and finding your “true self?”

      • I willing to entertain this conversation but not if you continue your annoying practice of substituting “Jew” for “you” and “meme” for “mean”. Any other posts of this kind will be deleted immediately.

      • thordaddy

        You don’t understand the significance of “jew” and “meme” in how you live as a liberated (c)atholic?

      • thordaddy

        From whence does your hatred of “white supremacy” derive? Is this your “god” speaking?

      • I live in a multi-ethnic country. A policy of white supremacy does not make sense in this respect.

      • thordaddy

        So you’ve “reasoned” your way to anti-“white (s)upremacy” as a manner of environmental adaptation?

      • Also, the tenants of Christianity are contrary to a policy of racial supremacy. Many things align which lead me to see the truth in it. Frankly, I don’t think in terms of race to the extent I can avoid it.

      • thordaddy

        Christ says nothing of “racial supremacy.” The “policy” of “racial supremacy” is a figment of your liberated imagination. The mechanism of self-annihilation is anti-racism. In other words, anti-racist “Christianity” is self-annihilating. Ergo, “it” is not Christian.

        Christ was “No, self-annihilator!”

      • You are right. Christ says nothing about racial supremacy (white or otherwise). He does talk about love of neighbor however.

        Explain to me the reasons you feel being against racial discrimination in a multi racial society is the same thing as self annihilation. And please define what you mean by “self annihilation” while you’re at it.

      • thordaddy

        If you are racially incarnated, racial discrimination just is the Reality.. If you then press the idea of “racial discrimination” being “evil” on account of living in a multi-racial society then you are simply attesting to the “evil” of multi-racial society. But you do not attest to the “evil” of multi-racial society BECAUSE you are very much racially discriminatory on account of your belief in racial incarnation. Yet, instead of simply acknowledging the different races as they exist thus displaying your “racial discrimination,” your understanding of “racial discrimination” is only relative to “white (s)upremacy.” In other words, “racial discrimination” is not just simply differentiating between the incarnated races of men and acting accordingly, but rather, what “white (s)upremacists” do to bring to light our racial differences. In sum, you are racially discriminatory towards “white (s)upremacy” by way of “radical autonomy.” And this “radical autonomy” is self-annihilating for the basic reason that such “mechanism” cannot be the driver towards your divine self. In other words, you cannot find your true self by way of self-annihilation; racial discrimination is absolutely necessary to finding your true self.

      • Please define the following terms:

        Racial Incarnation
        Racial Discrimination
        Radical Autonomy

        I don’t believe that you are using these words as they are commonly defined which make real communication impossible. But I don’t think real communication is your goal. I believe you want to hide your true self behind your incoherent use of language. But I don’t think the authentic white supremacist you claim to want to be would employ such an inauthentic tactic.

      • thordaddy

        Sometimes, after having fleshed out an idea for so long, it becomes a given. For instance, “liberalism” is self-annihilation is a given to me AFTER having fleshed out the idea for so long. You ask what “self-annihilation” is and my simplest answer is Final Liberation, ie., Radical Autonomy. And if finding your true self by striving towards perfection is the “thesis,” annihilation of the true self is the antithesis. Together, unable to synthesize. Desire for (P)erfection and the will to “radical autonomy” are schismatic phenomena.

      • How does liberalism annihilate the self? What is the liberal liberating himself from? You never answer these questions with clarity which is suspicious to say the least.

      • thordaddy

        I try to make it simple:

        You are AGAINST “white (s)upremacy.”

        Then jew demand I deconstruct the above.

        I keep it simple:

        Jew desire “radical autonomy.”

        Jew protest,”I don’t know what jew meme!!!”

        Vicious cycle ensues.

        The r/evolution continues.

        Jew hate “white (s)upremacy” BECAUSE *you* hate white men who strive towards (P)erfection.

        Buttjew is not alone.

        The question is WHY?

        The answer is “liberalism.”

        Somehow jew think that in deconstructing “thordaddy” as a shame-filled “false front” that jew have deconstructed the operative paradigm.

        Which is to say, YOU are driven and motivated by “white (s)upremacy” in some manner or another by virtue of your liberal “(c)atholicism” NO MATTER what “thordaddy” is or isn’t.

        Stayed focused.

        Where “white (s)upremacy” was once subtly implied, “it” is now explicitly exposed for your cogent critique.

  3. thordaddy


    YOU have to explain why you hate white men who strive towards objective (S)upremacy…

    And I need only explain the failure to strive towards (P)erfection as “radical autonomy.”

    • I don’t hate white men who strive towards objective supremacy. When have I ever said that? I don’t know what you mean by those terms, however.

      • thordaddy

        That’s the whole point, man!!!

        Jew DO NOT PUT YOUR MIND on objective (S)upremacy…


        But your mind is absolutely littered with nefarious ideas of “white (s)upremacy.”

        So your UNWILLINGNESS to take account of both realities to mend a synthesis is “radical autonomy,” ie., self-annihilation.

      • thordaddy

        White men who strive towards objective (S)upremacy are white (S)upremacists whether real or imagined.

        The zeitgeist up to and including the “church” are, unequivocally, anti-white (s)upremacy.

        These are the basic facts on the ground, winston. All across the globe.

        Put it together, man… And suit yourself psychologically while you still can.

      • What do you mean by “objective supremacy” and “perfection”? What does one do while striving for these states? What does it look like when he gets there? Can he get there?

      • thordaddy

        Damn winston…

        Your Roman Catholic faith implies your belief in (P)erfection, ie., objective (S)upremacy. But how much of that “faith” is racial, ie., of your fathers? It seems reality will be some part racial and some part free will. Environment as basically noise.

      • The fact that you refuse to define the terms of your secret language prove your dishonesty and that you have no intention of being perfect.

      • thordaddy

        Objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = Might makes (R)ight = He who wills ALL Right = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ…

      • Would honesty and clarity in communication be examples of perfect behavior?

      • thordaddy

        I would say speaking honestly and with clarity is a tendency towards perfecting one’s self. It would not be entirely synonymous with striving towards (P)erfection though. Some might choose not to speak at all of their striving. I wouldn’t fault them. On the other hand, some might choose creativity over clarity. I would not necessarily begrudge them. There are many paths to (P)erfection, but only one for winstonScrooge.

      • Do you think your dishonest form of communication is a means to strive for perfection?

      • thordaddy

        I think what you perceive as “dishonesty” is merely a “radical autonomy” that you are not willing to account for.

      • So you feel I am “radically autonomous” (whatever that means) because you communicate incoherently and refuse to define your terms when asked to do so?

      • thordaddy

        A “dishonest form,” itself, is “radical autonomy.”

      • Then you sir must be radically autonomous.

      • thordaddy

        And I would say that it takes one to know one.

      • Since I don’t know what it is I can’t say.

      • thordaddy

        So let me get this liberal…

        You know what “white (s)upremacy” is, but you don’t know what objective (S)upremacy is?

        And you conceive of me as “radically autonomous,” but you don’t know what it memes to be “radically autonomous?”

      • You said a dishonest form of communication is radical autonomy. You fit that brief description of an example of radical autonomy because your communication is dishonest. That is, you communicate but you don’t want people to understand you. In fact, I think your real goal is to annoy people. So, I don’t think using the example you gave me of radical autonomy requires that I know what the definition of radical autonomy is. I doubt it actually has a definition other than what you want it to mean in any particular situation.

      • thordaddy

        Here’s a great thread for you. First, it shows your tactic of claiming “dishonest communication” to PURPOSELY THWART a common knowledge. At the same time, it shows others perfectly capable of understanding my underlying argument.

        And example post (slightly edited):

        I don’t get the sense that you have a learned aversion to an objective notion of Supremacy. Your talk of a fantastic African legacy and your quoting of certain Lauryn Hill lyrics calling for repentance suggests an affinity for things [greater] than yourself.
        In America though, by and large, blacks (and a large swath of whites) are what we call “equalitists.” These “equalitists” have an affinity for things “equal” to each other. He is one who believes in egalitarianism. But in fact, he is a learned anti-Supremacist. He has an aversion to things greater than [himself] and he never seeks to be greater than others. He thinks this is a harmonious state. For instance, he may have an aversion to a glorious legacy because such a legacy may hurt the feelings of others with a less glorious legacy just as the more glorious legacy of others has hurt his feelings. But there is no harmony in anti-Supremacy. There is only self-annihilation through the consistent application [of] ONLY THOSE HIGHEST VALUES [which] can make us truly “equal.” Those HIGHEST LIBERAL values are nondiscrimination and tolerance.
        So when you state that white Supremacy, PROPERLY-defined, is an “obstacle” to blacks reclaiming their glorious past, WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE OBSTACLE???
        The white part or the Supremacy part?
        And what is the solution when separationism is, inexplicably, off the table?
        And how does this tie into “micro-aggressive” acts?
        Well, these rhetorical devices are in actuality mechanisms used to increase the autonomy of the black person WITHOUT having to separate from whites.
        When one speaks of a four hundred year desire to break “free” from “white supremacy” AND IT DOESN’T include separating from whites then we witness the pursuit of a RADICAL autonomy.
        A radical autonomy is the freedom to act without consequence. It is quite addictive. It makes the brain create things like “micro-aggressions” because EVERY IMPEDIMENT to one’s autonomy is the gravest threat. You want to detach without detaching. That’s radical autonomy. You deny a higher order and seem to dodge all consequence. That’s radical autonomy. You’re completely “colorblind.” That’s radical autonomy. You’re an “intellectual” homosexual. That’s radical autonomy. You’re a non-black black man. That’s radical autonomy. You go through life relentlessly applying nondiscrimination and tolerance to every act and thought. That’s radical autonomy. That’s radical liberation AND the surest path to self-annihilation and rule by a “default” elite.

      • Not really an apt analogy. You could communicate in a way that other people can understand but you refuse to. Can you honestly tell me why you do this?

      • thordaddy

        On the contrary, winston, the thread I linked to shows clearly the strategy of those who CHOOSE to remain submissive to the liberated concept of “white (s)upremacy.”

        And because it is my intent to persuade other white males to put their mind on white (S)upremacy, absolutely, as opposed to a “white (s)upremacy” which necessarily entangles said white males with their enemies, psychologically, than YOU cannot “hear” it. You cannot “know” it. You are only able to perceive “dishonesty” in it.

        In other words, you are “radically autonomous.”

      • Has anyone ever “heard” this message you say you are trying to convey? As far as I can tell most people dismiss you as an eccentric troll.

      • thordaddy

        Most people (including most “whites”) are anti-white (S)upremacy and so I’m unfazed by the givens.

  4. thordaddy

    Perfectionism denies healthy shame. It does so by assuming we can be perfect. Such an assumption denies our human finitude because it denies the fact that we are essentially limited. — Bradshaw

    The flaw in these claims is the flaw of strict materialism.

    You, winston, suffer the same self-imposed limitation.

    • Bradshaw is not a strict materialist and neither am I.

      • thordaddy

        Then you would differentiate between (p)erfection and (P)erfection.

      • In order for us to communicate we must use the SAME definitions. I still have no idea how you define these terms of yours.

      • thordaddy

        The definition of (P)erfection is He who wills All Right. The definition of (p)erfection is he who wills All Right. Yet, the former is Absolute in relation to the latter while the latter only exists relative to the former. The very nature of (C)apitalism defines reality as such. And so, when one readily acknowledges “white (s)upremacy,” (even in the anti- mode) he is absolutely acknowledging white (S)upremacy.

      • thordaddy

        You are not looking for clarity. You are looking for ways to deny the legitimacy of white (S)upremacy by conflating it with “white (s)upremacy.” And it is your strict materialism that provides the “mechanism.”

        Perhaps, you should just “define” (P)erfection for yourself as I have suggested before?

      • I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand you. In fact, I have never observed anyone else understanding you in other threads. Nor have you claimed anyone else has understood you when I’ve asked.

        So perfection is subjective?

      • thordaddy

        Again, because you are one of many who grant subjective (p)erfection while seemingly denying (P)erfection, absolutely. But in your case in particular, you claim to be a Roman Catholic which is to say that Absolute (P)erfection is a given to your faith. So your anti-white (S)upremacy is far more “nuanced.”

      • Why can’t you communicate clearly and honestly? You should really ask yourself this question.

      • thordaddy

        I do not doubt that I write as straightforwardly as possible given the reality of a r/evolution of para-sights.

      • I don’t think that is actual sentence.

  5. thordaddy

    Damn, winston, what planet do you live on where “striving towards (p)erfection” is a reall pressing issue?

    You have things exactly backwards.

    Almost no one is “striving towards (p)erfection,” out of shame or otherwise at least publicly and vocally.

    In fact, the super-majority is devolving towards “universal equality” without any sense of shame whatsoever.

    Where does this really place YOU in the big scheme of things in relation to a blogpost like this one?

    • Again, not all people strive for perfection because of shame. But some do and that is a problem.

      • thordaddy

        Again… This is like worrying about “global warming” when your house is being violently invaded. That tiny minority of individuals driven towards (p)erfection by shame ABSOLUTEY PALES in degenerative comparison to the super-majority of sheeple driven to “equality” with no shame at all.

      • I don’t know that any of what you say is true. People could be “driven to equality” out of shame just as you are driven to dishonest communication out of shame. Toxic shame creates the desire to hide one’s true self.

      • thordaddy

        You’ll have to explain how to “dishonestly communicate” and “hide” a “true self” in this medium?

        IF eye simply focus your attention on white (S)upremacy versus “white (s)upremacy,” eye have elevated your consciousness.

        Jew understand this and so reflexively react standing fast to the “belief” that the phenomena are equal per “universal equality.”

        This is where honest communication begins without regard to “hiding” the true self.

        From your perspective, by insisting that white (S)upremacy is different than “white (s)upremacy,” I am “hiding” my true self. So be it. You have not changed the fundamental schism.

        Your world (and jewnigger’s world) of ONLY “white (s)upremacy” just is SMALLER and LESS THAN “our” world which absolutely includes white (S)upremacy, ie., racist Christianity.

        And eye don’t need to see even more of this indisputable truth.

      • You are dishonest on several levels.

        1. You communicate incoherently and refuse to explain what you mean or define your terms when asked.

        2. You claim your white supremacy exist independent of other races or people and yet you constantly insult and judge other people.

        3. You claim to want to spread some sort of message but I see no evidence of anyone listening to accepting this message. (Your incoherence doesn’t help here either).

        If I think of more I’ll let you know but that’s a good start.

      • thordaddy

        Once again… [you] double-down.

      • I don’t understand why you substitute “Jew” for “you”. Are you just trying to be annoying?

      • thordaddy

        Are you oblivious to the racial critique of Roman Catholicism?

      • What racial critique are you referring to?

      • BTW I googled “racial critique of Roman Catholicism” and nothing came up.

      • thordaddy

        The one that says “whites” who embrace Christianity choose racial self-annihilation.

      • I don’t know what you are referring to.

      • thordaddy

        This explains everything.

      • See if you really wanted a conversation or to spread a message (as you claim to want to do) you would explain what you are talking about. But you don’t because your stated goals are not your real goals.

      • thordaddy

        My stated aim is all over the internet including this site.

      • Why don’t you repeat your stated aim right here so I know exactly what you are referring to?

      • thordaddy

        White male has two options:

        white (S)upremacy.



        Deracinated “Christianity” is dead.

      • Is this the racial critique of Roman Catholicism you referenced?

      • thordaddy

        In a [nut shell] yes, but Roman (U)niversalism is white (S)upremacy by another name.

        Your germ of liberated (c)atholicism is stillborn.

      • I think it’s your philosophy that is stillborn. I don’t see your “message” gaining any traction. Of course if you really wanted to spread a message you probably would want to communicate it coherently. Maybe you’re happy just annoying people.

      • thordaddy

        Mine is not a philosophy and so whether mine gains “traction” or not changes nothing in regard to the fundamental reality. Most “whites,” up to and including modern “Christians,” desire self-annihilation and reject objective (S)upremacy. The BEST that you can retort is, “I don’t know what you mean (quasi-transliterated into “Eye don’t “no” what jew memes). You’re not foolish enough to outright dispute my claim because the general consensus is mass degeneracy. So you RECOGNIZE mass degeneracy, but you dare not call “it” a desire for self-annihilation coupled with a rejection of (P)erfection.

        “Radical autonomy” is your lot.

        Deracinated “Christianity” provides [you] no reprieve and is very much an [aspect] of the diss-ease.

      • So, by the terms “desiring self-annihilation” and “rejecting objective supremacy” you mean “mass degeneration”? Can you at least confirm that?

      • thordaddy

        If I only told you these things, it would be enough. I’m aiming at the cell. I’m working for prophet. The Perfect Man FALSIFIES “universal equality” SUCH THAT “we” know that those who “preach” anti-racist “equality” are doing the devil’s deed. And in doing so they are choosing degeneracy OVER Supremacy.

        And when one of these above individuals calls himself a “Roman Catholic,” he is the most radical of autonomists.

      • The perfect man also spoke very plainly and tried to explain what he meant to those he taught. Your “communication” exemplifies rejecting perfection. It also implies a desire to self-annihilate through its very incoherence.

      • thordaddy

        I don’t doubt that The Perfect Man was (P)erfection. [But you know] two-thousand years of deconstruction paved its toll. “Universal equality” is the great pathology of our time. “Would Jesus be ‘equal,’” memetic blasphemy.

        Eye only (R)ight threw a few who sit at the pew.

      • thordaddy

        I imagine this blog will be scuttled soon. Too much crimethink, hatefacts and coercivecreativity.

      • We shall see about that. But thank you btw for boosting my numbers this past month.

      • thordaddy

        For two-thousand years, the radical sexual autonomist has aimed to deconstruct (P)erfection. He is triumphant per his anti-racist ideology.

        “Roman Catholicism,” absolutely subsumed.

        [However you] don’t “[know] nothing” about all that.

      • So now we’re talking about homosexuals. I’m pretty sure homosexuality has been around for longer than 2000 years and has remained at the same percentage of the population as well (about 4%).

      • thordaddy

        Now you are driven to edit and alter “incoherence?” Paradoxically, your liberated definition of “homo*sexual” makes for a very limited understanding of the subversive sexual reality assimilating “Roman Catholicism.”

        *Where homo=same=exact same=self

      • What is my liberated definition of homosexual?

      • thordaddy

        Homo = same…

      • So you are saying homo does not equal same?

      • thordaddy

        Per “universal equality” dogma…

        Homo=same=EXACT SAME=self

      • Did I ever claim to believe in a universal equality dogma? I’m not following you.

      • thordaddy

        Sexual degeneracy kills a sexually regenerate religion.

        Anti-racism IS sexual degeneracy rooted in homo-sexuality.

        Anti-racist “catholicism” is self-annihilating.

      • I don’t understand. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that sexual degeneracy is a sin.

      • thordaddy

        Roman Catholicism teaches of the sin of homosexuality, but not of the sin of anti-racism to which homo-sexuals are intimately tied.

      • I don’t see a connection. The church is universal per Christ’s order to spread the gospel to all nations.

      • thordaddy

        Radical sexual autonomy finds its clearest expression in father hatred.

        In other words, anti-racism stems from homo-sexuality.

      • Who hates their father? What is the connection between sexuality and father hatred?

      • thordaddy

        The connection is desire for self-annihilation. And it is no coincidence that in going “soft” on the sin of homo-sexuality, the rise of anti-racism proceeds. Anti-racist “catholicism” is homosexual-embracing self-annihilation.

      • That’s not true. The church has always been racially ecumenical and has not changed its teaching on homosexuality.

      • thordaddy

        Who hates his father is he who embraces anti-racism because desire for radical sexual autonomy.

      • I know of zero people who fit that description.

      • thordaddy

        This is because you know zero people who show their true selves.

      • So you are saying that you are a homo-racist and therefore you love your father and are not attracted to other men. But because I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and embrace hetero-racism that I am a homosexual and hate my father. Well that makes sense.

      • thordaddy

        Lol… I am saying that anti-racist “Christianity” is self-annihilating and thus a “Roman Catholicism” that preaches anti-racism does so from a homosexual orientation.

      • thordaddy

        I agree. And so the absurdity of anti-racist “Christianity” will be short lived.

      • Again, the holy Catholic Church has been hetero-racist for over 2,000 years. It is the homo-racists like yourself who are dying out. You might say homo-racism is a self-annihilating philosophy.

      • thordaddy

        Now you are making progress!!!

      • Not sure what you’re referring to.

      • thordaddy

        We both agree that Roman Catholicism is hetero-racist. Our only disagreement would be who is mainly responsible for its deconstruction? You say homo-racist and [I] see anti-racist homo.

      • And what I see is based on actual fact whereas what you see is based on a desire to confirm your philosophy.

      • thordaddy

        I don’t believe that you had reached the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was being deconstructed by racist homos until just within this last day of debate? Could you link to any personal writings that bolster your claim? My conclusion, otoh, was reached some time ago and I have written such conclusions elsewhere. But, because we both agree that the original Roman Catholic Church is hetero-racist, you’ll have to make the case for homo-racists subverting the Church. In the instance of anti-racist homo, the case for a subverting of hetero-racism is self-explanatory.

  6. When did I say the church has been deconstructed by racist homos?

    • thordaddy

      We both agree that Roman Catholicism is hetero-racist. Our only disagreement would be who is mainly responsible for its deconstruction? You say homo-racist and [I] see anti-racist homo. — me

      And what I see is based on actual fact whereas what you see is based on a desire to confirm your philosophy. — you

      I took your response as a tacit agreement to all that is claimed before it?

  7. Racially ecumenical is anti-racist.

    Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia.

    • thordaddy

      I disagree. Anti-racism is anti-white (S)upremacy is anti-white man striving towards (P)erfection is anti-racial ecumenicalism.

      And I put both “evidence” and “pedophilia” is quotes to signify the MUTUAL COVERUP of homosexual tolerance within the “Church.”

      Remember, IF modernism is true then the “Church” is usurped.

      • If you define “white supremacy” as the supremacy of the white race over other races then this would be anti-racially ecumenical. However, you have said on previous occasions your “white supremacy” is something along the lines of white people striving to be the best they can be irrespective of other races. I don’t really see how that “white supremacy” is necessarily anti-racially ecumenical. But I have my doubts that that is an accurate definition of your true beliefs.

      • thordaddy

        Reality accommodates both definitions. It’s not an either/or no matter how convincing the radical relativist might be. There is the liberated definition of “white (s)upremacy” and there is the absolute definition of white (S)upremacy. And as is the case for strict materialism, the exclusiveness of the former excludes the latter. Unfortunately, reality intervenes such that the former IS ONLY AN ASPECT of the latter. In other words, for “white (s)upremacy” to be real THEN white (S)upremacy must be real. And “faithful” to relativism, rejecting the latter is a demonization of the former. Meaning, in rejecting the realness of white (S)upremacy, [you] can only conceive of “white (s)upremacy” as “evil.”

        This is incredibly formulaic.

  8. But that’s not really true. You can strive to be the best Thordaddy you can be without race entering the picture. Why does self-perfection necessarily imply hostility to other races?

    • thordaddy

      Perhaps… But the vast majority of individuals a) don’t think about (S)upremacy and b) cannot think about (s)upremacy outside a racial context.

      The convergence then is to think about (S)upremacy (versus (s)upremacy) within a racial context (as opposed to without).

      IOW, you think about (P)erfection because your father(s).

    • thordaddy

      When you and I do this for our children, “we” partake in white (S)upremacy.

      • It seems to me that you are making an unnecessary leap to race in this analysis. It does not flow logically.

      • thordaddy

        Not at all… The impossibility of blank slatist desire for (S)upremacy shall help you jump.

      • What’s the blank slatist desire?

      • thordaddy

        The idea that desire for (P)erfection derives from “blank slate,” ie., aracially.

      • thordaddy

        As I’ve mentioned before:

        (P)erfection is Universal.

        Desire for (P)erfection is racist.

        Mad Liberationists are the Great Deceivers… Not just in denying both truths, but in demonizing the belief in both truths.

      • If perfection is universal then why does it not apply to all races?

      • thordaddy

        Because (P)erfection is not an “application.” Or, better yet, one doesn’t “apply” for (P)erfection.

        But certainly, any father could, ideally, inspire desire in his child for (S)upremacy. And such inspiration is racial, ie., of the father.

        You seem to be denying the idea that some races of men reject (P)erfection. And that in contrast to those races of men who embrace (S)upremacy, there is still an “equality” of races?

      • I’m saying that striving for perfection is a personal endeavor not a racial endeavor. And the father is not the only role model a child can have.

      • thordaddy

        Sure… But such personal claims aren’t the issue. The issue is the purposeful demonization of “white (s)upremacy” so as to deligitimate white (S)upremacy on a global scale. Even your rebuttal is not much more than a passive rebuke of the desire for (S)upremacy per racial inspiration. IOW, you say what you say because it is “evil” for father to preach (S)upremacy to his child. He is bad ”racist.”

      • thordaddy

        We are almost to that point where you must admit to a refusal to teach your daughters to strive towards (S)upremacy because a) someone else will or b) because it is “evil racist” of you do so as “white father.”

      • If by “supremacy” you mean striving to be the best you can, then I already teach my daughters that. If you mean teaching my daughters to believe their ethnicity is superior to other ethnicities and as such they are entitled to treat other ethnithities with disrespect and cruelty then, no, I choose not to teach them that.

      • thordaddy

        If [you] know (G)od to be absolutely different from (g)od, yet each provoking the same defining features in your mundane mind, then you should understand striving for (p)erfection to be different from striving towards (S)upremacy.

        What you know as “white (s)upremacy” is not equal to white (S)upremacy for the simple reason that your understanding REQUIRES niggers while my understanding does not. IOW, you cannot conceive of “white (s)upremacy” without conjuring up nefarious visions of how “it” relates to nonwhites while I can conceive of white (S)upremacy, absolutely. Ergo, the absolute conception — a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards (P)erfection — will not invoke nonwhites, whatsoever.

        It really is this simple if the brainwashing wasn’t so intense.

      • And yet the results are strikingly similar. Perhaps one man’s brainwashing is another man’s rationalization / justification.

      • thordaddy

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey, but you seem to be missing the larger point? Your liberated reality is SMALLER than mine. Your reality only knows “white (s)upremacy.” My reality knows “white (s)upremacy” and white (S)upremacy. If you “see” white (S)upremacy then you can only see “white (s)upremacy” and there is no difference. There is no difference between a “white (s)upremacy” that REQUIRES “blacks” (as Lynch Pin) and a white (S)upremacy that necessitates separation from all others?

        You simple do not inhabit a reality that can accommodate these pluralistic iterations.

      • Does anyone else share this larger perspective of yours or are you the only one?

      • thordaddy

        And my point is that I lived in your smaller reality UNTIL I broke out for myself and recognized how absolutely stifflling “integration” and “inclusion” really are. These concepts as realized by its advocates are inherently totalitarian. These concepts effect to practically shrink an individual’s reality if he so willingly submits. It is “universally equal” to The Fall.

      • Have you brought anyone else into this larger reality? Was there anyone else there when you got there?

      • thordaddy

        There is no doubt many who are able and yet will not differentiate between “white (s)upremacy” and white (S)upremacy.

        And I was brought into this larger reality by the anti-white (s)upremacists that are all about in a multi-racial “nation.”

      • So the answer is no. You are the only one (so far as you know) who holds these beliefs and speaks this secret language you created. Is this correct?

      • thordaddy

        If you can tell me the “secret language” that allows you to differentiate (G)od from (g)od then please elaborate? Otherwise, I’ll assume (C)apitalism does the “trick.”

      • When have I ever differentiated God from god? I don’t know what you’re attempting to say.

      • thordaddy

        You are insisting that you cannot differentiate white (S)upremacy from “white (s)upremacy” because “secret language.” I’m insisting that all you need to know is the Rule of (C)apitalism.

      • I don’t understand what you are attempting to say.

      • thordaddy

        You can differentiate (G)od from (g)od, but you CANNOT differentiate white (S)upremacy from “white (s)upremacy.”

        So it is up to you to explain this discrepancy? I’ve already offered up my speculation.

      • What do you mean by “god” and “God”? How can I answer your question when I don’t known how you are defining your terms? This is why your secret language is an imperfect means of communication.

      • thordaddy

        So I am mistaken? You cannot differentiate (G)od from (g)od.

        How about (C)atholic from (c)atholic?

      • Define your terms and I’ll tell you if I can differentiate between them.

      • It’s curious to me that you never clearly define the terms you are using. This in combination with your secret language you insist on using for communication actually separates you from most if not all people. At the same time, you advocate for a racial identity. This implies that you long for some community of people with whom you share common values and characteristics. So on the one hand you are seeking a community but on the other hand you separate yourself from any possible community with your cryptic and undefined use of language. How do you reconcile this?

      • thordaddy

        I’ve already broached this subject time and time again. You are simply reiterating my original finding.

        [A] White man WILL NOT put his mind on (S)upremacy.

        And instead of acknowledging this by the very fact that you insistently demand that I “define” the term, “we” go r/evolution instead. IOW, “we” go back to the place of “radical autonomy” where [you] WILL NOT put his mind on (S)upremacy thereby intuiting “it” for himself.

        If, per chance, he did put his kind on (S)upremacy, the learned reaction is a recoil from “racism” by manner of “white skin.”

        Put it together winston…

        This is about [you] not me.

      • In order for two people to communicate they must understand each other. I don’t think it is too much to ask you to define your terms. The fact that you refuse to do this speaks to your TRUE motives in this interaction.

      • thordaddy

        Actually, my finding is even more woeful.

        High IQ “white” males WILL NOT put their minds on (P)erfection (so as to “define” “it” for their IQ lessers).

      • I think a person with a high IQ would understand that communication required a common language.

  9. thordaddy

    I would say that there is no common language shared between those who embrace (S)upremacy and those who deny (P)erfection.

    • How do I know if I have denied perfection according to your definition if I don’t know how you have defined it? Why not just tell me your definition and then we’ll know.

      • thordaddy

        You deny (P)erfection by an insistent lower-casing of the phenomenon in the same manner that an atheist denies (G)od by a consistent reference to (g)od.

      • But you have never defined what YOU mean when you write these words with lower and upper case and with parentheses. So I’m not going to employ a spelling convention implying a different definition when I don’t know what the definition is.

        It’s very simple. Define your terms and then we can have an ACTUAL conversation. Refuse to define your terms and we will continue to have this redundant and silly interchange.

      • thordaddy

        Absolutely false…

        Roman Catholic God = Perfection = He who wills all Right = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ = objective (S)upremacy…

        There is no more “definition” required.

      • Except that I have no idea how one is to “strive for perfection” using that definition.

      • thordaddy

        As I’ve said before, Christianity is a doctrine of (S)upremacy.

        White men who embrace Christianity are white (S)upremacists.

      • As long as your definition of supremacy does not violate Christian doctrines such as love thy neighbor etc. then I would agree. But I don’t get the sense that you mean that based on your cryptic communication.

      • Christianity is not a doctrine of supremacy. I understand that you have invented your own version of Christianity based on Jesus being a perfect man but this is just your own invention just like your secret language.

      • thordaddy

        My “definition of supremacy” is irrelevant. We aren’t discussing racists searching the subjective, rather, we discuss the racists searching the objective. And in vilifying the former, the latter is vilified. Yet, outside the racists, there is no real searching for (S)upremacy and then all the many self-denialists unwilling to admit a desire for (s)upremacy.

      • Its not irrelevant if you want to communicate about it, which you obviously do given the amount of comments you have made on the subject.

      • thordaddy

        It’s irrelevant in the sense that I’ve already granted your liberated definition of “white (s)upremacy” for the sake of argument and we are in fact r/evolving around the definition of white (S)upremacy to which I have define numerous times.

      • If your words actually have meaning then you should be able to define them in a way to convey this meaning. That you cannot do this or refuse to do this suggests to me that these made up words of yours actually are meaningless. This means that your entire philosophy of white supremacy is also meaningless. It’s true purpose (I suspect) is to mask your true self and the shame you must feel.

      • thordaddy

        It’s wild how [you keep] this r/evolution going…

        It’s what I call “radical autonomy.”

      • You keep it going and could easily stop it by speaking plainly and clearly defining the terms of your secret language. You are radically autonomous in your use of language and reinterpretation of Christianity to fit your racist, personal philosophy.

        Funny (and a little sad) how you accuse others of your own sins.

      • BTW – Thanks for all your help boosting my year end numbers.

      • thordaddy

        Explain to me what a “racist interpretation” of Christianity means?

        Again, YOU WILL NOT DIFFERENTIATE between “white (s)upremacy” and white (S)upremacy so much so that the latter does not exist in your conceptual world.

      • You need to define what you mean by those terms and then I will be able to differentiate between them.

      • You believe that because Christ’s status as perfect man justifies your racist philosophy.

  10. Pingback: Thordaddy’s Concept of White Supremacy | Winston Scrooge

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