There is a pattern of behavior common to some of the people I have encountered on the internet who identify with the Spiral Dynamics Stage Blue mentality. I will refer to the people who exhibit this behavior a Blue Wolf. This pattern of behavior is as follows. When a Blue Wolf encounters a non-Blue (say an Orange or Green), the Blue Wolf will feel this person out. If this person is not immediately hostile and willing to hear the Blue position in a respectful manner, the Blue Wolf will at first appear to be very charitable and hospitable to the non-Blue. But, if after a brief period of time the non-Blue continues to disagree with or questions too much the Blue world view, the Blue Wolf becomes angry and aggressive. This switch happens suddenly and the suddenness of this switch suggests the anger and aggression existed from the start but was merely masked by the initial show of friendliness. Perhaps the Blue Wolf thinks he can persuade the non-Blue to his philosophy through friendliness. Perhaps the Blue Wolf legitimately believes himself to be a good, moral person but is easily triggered by the “enemies” who do not share his beliefs.
The Blue Wolf’s Ego Identifies With Being Blue
It is important to note that the Blue Wolf behavior is not displayed by all of those who identify with Stage Blue. Many Blues will simply cease to engage with the non-Blue once it is clear they cannot see eye to eye. A few Blues will patiently continue to explain their beliefs kindly and politely. It seems that these Blue Wolves are perhaps less self-aware or have their egos so identified with their Blueness that any challenge to it is experienced as a mortal threat. Blue Wolves tend not to want their motivations or psychology examined. One Blue Wolf told me he rejected the entire science of psychology as a liberal invention (which is a good way to never become self-aware in my estimation). But of course, being self-aware is not a Blue priority.
To a Blue, the priority is dedication to a higher power and not to self-actualization. To a Blue there is…
[a] single guiding force [that] controls the world and determine[s] our destiny… Abiding Truth provides structure and order for all aspects of living here on Earth and rules the heavens as, well… [A Blue will] willingly sacrifice [his] desires in the present in the sure knowledge that [he] look[s] forward to something wonderful in the future. (1)
This makes the hostile stance of the Blue Wolf understandable. For anything that conflicts with their believed Truth is per se un-Truth. With that in mind, however, it is interesting to note that some Blues will react to challenges to their Truth in less threatened manners than others. Again, I attribute this different reaction to the degree of ego identification a particular Blue has with his Blue world view.
The Blue Wolf ‘s True Motive is to Argue With and Shame His Enemies
I encountered another Blue Wolf in the comment section of my last post “The Spiral Dynamics of a Christmas Carol“. I recognized this commentor as a reader of the Blue blog, the Orthospehere. True to the Blue Wolf form, this commentor adopted the persona of one who did not know anything about Spiral Dynamics and honestly wanted to understand it. His questions, which began as friendly, quickly turned adversarial when I did not accept his counter arguments to the answers I gave him. He then accused me of not following the proper rules of logic and debate. This is a typical Blue Wolf tactic I have observed. That is, a Blue Wolf will dismiss a non-Blue person and his point of view if the non-Blue violates a rule of logical debate even if the exchange is a casual one in a comment section and not entered into as a formal debate. This has the dual intended effect of allowing the Blue Wolf to exit the exchange seemingly in possession of the moral high ground while at the same time humiliating his interlocutor. Guilt and shame are the primary means by which a Blue enforces his social order. (2).
The Blue Wolf Cloaks His Motives in Logic and Objective Truth
I have observed Blue Wolves will often try to humiliate their non-Blue interlocutors while masking this intention in morality and truth. One Blue Wolf who is (I have heard) now deceased, took the position that the non-Blues who disagreed with him “lacked the capacity” to understand his arguments. This same person and his ilk would cry ad-hominem if a similar claim were made of them. However, when he questioned a person’s intelligence he claimed to be not doing so in order to undermine his interlocutor’s position but rather to describe the truth of the situation. In this way he could (hypocritically) avoid the appearance of committing the ad-hominem fallacy to the like-minded readers of his blog who would readily agree with his position.
Conclusion
I ended up deleting most of the argument from the thread in my previous blog post. I know this is considered to be bad form for the moderator of a comment section. People (Blue Wolves especially I suspect) like to see the documentation of their comment section arguments. Perhaps they feel that a piece of them has been removed when their arguments are edited. In my defense, I did not feel like we were debating. It seemed as if he was asking questions about Spiral Dynamics and I was answering them to the best of my ability. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the subject. I only claim to have an interest and am blogging about it as I learn more about it. For this reason, I am not interested in documenting any supposed debate a particular Blue Wolf believes we are having.
Post Script: There is a great example of a Blue Wolf interaction in the comment section to this blog post. It is interesting how this Blue Wolf accuses me of being intellectually dishonest for deleting his argumentative comments in the previous blog post when he was (in my estimation) being intellectually dishonest by pretending to want to know more about the Spiral Dynamics model when in fact he only wanted to debunk it. Of course he only bases his debunking attempt on reading my blog posts and I never claimed to be an expert on the subject. Nor did I claim to want to debate it even though he chooses to frame the interaction in that manner. I could not have scripted the interaction better if I tried. I un-deleted his comments in the previous post in order to document the nature of his comments because it is relevant to this post.
(1) Beck, Edward and Cowan, Christopher, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, Blackwell Publishing, 1996, pg 229.
(2) Ibid, pg 232.
Winston Scrooge 
The real reason deleting comments is bad form is because its intellectually dishonest. I argued that your spiral dynamics model is inadequate, and you were unable to provide a counterargument. By deleting the comments, you concede that you were unable to adress my critique.
I invite you to comment on my blog and your disagreement will be well documented and, if possible, rebutted.
Your spiral dynamics idea is a box which confines you, but adds nothing to understanding the world.
What is the counter argument you made that you feel I did not adequately address?
1- that spiral dynamics is a rebranding of historical materialism
2- that it is not predictive
3- that it adds no value to a worldview other than giving you a new kind of way to categorize people.
As to points 1 and 3 you clearly don’t know enough about the model to make those judgments. I suggest you read “Spiral Dynamics, Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change” by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan to more fully understand the nuances of the theory.
As to point 2 – the model is predictive. For example, it is used to predict how third world nations evolve into first world nations and how individuals in various living conditions evolve to other living conditions. Don Edward Beck has also consulted with the South African government on their transition out of apartheid as well as the Israeli and Palestinian on ways to solve their issues using the principles developed by the model.
This is where i get frustrated and “accuse you of not following the proper rules of debate”. You are dismissing my claims outright and calling me uninformed, rather than addressing my assertions. I know enough that I can claim with confidence that it is historical materialism and that you are unwilling or unable to argue contrariwise. What in that book refutes my claim? You point me to a source without supplementing it with any information regarding my assertion.
I am arguing that it is not value added because in the previous thread, you said (again, in lieu of refutation), that “of course a blue wouldnt buy into the model”. A belief system is something which cannot be questioned nor challenged; of the two of us only you are refusing to apply any level of engagement with your belief system. If you dismiss argumrnts as you did mine with “well of course a blue thinks that”, its not critical thinking, its just a new layer of prejudice.
Regarding predictability, can you use the model to predict which nation has the conditions for ascending to the next level? Does it add any unique insight that other models of development dont have? Can it address the rise of nations that did not have specialist consultants? You listed examples of its use. But if you cannot assert a testable hypothesis, that xyz will happen if pdq conditions are met, then its a belief system and not a model.
First of all, I am not debating you. I am not knowledgeable enough on the model to defend it in a debate at this point. I am merely interested in it, researching it and writing my thoughts about it as I research it. I am certainly willing to have a discussion about the theory to the extent I currently understand it and can point you to sources in order for you to better understand it if that is something you want to do. I get the sense though that you only want to reject it without really trying to understand it. That is fine but it’s not really an interaction I’m interested in having. The points you made regarding the model are areas that I will look into going forward so thank you for that.
Youll pardon my misunderstanding, since you were writing authoritatively and indeed casting aspersions on me founded on your belief system. All ive wanted is to understand the concept, but youve reacted defensively (needlessly). Since intellectual questioning of your belief system is not something youre interested in, i will shake the dust from my shoes and be on my way.
AMDG
wS…
You cannot possibly understand “self-awareness” if you are unable to concretely conceptualize the annihilation of the self.
I can’t conceptualize what you mean by that term because you refuse to define your terms.
Define “self-awareness?”
Self awareness is consciousness of the true nature of the self, the motivations of the self and the source of the self’s thoughts and emotions.
And so then “self-annihilation,” or, the annihilation of the self, is the annihilation of this “consciousness,” whether from within or without, that you write of.
Is that how you define self annihilation?
That’s how I define the phrase IN RELATION to what you know to be “self-awareness.” IOW, being aware of the self just is to be aware of “its” annihilation.
Good to know. Although, I’m not sure what your concept of self-annihilation has to do with this blog post.
What is the task of deconstructing individuals other than an attempted self-annihilation?
In what way does that annihilate myself? (Based on our history, I in no way expect a coherent response to this question).
I am referring to your fully self-aware attempting at annihilating other individual selves via your deconstructing critique.
I never claimed to be fully self aware. Nor is what I am doing an attempt to “annihilate” another person. But even if it was, how would that be “self-annihilation”?
One Blue Wolf told me he rejected the entire science of psychology as a liberal invention (which is a good way to never become self-aware in my estimation). But of course, being self-aware is not a Blue priority. — [WS]
Again…
IF you are “aware” of “self” THEN you are aware of annihilating the self.
Yes or no?
No. Do you mean kill the self? Why can’t you define your terms so we can have a meaningful conversation on the subject? Perhaps I am mistaken that you want to have a meaningful conversation?
You’re just being obtuse at this point, scrooge.
Some terms are self-explanatory or do I need to “define” this term, too?
You have a history of inventing your own definitions and language for the words you use. This is why I would rather converse in standard English. That we we each know what the other is talking about.
How is “self-annihilation” not standard English or, rather, an invention of language?
Again, if you know what “self-awareness” is then you are aware of annihilating that same self awareness*
Otherwise, “you” are in a state of “radical autonomy.”
* “I never claimed to be fully self aware.” —scrooge
Does self-annihilation mean self-killing? If so, I have not done that as far as I know. Does it mean killing my race? If so, I have not done that or contributed to that as far as I know. Does it mean ego annihilation? If so, I have not done that but to a certain extent I would like to do that (although I’m pretty sure you aren’t referring to the ego with this term of yours). What does it mean and how do my actions or beliefs contribute to this end?
When a mother aborts her child, she literally KILLS a part of her Self. Ergo, she commits an act of Self annihilation that is not an actual suicide.
I hope that helps clarify?
Ok. Well since I am not a mother nor have I engaged in an abortion I don’t think that applies to me. But you recently described my criticizing another person as self-annihilation. How is that akin to abortion? And aren’t you also guilty of this as well?
That wasn’t really the issue. You were having trouble understanding “self-annihilation” and so I provided you a concrete example that wasn’t equivalent to suicide.
My trouble understanding is all because you refuse to define your terms. You seem to want us both to have our own secret definitions of this term you invented to describe a phenomenon you invented that fits within a version of Christianity that you also autonomously invented. I don’t understand why you feel anyone would understand you given this ridiculous situation you created.
Fascinating…
An artifactual remnant of “radical autonomy.”
I provide a concrete example of “self-annihilation,” a definitive account of the phenomenon — not at all equal to suicide — and you simply revert to an inability to comprehend even the concept (let alone its abject reality).
It would be more forthright of you if you would just candidly state that “acts of self-annihilation” do not exist in scrooge’s reality.
Then, at least, “we” could recognize clashing metaphysical assumptions.
You provided an example. But not a definition. Are you saying you define your term “self-annihilation” as – an act of suicide or an tending towards suicide? I really don’t understand why this is so difficult for you.
The definition of “self-annihilation” is the annihilation of the self and not necessarily equal to suicide, to wit, abortion as concrete example, ie., abortion as the annihilation of self (in one’s child) and not an actual suicide of that self. Yet, abortion is not the sole act of self-annihilation/not suicide, but the most obvious exhibit of the phenomenon.
So you gave accused me of being a self-annihilation for commenting on Scoot’s responses in this thread. In what way is that akin to suicide or abortion?
Edit
Yet, abortion is not the sole act of self-annihilation/not suicide, but the most obvious [exhibition] of the phenomenon.
I said that your attempt at deconstructing other individual selves was an attempt at self annihilation. Per “universal equality,” such deconstruction is metaphorically murderous, ie., the annihilation of another self via psychological deconstruction.
That’s a stretch don’t you think?
And then doesn’t that make you a self-annihilator as well? Seems to me that has been you M.O. since the first time we met.
I disagree that I have attempted to deconstruct your true self, rather, I have merely indicated that your true self is self-annihilating, ie., believes in the “right to self-annihilate.”
Oh, here’s a new definition. Your term Self-annihilation now means believing in the right to annihilate.
Why are you so willing to put forth a definition now whereas before you were so resistant? Did my persistence finally pay off?
There is no new definition. I am merely pointing out your logical consistency.
IF one is a self-annihilator THEN one believes in a “right to self-annihilate.” Absent this belief, one would be very reluctant to concede to the claim.
And you believe any form of criticism in combination with a belief in your concept of “equality doctrine” is necessarily proof of a belief in “a right to annihilate”? Is that correct?
I’ll assume you’ll deny being a “self-annihilator” which then goes to undercut any claim to a “right to self-annihilate.”
But, I think you will assert a “right to self-annihilate” thus indicating your penchant for “self-annihilation.”
Only you can clear the air.
Until you define your terms I cannot admit to anything.
Until you define your terms I cannot admit to anything. — [WS]
You are not conscious of the fact that such demand is residual evidence of “radical autonomy.”
If I were to say that [a] high IQ “white” male WILL NOT put his mind on (S)upremacy and [a] high IQ “white” male’s retort is a demand to define the term, he is merely bolstering my point.
Substitute (S)upremacy with “self-annihilation” and “we” are given the same result.
If I say scrooge has no right to annihilate his self, what say scrooge?
I need to know what you are talking about in order to respond. Your refusal to define your made up terms leaves me in the position of having to guess what you mean. This is not a reasonable way to communicate.
Do you believe that I am the first person to recognize the phenomenon of self-annihilation?
Ok, how do these other people define it?
How would you define “self-annihilation?”
This is the real issue.
You cannot OR will not define “self-annihilation” using your own intuition.
No. The real issue is that you have put forth this term so you must mean something when you say it. In order for me to communicate with you on the subject I need to know what you mean by it. If I had been the one to put forth this term then it would make sense for you to ask me how I defined it.
Wrong…
I recognized certain phenomena — abortion, homosexuality, anti-racism, miscegenation, “equality” dogma, etc. — and each and every instance of these phenomena crystallized as a concrete acts of self-annihilation, ie., an annihilation of thy true self.
You are simply unwilling to admit that you cannot and will not put your mind on (S)upremacy, to wit, you cannot and will not reject concrete acts of self-annihilation.
It what way do these examples you cite annihilate the self? If I married a black woman, I still exist, no?
Was your purpose in marrying across racial lines to find thy true self? Or to prove your anti-racism?
I suspect the reason would be love.
Can love be self-annihilating?
Since God is love I don’t think so.
So when you love, you are like God and closer to your true self, ie, not self-annihilating?
I think so. Again, I’d have to know how you define your term to know for sure.
Is love contra the annihilation of the self?
Annihilation of the self in what form?
Any form?
Or are some forms of annihilating the self love?
Self-love is contra suicide if that is what you’re talking about.
So no forms of annihilating the self can be construed as “love?”
Do you have a specific example in mind?
Anti-racism as a meme: towards salvation.
So you are saying that not using skin color as the basis for deciding whether to like someone is an act of self-annihilation?
No… I am saying that anti-racism is self-annihilating and that boasting of one’s hypothetical affection for “blacks” only emphasizes my main point.
How do you define “anti-racism”?
Anti-racism is to be against one’s father(s) and only tangentially-related to love of “other.”
To whom does this label of yours apply?
I am imagining you considering that you would not concede to being a racist? I imagine that you believe anti-racism to be a path to salvation, and if not, I am certain that you are aware of those liberal “Christians” who do?
I don’t know any “liberal” Christian who hates his or her father. Do you equate not being hostile to people of different races to hating one’s father?
I would contend that per “equality” dogma, assimilating to the other is equal to hating one’s father(s).
Define equality dogma.
Pro-Creation = total annihilation…
(S)upremacy = degeneracy…
Love of Other = Hatred of father(s)…
Final Liberation = self-annihilation.
Who are you describing? I know of no one who believes these equations of yours are true.
Do you mean that you know of no radical liberal who would openly attest to believing in such “reality?” Or, are you saying that literally no one believes in “universal equality?”
You’ll have to define what you mean by your term “universal equality”. If you mean every human is equal in every way then I would have a hard time believing that anyone actually believes that.
“Universal equality” is that material place where no objective (S)upremacy persists.
IOW, (P)erfection does not exist where (e)quality “reigns supreme.”
I know of no one who holds this belief.
Heterosexual = homosexual
Man = woman…
These are some of the more primitive forms of “universal equality,” ie., psychological collapse.
I know of no one who holds this belief.
This [means]: next to nothing.
You know anti-racists.
And so you know anti-“white (s)upremacists.”
So you know of anti-(S)upremacy.
Therefore, you can intuit “universal equality.”
Where (e)quality “reigns supreme,” no (P)erfection persists.
I know people who disapprove of racism but that does not mean those people hate their fathers, are against perfection or believe that all people are equal in every way.
All you are doing is denying the existence of the radical liberal and the logical end point to “equality” dogma.
I am denying the reality of these labels you have invented.
What labels have I invented?
And what rock must you be hiding under not to notice the massive cultural push to equate regenerate sexuality with degenerate sexuality?
You invented radical autonomy and self annihilation at least in the way you use them.
So you are saying that there is no such thing as “radical autonomy” and/or “self-annihilation?” Or, are you saying that you are simply unable to use these phrases coherently? Or, are you saying that you cannot possibly intuit their meaning? Or, are you saying that you just possess totally different understandings of these two terms?
I’m saying that I have not gotten a clear definition for each term as you mean them. I suspect this is by design as you want them to mean what ever you want them to mean in any situation.
So then you can intuit the terms for yourself, no? And clearly define them?
And then I’ll explicitly state where I believe that you have fallen short of clear definition.
You have called me a self annihilator and a radical autonomist. In what way do you feel these labels are appropriate?
In claiming to be an anti-racist [Catholic] who conceives white (S)upremacy inherently evil.
The Roman Catholic Church is a racially ecumenical church. My adhering to that spirit is neither radically autonomous nor is it self annihilation. If you feel it is please explain why you feel this way.
Does “racially ecumenical” equal “anti-racist?”
It depends on how you define racist. You seem to equate racial ecumenicism with being hostile towards one’s own race, particularly the white race. I don’t see these as the same or necessarily correlated.
No… Anti-racism is hostile to the white race. To be “racially ecumenical” is for the Catholic Church to be tolerant towards white (S)upremacy.
Does your definition of white supremacy imply hostility to other races?
The definition of white (S)upremacy need not take “Other” races into account as it concerns desire for (P)erfection. Of course, those races (and institutions) hostile to [WS] should be held accountable.
Anyone who is hostile regardless of race should be held accountable, no?
I suppose in a place of “universal equality” being hostile to Christians is equal to Christians being hostile to non-Christians and so one might claim a parallel accountability. But I don’t believe in “universal equality” and neither should a faithful Catholic.
Equality in what sense? If you believe every man can strive for perfection then you believe in a universal equality of dignity, no?
The only men who can strive towards (S)upremacy are those men with the will to do so. Dignity has little do with this desire. By all accounts, this desire is RACIAL and nowise “equal.”
And so if a black man possesses such desire, this points this his father(s) and not his imagined “equality” with the white (S)upremacist.
Either “equality” is conceived absolutely so as to be in “its” finally perfected equation or it is merely a linguistic weapon of war wielded on behalf of the anti-(S)upremacists.
When you say equality do you mean equal in every way? If so, I don’t think anyone is advocating that.
It does not matter what you think. Those whom matter are those seeking an absolute conception of “equality” which is necessarily “universal” in scope. Hence, “universal equality” is the explicit articulation and “equality” is the passive announcement.
Who specifically are “those whom matter”?
Those pushing for “universal equality.” Have you not heard of this being advocated either?
How do you define “universal equality”?
The denial of objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection.
I know of no one who holds that belief.
I’m not at all sure why you think that matters?
Define “universal equality” for those “others” then?
If not, I’d say you’re just trying to put us back in a “radically autonomous” reality.
You are the one who uses these phrases and accuse others of holding these beliefs and acting in accordance with them. The burden rests with you to define them not me.
I can certainly speak for myself. I hold none of these beliefs nor do I act in accordance with them as you have accused me of doing on multiple occasions.
It is not at all clear what you believe? Regardless, what does this have to do with those who advocate for “universal equality” and leave it up to the individual to define this term for himself?
Who advocates for universal equality and what does that even mean?
So you are telling me that you know of no one who advocates for (universal) “equality?” In fact, you don’t even know what the term memes?
I don’t know what you mean by the term. You can’t mean that every person is equal in every way in all circumstances because that is impossible. If this is what you mean then you are simply making a straw man argument.
It doesn’t matter what I mean. It matters what the radical memes. And “universal equality” is exactly what it says “it” is.
Or, you have your own definition?
No one is advocating for this straw man universal equality of yours.
Do you have an actual definition for (universal) “equality” so that you and I can torch this supposed straw-man?
It’s your phrase!! Why should I define what you mean? It is very suspicious that you cannot define what you mean by these terms you throw around.
First, it’s not my phrase. Secondly, I already defined the phrase upthread. Thirdly, you refuse to provide your own interpretation. That’s zero for three.
You defined it in your secret meaningless language. How is that at all helpful?
http://www.universalequality.org
Would the authors of this blog define your term “universal equality” with your phrase “denial of (S)upremacy”? I kinda doubt it.
The tag line is:
Promoting all types of (E)quality.
This is an explicit denial of (P)erfection.
Can’t they be referring to objective equality?
Sure… But then they would be merely referring to the irreal.
(P)erfection, ie., objective (S)upremacy, is the realist “thing” and the sole rationale for the radicals to invoke (universal) “equality.”
Why is objective equality “irreal” whereas objective supremacy is not?
IOW, there is absolutely no such thing as “universal equality.” It is a manifest delusion of the anti-(S)upremacist.
In your world, why can objective supremacy exist without comparison to other races but objective equality cannot?
What is “objective (e)quality?”
I don’t know but according to you I am completely within my rights to make up a term, use it as if it has a meaning and ask you to define it. This passes for meaningful dialogue in your world apparently.
“Objective (s)upremacy” does not exist in my world. But, objective (S)upremacy persists.
Not if it is undefined.
Are you saying undefined “things” cannot persist?
I certainly don’t believe this. After all, I recognize perpetual self-annihilation.
But…
If there were such a thing as “objective (e)quality” then there would be universal (E)quality. Not because “it” is undefinable, but because there is no (P)erfection. Yet, there is (P)erfection, defined as objective (S)upremacy, rendering “objective (e)quality” irreal.
Undefined things can exist. But if you are going to use these terms of yours as if they have real definitions then you should be able to define them without resorting to your secret (undefined) language. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, their actual existence is doubtful.
Of course, I’ve “defined” objective (S)upremacy time and again.
Objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = He who wills ALL (R)ight = The Perfect Man = ???
Who is The Perfect Man? He who wills ALL (R)ight? (P)erfection, Himself? Objective (S)upremacy?
You really don’t know?
Then you are RADICALLY autonomous.
See. You cannot define any of your made up terminology without resorting to your made up terminology. Until you can define these terms using standard English it’s all literally meaningless.
You do understand that The Perfect Man FALSIFIES “objective (e)quality” FOR ALL TIME, ie., renders “it” irreal?
And so the first order of business for the radical autonomist is to deny objective (S)upremacy, absolutely.
How exactly are you defining “define?”
Who is The Perfect Man?
He who wills ALL (R)ight?
(P)erfection, Himself…
Objective (S)upremacy?
He who falsifies “universal (e)quality” for ALL TIME?
What is His name?
Or is “He” irreal?
You won’t say, but call your SELF a Roman Catholic.
So you are radically autonomous.
Even if The Perfect Man were only a concept, this very concept still falsifies “universal (e)quality” for ALL TIME.
Even your version of Christianity is a made up, heretical, egotistical idol worship having no basis in scripture. This is an example of radical autonomy if anything ever were.
Who is The Perfect Man?
The Bible makes reference to several. Job is one for example. Job 1:1.
And I never said that there wasn’t a fine line between white (S)upremacy and “radical autonomy.” I’m just one of the few able to tip-toe that high wire.
Whatever you say big guy.
Read what I’m writing.
The radical egalitarian mindset is SO DEEP INGRAINED in the white race that even a self-professed Roman Catholic within this race of whites will deny the most fundamental Truth of his religion.
That Jesus was a perfect man is not the most fundamental Truth of Christianity. You deciding it to be the most fundamental truth of Christianity does not make it so.
It is, absolutely, the most fundamental Truth to the radical egalitarian. Roman Catholics who do not acknowledge this are stymied within their own kind of “radical autonomy.”
How is this made up belief of yours supported by scripture?
What exactly is the “made up belief” that you write of?
If the “fundamental truth” of Christianity were that Christ is the only perfect man don’t you think that truth would be mentioned in scripture somewhere? Don’t you think it would have been mentioned in the Nicene Creed or in the Apostle’s Creed?
Perhaps you aren’t aware of my First Law of (P)erfection?
No (r)edundancy.
There is only one perfect man or there is none. There cannot be two or more.
Job 1:1
Is…
The Perfect Man = the perfect man?
If you have made up new definitions for “perfect” and “Perfect” please tell me what they are. Otherwise, I will assume you are using the standard dictionary definition.
Not different definitions. Absolute versus relative. That’s why the English language has upper-case versus lower-case.
Please explain the difference between your conception of “absolute perfection” and “relative perfection”.
Is God and god the same thing?
Is Catholic and catholic the same thing?
When you write (s)upremacy instead of (S)upremacy, are you oblivious to what you are attempting to do?
IF so THEN “radical autonomy.”
The word “catholic” means universal. Episcopalians (for example) recite the Nicene Creed where they say they believe “in one holy, catholic and apostolic church”.
So (C)atholic means (U)niversal?
“Catholic” is a proper name when referring to the Roman Catholic Church, whereas “catholic” is a term meaning universal.
What does (C)atholic mean though as a “proper name?”
I don’t use the term “(C)atholic”. That is another one of your meaningless (that is, undefined) terms. However, “Catholic” refers to the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church headed by the Pope.
I use the term (C)atholic to differentiate from the term (c)atholic and you aren’t willing to say one way or the other if the two terms are intimately related?
What are the parentheses for?
For the “universal” egalitarians.
Ah, it’s meaningless then. Just like all the other made up terminology in your secret language.
No… Not at all. As I’ve explained before, high IQ “white” males such as yourself simply will not or cannot differentiate between objective (S)upremacy and subjective (s)upremacy. The parentheses act as a trigger to provoke a reader’s discriminating process.
You though stay comfortably within that state of “radical autonomy,” unwilling or unable to make the distinction going so far as to believe the parentheses are “meaningless.”
They are meaningless because only you know what they mean and refuse to coherently explain their purpose. Neither intelligence nor race (white or otherwise) has anything to do with it.
I just told you what the parentheses around a single INITIAL letter meant:
To trigger anti-white (S)upremacists who only [know] “white (s)upremacy” in their feeble attempt at collapsing reality, ie., ENFORCING “universal equality.”
Can you explain it using standard English and not resorting to your secret language that only you understand?
Why did you change “no” to “know?”
Your deficit as a high IQ “white” male is that YOU SAY “no” to “white (s)upremacy.”
WHICH IS THEN EQUAL TO:
Saying “no” to white (S)upremacy.
Which is all very (t)rue PER “universal equality.”
This is all very coherent to a racist (S)upremacist.
Your issue is not being able to see your SELF in the explication.
You are in a state of “radical autonomy.”
And it’s a self-annihilating pathology exacerbated by a high IQ.
So it’s a VICIOUS CYLCE, ie., a r/evolution.
In a small way I am attempting to train you to communicate in standard English and not to resort to what I suppose you consider to be clever double entendres.
Everything [I write means something].
Believe it or not?
I’ve seen little evidence that everything you write is meaningful. The fact that you!have difficulty defining your terms suggests that you fear being revealed as a fraud.
When high IQ “white” male rejects (P)erfection, it’s “lights out,” ie., darkness and death.
Your rejection of white (S)upremacy portends “darkness and death” for the white race which necessarily includes your SELF and your children’s true selves.
I reject your undefined secret language and the redundant arguments you engage in.
So…
You’re still a high IQ “white” male who rejects objective (S)upremacy even if you cannot or will not understand what this [means].
And this means that you will not put your high IQ “white” male mind on (P)erfection.
This is artifact.
Not necessarily. I do reject you communing in a manner designed to be incoherent and then expecting other people to understand what you mean.
Can one design “incoherency?”
Does one even need to if the desire is (P)erfection?
Why won’t you put your mind on (S)upremacy whether or not I define “it” for you coherently?
You did design incoherency. You invented this language of yours and you refuse to define your terms.
Perfection has nothing to do with it except that your communication is most decidedly imperfect.
You are grossly mistaken if you believe that I need to define WHY you will not put your mind on objective (S)upremacy as a high IQ “white” male or WHY you continue to feverishly cling to the liberated conception of “white (s)upremacy?”
All your writing of “secret language” is simply deflection from the issue at hand.
It really isn’t. I don’t know what you are talking about because you refuse to define the terms of your secret language. Kristor and others on the Orthosphere said the same thing on multiple occasions.
Kristor (along with all the Orthosphereans) is in the very same altered frame as you:
A white Roman (C)atholic who only knows “white (s)upremacy” as racial degeneracy. IOW, neither you nor Kristor is able or willing to conceive of white (S)upremacy as white men striving towards (P)erfection.
And it is unclear as to whether its your liberalism or your Catholicism that is the true stumbling block?
That’s right Thordaddy. Everyone who doesn’t understand your secret language just can’t appreciate the truth. It wouldn’t have anything to do with your secret language that only you understand! Lol!
It’s much simpler than that…
Your brand of Christianity is against “white (s)upremacy” because [it is] “evil.” End of indoctrination.
And so you are religously forbidden from conceptualizing white (S)upremacy, absolutely.
Whining about a “secret language” changes none of the above.
My complaint about your use of incomprehensible language is legitimate especially if my understanding of your made up version of Christianity is truthful as you claim.
Using standard English would be a very simple fix for your problem.
You’re not making any sense.
You know exactly what “white (s)upremacy” [means].
Your deficit is in clinging to its pejoratively relativist definition to the utter exclusion of its absolute understanding.
And your high IQ plus a deracinated “catholicism” is the most likely mechanism of “radical autonomy.”
Then all you have to do is define your new made up meaning in standard English (i.e., not your secret language). This should be easy to do, but I fully anticipate you dodging in your customary, redundant manner.
Maybe I’m granting you too much intelligence?
“white (s)upremacy:” a phrase used by anti-racists meant to provoke and then entangle white people with [people of African descent] indefinitely.
white (S)upremacy: white men who believe in and therefore strive towards (S)upremacy, necessarily separating from any psychological entanglement with [people of African descent].
How’s that?
Or, will you invoke your “secret language” non-critique again?
You now need to define “striving for supremacy” (without resorting to your secret language).
Where did I write “strive for supremacy?” I don’t read that anywhere?
Strive towards supremacy?
Yes… Can you copy/paste where I have ever written “strive towards supremacy?” Or, are you asking me to define this never-before-used-phrase-on-my-part for you even though it’s your articulated phrase?
Come back when you are ready to stop playing word games.
If I said that [a] high IQ “white” male cannot and will not put his mind on “supremacy” then this would be retarded because [a] high IQ “white” male is constantly whining about “white supremacy” and thus already mindful of “supremacy.”
Who are you accusing of “whining about white supremacy”?
High IQ “white” male[s].
Not a either.
The category itself.
The herd as whole.
I don’t know one white male who whines about white supremacy. Speaking for myself, I would never give it two thoughts if you didn’t constantly troll my blog.
And you are playing the game of “radical autonomy.”
Supremacy does not equal supremacy.
Your feeble attempt at substituting lower-case for higher-case simply bolsters my main contention.
You cannot and will not put your mind on (S)upremacy EVEN THOUGH you supposedly possess a solid understanding of “white (s)upremacy.”
So radical autonomy means desiring rational conversation where both parties understand the terms being used in the conversation?
No… “Radical autonomy” means denial of objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection.
That’s circular. Define supremacy and perfection without using radical autonomy. Then define radical autonomy without using supremacy or perfection.
Don’t you mean “revolutionary?”
No I mean circular and redundant (and therefore not perfect I suppose).
Okay… I’ll do this for the umpteenth time:
objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = He who wills ALL (R)ight = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ (according to Christian dogma) = falsification of “universal equality.”
Those who reject this single linear equation are almost invariably in a state of “radical autonomy*.”
*Unless said individuals are seriously positing a “perfected man” to equally match the God-Man?
You still are resorting to your secret language.
What “Christian Dogma” are you referring to? Can you point to scripture or some other source?
Christian dogma asserts the existence of a God-Man. A PERFECT God-Man. One who wills ALL right.
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son if God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
He suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,.
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
And is this faith because of OR in spite of your racially incarnated being?
I say the former and you seem to indicate the latter?
It’s actually neither.
So revelation?
My faith has nothing to do with my race.
So your faith has nothing to do with your father(s)?
Why would it?
So as a father, you are not an inspiration of faith to your children because “racist?”
I don’t understand.
Is your faith simply self-generating or was there an actual material mechanism involved in acquiring said faith, say, for example, your father?
My parents certainly influenced me but I would not say they were the only influence. What’s your point?
My point is that if one’s desire for (S)upremacy is acquired by the very fact of his father(s) then Christianity, in the least, cannot say one way or another on the matter of proper racism. In fact, at the most, Christians should be able to easily recognize the legitimacy of the connection. Anti-Christians then will have advocated, sometimes violently, for anti-racism and thus the supposed illegitimacy of “learning” (S)upremacy from one’s father(s), ie., being taught “racism.”
I don’t find that argument convincing.
You don’t find “it” convincing of what exactly?
WHO teaches actual racism to actual white children and how does this racism actually persist if it’s truly illegitimate?
“Racism” is the passive iteration of “white supremacy” where the aggression is in going explicitly “white.” So when somebody whines about “racism,” they are really whining about “white supremacy.” But to whine about “white supremacy” is to whine about the mechanisms of trans-mission. Ergo, “racism” is “taught” (versus per bloodline). But alas, nobody blames “mother” for “white supremacy.” It would be just too ludicrous. At the same time, no one wants to expose the hard reality that “white” anti-racist shitlibs hate their daddies. This hatred is truly their anti-racism where your race is your father(s).
This has nothing to do with Christianity. Your “Jesus as perfect man” premise is not supported by the facts.
The question is whether Christianity, in exercising an advocacy for anti-racism, is, in doing so, actually anti-Christian? And in order to answer this question one requires an understanding of the highest conception of racism. Anything less and your average Christian flirts with self-annihilation and damnation.
Does anyone other than you understand this “highest conception of racism”?
I cannot see why at least one other individual would not… At least one other dabbles outside the sphere of “radical autonomy” at some juncture especially within the realm of “higher conceptions of race.”
So the council of Nicaea was populated by “radical autonomists”?
Perhaps… But I’ve always contended that the original Roman Catholics were racist Supremacists. And you’ve never offered much in the manner of rebuttal.
The Creed makes no mention of race. The Catholic Church has always been racially ecumenical. Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbor and to spread the gospel to all nations.
And…
This is equivalent to anti-white (S)upremacy in what manner?
So you are saying white supremacy embraces racial ecumenism?
No… I am saying that the Roman Catholic Church cannot gainsay the legitimacy of white (S)upremacy. In fact, any attempt to do so is anti-Christian and thus a pathological sin.
The Nicene Creed is the historically earliest statement of Christian belief. It is embraced to this day by most Christians, not just Roman Catholics.
Yes… And it says nothing in regard to the legitimacy of ideological anti-racism.
Right. So race is irrelevant to Christian belief.
How do you figure that?
It doesn’t say anything about Africans eithers. Are Africans irrelevant to Christianity, also?
You are racially incarnated, no?
Yes, all races are irrelevant to Christian belief.
Nothing is irrelevant to Christianity. In fact, claiming that race is irrelevant to Christianity means exactly nothing other than pathological “anti-racism.”. Yet, because Christian dogma abhors pathology, if you actually believe in the irrelevancy of race, then, as a Christian, you would be absolutely silent on the subject of white ((S)upremacy.
You are the one who tries to shoe horn white supremacy in to every subject. I’m just indulging you because doing so increases the views to by blog.
Actually, you are the one who asserts that Christianity is in contradiction to white (S)upremacy.
Only because you keep shoehorning it in. I would never even consider writing about white supremacy or race if didn’t constantly troll my blog about them. The subject does not interest me in the slightest.
So, do you have a more particular name for “blue wolves in sheep’s clothing” or am I mistaken in believing that you are referring to “white supremacists” with such phrase?
Read what I wrote.
Furthermore, as a professed white man of Roman Catholic faith, you are, secularly-speaking, a white (S)upremacist and no amount of “Christianity says race is irrelevant” can prove otherwise.
I in no way consider myself to be a white supremacist in the standard English definition. Nor do I care to be one according to any other definition you have invented if you are the exemplar of said definition.
It does not matter what you want. What matters is what is the Truth. And the truth is that white men who strive towards (S)upremacy are virtually synonymous to an original Roman Catholic. In fact, your radical buddies were very fond of calling traditional white Christians “white supremacists” when they were able to get away with such verbal deception. Now, fifteen, twenty years later, when all of modern “Christianity” is so cucked that it would be completely counterintuitive to refer to said cucks as “white supremacists,” the linguistic deceit inevitably moved (R)ight.
The truth is that you have made up your own (T)ruth.
No at all…
The truth is that being against white (S)upremacy takes higher priority than being a solid Christian for you. Then you go ahead and fudge this fact deceptively conflating the two and end up equal to a radical leftist.
I don’t do any of those things. Please provide specific feedback examples.
IOW…
Your “Christianity” is primarily anti-“white supremacy,” thus leftist. You are a leftist “Roman Catholic,” ie., a radical autonomist.
Nope.
You were certainly running left of almost every Orthospherean and I am fairly confident almost all would consider themselves anti-“white (s)upremacy.”
I wrote a long time ago that all are anti-“white (s)upremacy” and that the “Christian” right/atheistic left is a cloaking of a deeper reality and you bear this out.
But IT WAS NOT ALWAYS THIS WAY.
White Christians USED TO BE racist (S)upremacists.
But modern “Christianity” changed all this.
“White Christians” are now the most faithless cucks.
I don’t see why not being hostile to one’s fellow citizens of a different ethnic background is unchristian.
Being a racial self-annihilator isn’t Christianity. It is leftism.
That term doesn’t apply to me.
You are an anti-racist “Catholic,” ie., a self-annihilating “Christian.” A leftist.
Those terms are not equivalent.
These terms certainly are [equal] per “equality” dogma and the modern Church advocates (universal) “equality.”
You speak in word salad and then wonder why nobody understands you. Again, I am happy to humor you by responding because it has the effect of increasing my blog stats but it would be far more interesting to have an actual conversation about the real ideas that may exist behind your language. The more you persist with your word salad / secret language, getting hung up on the proper use of parenthesis etc., the less I think there are actual ideas behind your language. In fact, the more you do this, the more I believe you are simply a troll who is hopelessly addicted to this kind of interaction. I don’t know you but I suspect there is a person suffering underneath all this.
I disagree…
I have been very specific in my aim for a very long time and this aim is extremely simple.
Persuade white boy that “white supremacy” is not evil.
What I have found is that this is a nearly impossible task such that a genuine white Supremacist is rare.
IOW, you are WHOLLY of the mind that “white supremacy” is evil, bad, immoral (and your “faith” affirms this). But having not actually intuited this on your own, but rather, conditioned to believe it so since birth, you are seemingly without conversion mechanism.
NOT EVEN actual desire in a resurrected afterlife can alter this brainwashing since conception.
I don’t believe you. If you truly wanted to persuade people you would not make your language incomprehensible.
My language is only incomprehensible because you DENY white (S)upremacy. And so a white (S)upremacy that is good and right and true and entirely in accord with a desire for resurrected afterlife is incomprehensible to you. Yet, even when I explain this to you, this explanation is incomprehensible. So then I say you are deep, deep into “radical autonomy.” Which you retort is “incomprehensible.” This exchange becomes a vicious revolution which is ultimately to the advantage of the radical autonomist.
Name one other person who finds your language comprehensible.
That’s not the actual Litmus Test though.
The Litmus Test is whether you acknowledge or deny white (S)upremacy?
Almost to a high IQ “white” male will the chant be,”Anti-white supremacy!”
Roman Catholic, leftist, libertarian, green, Marxist, commie, cuck, etc…
It doesn’t matter… It’s a monolithic mindset. A conscious totalitarianism of the self.
So you are saying that you are the only one who finds your language comprehensible even though it is truth?
No… That’s not what I’m writing. I am writing that I could just as easily claim “incomprehensibility” to any or every claim of the egalitarian, but would such tact would only then further the revolutionary aim.
The Litmus Test is “white supremacy” and whether one only knows “evil, bad, wrong” in association with this phrase or whether one can take that very same phrase, convert it to white (S)upremacy and understand it as true, good and (R)ight?
You are incredibly unable to perform such a conversion EVEN THOUGH you possess a higher than average IQ.
This [means] that you are in a state of “radical autonomy.”
Claiming “incomprehensibility” JUST BOLSTERS MY CLAIM.
Or it could mean that your language is incomprehensible.
To know “comprehensibility” just is to invoke objective (S)upremacy. So your appeal for more perfect communication goes to the very heart of the matter which is your mundane denial of (P)erfection.
That’s stupid. You could communicate using standard English if you wanted to. You’re just trying to seem intellectual and mysterious.
Lol…
There isn’t a word that I use that isn’t mundane and/or incredibly common.
Self
Annihilation
Objective
Supremacy
Perfection
Right
White…
Stuff is straight forward…
BUT…
You don’t dare conceive a different conception of “white supremacy.”
Don’t you dare, “good Christian.”
So you are saying that the definitions you use for these terms is the same as the standard English definitions?
No… I am righting that in the world of “radical autonomy” where objective (S)upremacy is flat out denied by the masses, “definition” is quaint and archaic.
Your continuous appeal to “definition” by “Standard English” simply has no play in this here time and space.
Focus…
You ARE AGAINST “white (s)upremacy.”
[which means]
You are against white(S)upremacy, ie., against white men who strive towards (P)erfection as white men. This is uber-racism… Meta-racism… Yet, racism all the same where “universal equality” is “collapse.”
No more “definition” required.
So you are saying you have special secret definitions for your terms?
No…
I am [writing] that no definitions are required to assert that YOU are against “white (s)upremacy…”
Which [means]
You are against white (S)upremacy.
Now…
You could write, “I might not be against white (S)upremacy depending on your definition?”
To which I shall right again:
White (S)upremacy is that voluntary collective of white men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection, as white men.
And this is when you appeal for more definition and invoke secret languages and whatnot because you simply refuse to participate in defining a higher conception of white (S)upremacy to the subversive one that altready serves your anti-racist/“Catholic” agenda.
And is your obsessive trolling of my blog an example of your striving towards objective (S)upremacy as a white man?
Define “trolling?”
I prefer “memetic necessity” in a fallen world.
I use the standard definitions.
There are no “standard definitions” where (P)erfection is wholly rejected.
IT DOES NOT MATTER what my “good, right, true” definition of “white (s)upremacy” might be…
You do not have the capacity to convert “white (s)upremacy” from the “bad, wrong, evil” definition that “it” reveals TO YOU.
You just do not have the ability to take a learned negative conception and convert it into an intuited higher conception EVEN where the opportunity is most ripe for trans-formation as is the case with “white (s)upremacy.”
You can’t do it.
But the real question is “why not?”
Why can you not do it?
Anti-racism? Catholicism? Both? Neither?
Who has wholly rejected perfection?
My conclusive answer as it regards high IQ “white” males is that *you* just DO NOT WANT TO because the implications are clear.
IF [a] high IQ “white” male were to suddenly reframe “white (s)upremacy” in the light of that which is good, right and true THEN their accountability for the known mass degeneracy is unquestionable.
Whoever preaches “equality” in any way, shape or form. Which is practically ALL of the modern world.
Why are you continuously minimizing my well experienced collective to a single, unknown individual?
You are just ONE of the bigger collective of high IQ “white” males WHO REFUSES to use your excessive “intelligence” to reconceptualize “white supremacy” in a manner suitable to racial (and thus spiritual) viability ON THE WHOLE.
It is a pox on you and your supposed “intelligence.”
Do you equate my asking you to define the terms of your secret language with minimizing your experienced collective (whatever that means)?
No… I equate “radical autonomy” with trans-forming a selective collective of individuals to a single individual and relentlessly demanding “definition” where no such thing is actually needed. Peat and Repeat.
So there are other people in this collective of yours? Can you introduce them to me?
What is any one supposed to think when you redundantly lower-case (P)erfection and (S)upremacy to their mundane instantiations perfection and supremacy, respectively?
Intuitively, you are expressing your anti-Capitalist ethos.
IOW, you are not a true believer in “credit where credit is due.” (Render unto Caeser what is Caesar’s, what is God’s to God).
Your “Roman Catholicism” is in a state of “radical autonomy.”
Adhering to standard English definitions and grammar is not radical autonomy. Now if I invented a secret language that I expected other people to understand but did not define, that sounds more like radical autonomy to me.
You didn’t answer the question.
Why do you lower-case where I am [writing in] higher-cases?
There you go again changing the meaning of what I have written.
You are lower-casing (P)erfection (trans-forming into perfection) as a subtle snub to its Absolute in a feeble attempt at creating an illusion of wrongness in a higher-casing (versus the righting of higher-cases).
Where have I done that?
All over this blog.
Give me an example.
Who has wholly rejected perfection? — winstonScrooge
When did I do that?
Upthread.
I don’t think I did that.
winstonscrooge on February 19, 2019 at 7:42 pm
Who has wholly rejected perfection?
That’s my statement not yours.
Yes… It is another example of YOU lower-casing (P)erfection thus referencing some “thing” different from what I am [writing] about.
Until you define the difference between what you mean by the uppercase and lowercase usages of these terms in standard English then I will continue to use proper grammar as I understand it.
So, I have to define (G)od and (g)od for you, as a Roman Catholic, or you do not know of what any “thing” means?
Since you do not communicate in standard English I need to know what YOU mean by the terms you use. All this would be much easier if you dropped your secret language only understood by your “collective” (i.e., you alone).
“Standard English” is gibberish without (C)apitalization.
Yes but you have a tendency to use capitalization and parentheses in non standard ways.
This is because the anti-Capitalists are not triggered by “standard English.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about? Who are the “anti-capitalists”?
Those who cannot differentiate (because “equality”) between:
God and god
Perfection and perfection
Supremacy and supremacy
Capital and capital…
So on and so forth.
I can differentiate between the two in standard English. I cannot in your secret language because you refuse to define your terms.
If you can differentiate between “supremacy” and “Supremacy” using “standard English,” ie., recognizing the necessity of Capitalization, THEN you can differentiate between “white supremacy” and white Supremacy. But of course, you absolutely refuse to differentiate between the two distinct phenomena and redundantly fall beneath the cover of “definitions” not even required to make my underlying point.
YOU WILL NOT put your mind on white Supremacy and admitting this explicitly just must tug at your “intelligence” because you will not do this either even though you have conceded that white Supremacy is different and distinct from “white supremacy.”
You are in deep denial.
What do YOU mean by these two terms of yours? When I understand that we can talk about it. It makes no sense for us to have a conversation about a term when we have different conceptions of the same term. I’m not sure why you interpret my perfectly reasonable request as denial. I cannot be in denial about something I do not understand.
And the revolution continues…
A “white (s)upremacist” is a “racist” who is always accompanied by niggers and jews at the uniparty.
A white (S)upremacist is a racist who never brings the nigger or jew to the uniparty.
How are those definitions for you?
The former is a relativist. The latter is an Absolutist.
Or, I could write that a “white (s)upremacist” is a white male who believes he is superior to the jew and nigger because he is a white male (oooh… bad, bad “racist”).
And a white (S)upremacist is SIMPLY a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection (the other is truly irrelevant).
Again, the former is a relativist seeking absoluteness and the latter is only seeking absoluteness by transcending the relativists.
Give me an example of how one would act if she were striving towards “objective Supremacy”.
First things first…
It can’t be an “act.”
So rephrase your question.
What can it be?
First… Absent a desire for (P)erfection, there is “nothing” for another to do.
Let’s say a person posses a desire for “Perfection”. What would she do next?
The easiest and most general answer would be to co-pro-create with this desire.
Give me an example of what this means.
Well… It can be as accessible as creating a child and thus creating opportunity for a new resurrected eternal life. Or, it might be found in a created piece of art or poetry. Perhaps it manifests as an unwielding determination to do all right. Yet, it could merely be a negation of all self-annihilating tendencies. Ultimately, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as a white man to seek out this answer intuitively recognizing your primordial understanding of (P)erfection.
Could it be the maintenance of intact family?
Do you mean could it be the reality of a racist family?
No.
Are there other ways to “maintain” an “intact family” outside of a strong racism within?
Parents can live together with their children, for example.
I am sure under many circumstances that such a traditional scenario could be sensed as striving towards (P)erfection given the radically anti-traditional culture “we” are immersed in. Yet, there still seems to be a functional racism at the heart of any maintainable, intact family.
I see. So “striving towards Perfection” just means whatever Thordaddy feels like doing. Under that definition I do not subscribe to your made up and radically autonomous notion. Thanks for finally clearing this all up.
That’s silly…
Even sillier is the idea that “thordaddy” must “define” striving towards Supremacy for you (the whole point is for YOU to put your mind on Supremacy and participate in defining what this memes).
Clearly, the reality of (P)erfection provides ample opportunities to fulfill one’s “free will.”
But, you don’t dare.
I get it. You are a racist and you need some way of justifying it. So you come up with your own jargon and logic system. Then you label all this “striving for perfection” and anyone who questions it “radically autonomous” and ”self annihilating” and no one can argue with you because all these terms are undefined.
I get it… You’re a deracinated anti-racist who thinks striving towards Perfection is evil and you’ll die right now to prove it because you’re “sacrificing for salvation.”
In the manner you define “striving for perfection,” I think it is highly egotistical.
I don’t even use that phrase.
Lol
Quote it.
Why bother trolling my blog? Why not go hang out with your “collective” or your family?
This isn’t “trolling” unless you are defining “trolling” as the endeavor to show that high IQ “white” males will not put their mind on (S)upremacy?
Maybe that’s how you define the behavior that people outside your “collective” call trolling. 😉
Ask yourself why it is nearly impossible for you to copy and paste white (S)upremacy for fear of its acknowledgement as a real thing EVEN as you readily acknowledge “white (s)upremacy” all about this blog?
Ask yourself why you cannot define your terms.
thordaddy on January 31, 2019 at 12:50 am
Of course, I’ve “defined” objective (S)upremacy time and again.
Objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = He who wills ALL (R)ight = The Perfect Man…
If this isn’t a definition for “(S)upremacy” then provide your own… YOU MUST HAVE ONE that isn’t incorrigibly tied to jews and [people of African descent]?
Then we can compare and contrast.
You define it in a circular manner using more private jargon. When I asked you for specific examples of what someone would do to embody these terms you were equally evasive.
I think you [mean] “revolutionary?”
Redundant actually.
How else to “speak” the language of the materialist except through “redundancy?”
It’s funny how you project your own perceived failings onto other people. You call me redundant but all your obsessive texts evidence your redundancy. You call me radically autonomous but you are the one who has invented his own Christianity and his own language and circular logic (another example of redundant behavior) to support it. Moreover, you live alone and can demonstrate no evidence that there is anyone who shares your beliefs. I can’t imagine anyone more autonomous than that. You say you strive for perfection but cannot define what that means or provide an example of any action you have taken in furtherance of this “striving.” That does not sound perfect to me. Etc.
Let’s just grant all this for the sake of my very advanced state of “radically autonomy…”
Still…
What does this have to do with YOUR DESIRE for (S)upremacy (or lack thereof) as a white man (or in spite of your “race”)?
Or, you can simply state that you possess no desire for (S)upremacy as a white man and then explain why you oppose those white men who do possess such desire? Or, do you admit to not being in opposition to white (S)upremacy?
The perfection you are talking about has nothing to do with race as far as I am concerned.
All you have written here is that your children will not learn of (P)erfection from you. And it will be, seemingly, by a processs of osmosis, that your children are taught that objective (S)upremacy is the highest reality? In your case, father simply doesn’t know “best.”
There’s a good chance that *you* are not even real as it’s rather self-evident that no A.I. is capable of recognizing objective (S)upremacy, ie., a will to do ALL Right.
In game theory, one wins BY “doing ALL Right.” If it were otherwise, “Doing all wrong” theory would be a most successful application of “game.”
In the minimum, Scrooge can recognize that “doing ALL RIght” is “perfect,” no?
Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder?
How about “we” bet a “mental evaluation” on your inability to literally write:
objective Supremacy.
And send “comment.”
There are two things going on here that you partake in as a self-identified “Roman Catholic.”
The first is the colossal effort to ensure that “white supremacy” is always and forever conceived as “bad, wrong, evil” in the eyes of the super mass.
The second issue is ensuring that a “good, right, true” conception of white (S)upremacy does not pervade the virtual reality.
By maintaining both these goals as a professed “Roman Catholic,” you are, IN FACT, a radical autonomist.
This accusation cannot be more definitive.
I don’t give a damn about white supremacy.
But the “Roman Catholic Church” is virulently anti-white (S)upremacy and you are a “Roman Catholic.”
So… You ought to give a damn if you are making enemy of the white race as a “white man.”
But you define white supremacy differently than the church, no?
What you mean is that I possess a higher conception of white (S)upremacy than the one slavishly submitted to by the “Catholic Church” per ideological concession.
The Roman Catholic Church is an international, racially ecumenical organization that follows Christ’s teaching to love one’s neighbor. Naturally they would be against the common conception of racism (of any sort). I can’t speak to your “higher conception” of racism because you cannot define what it means.
Which does nothing to explain why the “Roman Catholic Church” is virulently ANTI-white (S)upremacy.
I don’t know what you mean by “virulently” but again, racism of any kind is antithetical to church doctrine and Christianity in general.
No, it’s not…. That’s ridiculous. Does Christ ever use the word “racism?”
We’ve talked about this before. See MT 22:34-40.
Your interpretation commands you to love the racist neighbor and does not at all prevent a racist from loving his own neighbor. The pathology of “anti-racism” is irrelevant to this teaching.
That is the orthodox interpretation. I realize that your made up, autonomous interpretation is in conflict. I don’t really care though. Feel free to believe what you want to believe.
So liberal, anti-racist “equality” dogma is really just “Roman Catholic Church” doctrine?
I don’t think the church is liberal on many issues and I don’t know what YOU mean by “equality dogma”. Can you please define what YOU mean by that term in standard English?
The “Church” is against white (S)upremacy AND IT DOES NOT MATTER how I define “it” as the “Church” will still be against “it” DUE its submissively slavish concession to a single concept of “white (s)upremacy” (which cohencidentally incessantly invokes niggers).
How come this cannot get through your thick skull?
Even if I were able to define white (S)upremacy as white men who desire objective (S)upremacy, the “Church” would be against white (S)upremacy.
How come you cannot get this through your thick skull?
If I were to define white (S)upremacy as white men who desire (P)erfection, the “Church” would still be against white (S)upremacy.
How come you cannot get this through your thick skull?
If I were to define white (S)upremacy as white men with a collective will to do All Right, the “Church” would still be against white (S)upremacy.
Why can you not get this through your thick skull?
If I were to define white (S)upremacy as that which makes the “other” irrelevant to the discussion, you and tens of billions of other roaming (c)atholics would screech in global unison…
“Down with ‘white (s)upremacy!!!’”
You are simply incapable of conceptualizing a greater understanding of white (S)upremacy even in this time of feverish anti-white scapegoating.
You ONLY KNOW “white (s)upremacy.” This small, wrong-headed idea that self-serves “liberation.”
The Church is not against acting morally. If your idea of perfection implies moral action then I don’t see why the Church would be against it. Of course I have no idea what sort of actions fall under your idea of perfection.
But is the “Church” against white men who desire (P)erfection as white men is the question?
And the answer is “yes” the “Church” is against white (S)upremacy.
So the “Church” has been subverted because she cannot truly be against racial (S)upremacy.
Give me an example of something the Church has done to demonstrate this feeling of yours.
Why an “example” when I can just state without equivocation that the “Roman Catholic Church” is anti-“white (s)upremacy” and you cannot disagree?
And when I say that the “Roman Catholic Church” is against “white (s)upremacy” because of:
a) a slavish submission to the liberated conception.
And b) an unwillingness and an inability to conceive of a higher conception…
You cannot disagree.
It simply is and any and all “examples” changes “nothing.”
I don’t believe the Church has ever been against white (or any other type of person) trying to be the best they can be.
Then all you are conceding is that the Roman Catholic Church is not against white (S)upremacy, properly and absolutely defined.
AND…
This is exactly what I mean [I write] that the original Roman Catholics were proto-white (S)upremacists.
Maybe we’ve crossed a mental threshold?
But you insist that the Church is against white supremacy. So which one is it? This is why your slippery definitions make it difficult to communicate with you.
I think the obvious implication is that the true Church cannot be against white (S)upremacy, but a usurped “Roman Catholic Church” is against “white (s)upremacy.”
And it is up to white Catholic laymen to resolve the apparent paradox.
You’re an idiot.
And you, as a professed Roman Catholic of European blood, are a white (S)upremacist. Or, so you should be if you were being your true self?
I would never use your terminology to describe myself.
So what would you call a white man who believed in and therefore strived towards objective (S)upremacy IF NOT a white Supremacist?
Since you are unable to define what you mean by “objective supremacy” or provide an example of how one would “strive towards” this position, I believe this term, as you use it, to be meaningless. Therefore, I cannot answer your question.
[…T]he phrase objective (S)upremacy means (P)erfection.
So what do you call a white man who believes in and therefore strives toward (P)erfection as white man?
A man who strives to be perfect is exactly that.
You didn’t answer the question?
What should you call a white man who desires (S)upremacy as a white man?
I did answer the question. Why confuse the intended word “perfection” with the loaded word “supremacy”? What does race have to do with it?
I am not confusing anything.
(P)erfection is objective (S)upremacy.
Your continued reference to “(s)upremacy” and “(p)erfection” is to AVOID putting your mind on the above as I’ve written countless times.
You are mistaking the accessibility of eternal life with actual desire of the same.
If you told me what these made up terms of yours mean then maybe I could put my mind to them. Why can you not define them?
How are Perfection and Supremacy “made up terms?”
How does this even make sense in light of the fact that you have been referencing “perfection” and “supremacy” throughout this thread?
The reality is that your “radically autonomous” mentality has the effect of making your fellow white male think SMALL. Think “lower-case.” Think lower caste. Think annihilation.
…
Please refer to Subject #1 in blog post https://wordpress.com/post/winstonscrooge.wordpress.com/5495.
Please see subject #1
The link is as follows:
https://winstonscrooge.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/thordaddian-stock-response-repository/
It is also the most recent post on my blog. If you cannot find it with the information I have provided then I think we are done.