Thordaddian Stock Response Repository

This series of post can probably be ignored by most of my readers unless they are Thordaddy or have been following his voluminous comments and my responses thereto in the comment sections to other blog posts. For just one example of his obsessive comments, please see the comment section of my previous post. You can also review the comments to this blog post as well. You will notice that all his comments revolve around his personal philosophy of white supremacy. In fact, he has a history of transforming the comment section for any blog post I make into a conversation on white supremacy regardless of the original topic.

For a long time, I indulged him primarily because his voluminous comments tended to increase the overall traffic to my blog. I indulged him secondarily because trying to understand and then countering his theories and arguments presented an intellectual challenge. However, this interaction has gone on too long and has become tiresome. The same subjects, arguments and counter arguments have been made ad nauseam (to the fullest extent of that term).

Therefore, I have created this series of posts for two main reasons. First, I want to save some time and effort by putting all of my stock answers to his arguments and accusations in one area which can then be referred to when the subject arises again without having to redundantly re-argue the same topic over and over. Second, because his obsessive commenting tends to turn every comment section of every post on my blog into a “debate” on the subject of white supremacy, I want to confine this business to one area of my blog. This will allow future posts unrelated to white supremacy to remain unpolluted by this dialog. I suspect some training will be required in that I will have to delete his comments to future posts and direct him back to this series. So be it.

Here are the subjects addressed thus far:

Thordaddy’s Use of Private Jargon / Secret Language

Thordaddy’s Twin Concepts of “Radical Autonomy” and “Self-Annihilation”

Thordaddy’s Concept of White Supremacy

Thordaddy’s Claim that White Supremacy Accords With Christian Doctrine

Note: I reserve the right to edit any post in this series to address any new arguments that happen to arise.





Filed under Psychology

220 responses to “Thordaddian Stock Response Repository

  1. thordaddy

    Two concrete examples of self-annihilation and “radical autonomy” would be abortion and autism, respectively.

    • Thank you for your clear and un-jargon laden response. I consider that progress, So, we still need to work on defining these terms. Can you provide clear and un-jargon laden definitions?

      • thordaddy

        Man… When do you make some intellectual effort? Are concrete examples not definitions? If in the abortion act, a female kills a part of herself, is this not self-annihilation? If a child CANNOT KNOW his parents (because autism), is this not “radical autonomy?” You’re just being lazy as shit. All you are doing here with your elaborate evasion is making sure that no one notices your slavish submission to the lowest conception of “white (s)upremacy” AS a “Roman Catholic” “white” “man” (all quoted categorizations in question by the author).

      • So “radical autonomy” means not knowing one’s parents?

      • thordaddy

        The INABILITY to know one’s parents is a concrete example of “radical autonomy.” This “inability” is understood clinically as “autism.” Ergo, autism is a concrete example of “radical autonomy.” Obviously, just as there are near infinite methods of self-annihilation, there are near infinite instances of “radical autonomy.” Which in turn helps an individual understand just how enormous the infinity of (P)erfection must be. Demanding “definitions” is actually conceptually stunting. You should be keen on seeing these “things” for your Self BECAUSE you won’t trust another eye.

      • I don’t think autism means the inability to know one’s parents. I know autistic children who do know their parents.

        That said, I agree there can be many examples that fit within a definition. I only asked for examples when you did not seem to be able to provide definitions for the terms you use. If you cannot define or provide examples for a term it is literally meaningless.

      • thordaddy

        And I am telling you that I have provided multiple examples and definitions, repeatedly, but you are in denial as it pertains to the reality of the nearly synonymous phenomena.

      • Your definitions don’t tell me anything. For example, you have accused me of being radically autonomous. In what way am I radically autonomous? I am not autistic and I know my parents.

      • thordaddy

        You are radically autonomous because *you* claim that “Roman Catholic” teaching is in accord with anti-racist ideology. The reality of this contention is the exposure of your deracinated state of mind and self-annihilating tendencies. So Roman Catholic teaching isn’t of the fathers (read: racial), but rather, a matter of devoted osmosis (read: permeatingly ideological).

      • Can you point to one Roman Catholic teaching or authority that supports your made up racist ideas?

      • thordaddy

        No…. You need to point to any teaching of Christ that is synonymous to modern day anti-racist ideology.

      • Please refer to Subject #2 for any future comments related to “Radical Autonomy.”

      • thordaddy

        Do you think that no one notices that you jump from one demand to another without ever defending a real position or answering any counter questions?

        Is the Roman Catholic Church against “white supremacy,” “yes” or “no?”

        This is the topic at hand.

        This might be the most important topic of the era given the rapid degeneration of the white race.

      • I thought we were discussing your concept of radical autonomy.

      • thordaddy

        Yes… And as a concrete example of “radical autonomy,” I am highlighting your unwillingness to answer the most pertinent question.

      • If you define “white supremacy” as white people trying to be the best they can be without committing immoral acts then I don’t see the Catholic Church having a problem with that.

      • thordaddy

        So you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church has no beef with white men who strive towards objective (S)upremacy… Has no animus for white (S)upremacists?

      • Not if they are not acting immorally. Again, it depends on how you define “white supremacy”.

      • thordaddy


        I don’t define “white supremacy.” “It” is, simply, a liberated conception. At the same time, I don’t define white Supremacy, either. “It” is, simply, white men’s belief in and desire for objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection.

        And so I’ll say it again, the original Roman Catholics were white Supremacists.

        So either you are one too or you are a subversive… A radical autonomist in “Roman Catholic” cloak?

      • If you cannot define your terms then I can’t answer your questions making reference to said terms.

      • thordaddy

        You keep writing “your terms” and “my terms” and so on and so forth.

        First, “white supremacy” is not my term and therefore not for me to “define.” The phrase is already defined IN THE CONTEXT of the dominant liberal frame. At the same time, white (S)upremacy is not my phrase either although I may be one of the first to introduce this particular articulation into the cyber space? Anyway, “it” too is already self-evidently defined in the absolute sense in that it means white men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective Supremacy.

        So in sum, there is the liberated concept of “white supremacy” and the absolute concept of white Supremacy and a very good case to be made that the Roman Catholic Church is subservient to the liberated conception so much so that the Church denies the absolute concept of the phrase.

      • Show me one example of the Roman Catholic Church being against white (or any other race of) people trying to be the best they can be.

      • thordaddy

        Clearly, no Roman Catholic is going to claim outright that he is against white man being his “best” or else his Catholicism will be incredibly tainted and thoroughly questionable. Instead, the “Roman Catholic” says he is against “white supremacy” and crosses his fingers that the dull mass doesn’t understand that it [means] virtually the same thing as being against white men being their best, individually and collectively.

      • So you were unable to provide an example of this claim of yours. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church is against immortality and acts of hate in this context. But I think you are wrong to assume what you do especially since you have no facts to support it.

      • thordaddy

        Lol… Man…. What is “winston Scrooge” other than Exhibit A in “Roman Catholicism” against “white supremacy?”

      • I have no problem with you trying to be the best you can be.

      • thordaddy

        So you agree that a real Roman Catholic cannot be against white Supremacy?

      • It depends on how you define white supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        You mean that it depends on how the Roman Catholic Church defines white Supremacy, right? It’s not as if you are asking me to define white Supremacy for the Roman Catholic Church, are you?

      • No. It depends on how you define it. The Roman Catholic Church is clear about what it approves of.

      • thordaddy

        No, it doesn’t.

        “It” defines itself.

        What is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy as a white man?

        A white Supremacist.

        This is an absolute understanding.

        So the ISSUE AT HAND is your inability to “see” what is self-evident.

        The “Roman Catholic Church” is slavishly submissive to a liberated concept of “white supremacy” (one given to self-serving and expendiency versus hard truth).

      • Provide an example of how the Roman Catholic Church is slavishly submissive to a liberated concept of white supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        Again… YOU as self-identifying “Roman Catholic.”

        You cannot and/or will not entertain an absolute conception of white Supremacy.

        YOU only know “white supremacy.”

        And this puts your “Roman Catholicism” in subservience to the liberated conception.

      • First of all, I do not make policy for the Roman Catholic Church. You can look to the Catechism and Cannon Law for that. I am quite sure you will not see anything prohibiting white people from being the best people they can be. Speaking for myself, I was raised in the faith tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. I am familiar with it’s symbols, scripture and practice. I attend mass regularly. I don’t consider myself to be a shining exemplar of Roman Catholicism and make no claim to that. I simply identify myself as a member of that organization.

        It is true that I do not identify myself as a “white supremacist”, a “White Supremacist” or any other combination of capital and lowercase letters spelling out these words that you choose to create. I live in a multi-ethnic country and am a member of a multi-ethnic church and am loyal to both. I don’t care about your conception of white supremacy (use any configuration of this word you choose). As far as I am concerned you can practice this ideology of yours to your heart’s content. I simply don’t care.

        That said, in order to understand the ideas you are attempting to express, please explain the difference between your two terms (i.e., “white supremacy” and “white Supremacy”). Then I can entertain an absolute conception of white supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        How do you know that:

        God > god…

        Or, do you not know this?

      • thordaddy

        “How” do you know is the question?

      • I am a monotheist. “God” is a proper noun referring to the one god. Whereas “god” is a common noun referring to the concept of a god.

      • thordaddy

        So you recognize a Capitalization that distinguishes The Absolute from Its relatives?

      • Yes. But you still cannot tell me what one does when she “strives for (S)upremacy”.

      • thordaddy

        He wills all Right.

      • If scripture is a guide, it is right to love one’s neighbor.

      • thordaddy

        In Scripture, there is no “right to self-annihilate.”

      • I don’t even know what that means.

      • thordaddy

        It means that if you happen to live next to the devil and are compelled to “love thy neighbor” then you have rationalized your own damnation.

      • Do find the actual scripture inconvenient?

      • thordaddy

        Not at all… Rather, I find your interpretation to be erroneous and therefore “self-annihilating.” And “self-annihilation for salvation” is demonic.

      • Your opinion is duly noted.

  2. thordaddy

    When I use excessive quotes and emphasizing parentheses it is to ACKNOWLEDGE that the dominant speakers of the English language ARE OF TWO MINDS.

    One mind CANNOT acknowledge (S)upremacy while the other mind knows such (S)upremacy as highest reality.

    Demands for “definitions” is a sub-version of this reality.

    Continuous sub-version of reality is “revolution.”

    Perpetual revolution is “radical autonomy.”

    “Radical autonomy” is self-annihilation.

    Yes… This is the “circle” that you seek to keep the white man in UP TO and INCLUDING your Self.

    You are a self-annihilator seeking … followers under the cloak of “Roman Catholicism.”

    • No. Requests for definitions are simply an attempt to understand the ideas you are attempting to articulate.

      • thordaddy

        Sure… If you have a definition for “definition?”

        Or, *you* just keep pretending like no “definitions” have been presented time and again?

        Which then becomes the “definition,” ie., the concrete example, of “radical autonomy.”


        [I] can only “define” *you* (if “you” is even real) as “radically autonomous,” ie., self-annihilating.

      • That’s ridiculous. Asking you to define your terms is a perfectly reasonable request. The fact that you are so resistant is suspicious to say the least.

      • thordaddy

        It’s fascinating that *you* would literally re-interpret the intent of my words and then not recognize this as an exercise in “radical autonomy?”

      • Walk me through it. What specifically did I do and how is it radically autonomous?

      • thordaddy

        And you are not just asking me to define my terms, but doing so REPEATEDLY as though your request hadn’t already been fulfilled time and again, thereby, initiating what seems to be another instance of “radical autonomy.”

      • What is your definition of radical autonomy? I still don’t have an answer.

      • thordaddy

        The consistent application of tolerance and nondiscrimination, ie., the continuous exercising of liberal ideology. Ergo, “radical autonomy” is an all-accepting indiscriminancy, ie., the surest path to self-annihilation.

      • So RI is liberalism ie a political philosophy espousing freedom and equal rights?

      • thordaddy

        A “right to self-annihilate” is the ONLY true freedom that a liberal government can “equally” ensure and distribute.

      • thordaddy

        My point needs reemphasizing.

        OUR “government” violently protects the individual’s “right to self-annihilate.” This is a truly liberated “government.”

  3. thordaddy

    The desire for “radical autonomy” is the desire to be undefinable so much so that this is, paradoxically, the “definition.” A static autonomy isn’t “radical” by the very fact that its autonomous position is static and defined. Thus, in demanding a “definition” for “radical autonomy,” you are demanding a static autonomy, thereby, in denial in regard to the issue of desire for “radical autonomy.”

    So when I suggest that “autism” is a “concrete” example of “radical autonomy,” I am not only suggesting autism’s indefinite nature (its “radical autonomy), but referencing the indefinite relationship such [disease] causes in the parent-child nexus. For, it is the radical detachment of a child for his mother that has thrust “autism” into the national consciousness.

    • You are the one who has resisted defining the terms of your secret language all this time. Therefore you are “radically autonomous” by your own definition.

      • thordaddy

        No… I have not resisted answering your demands and qestions whatsoever.

        In fact, I have provided multiple “definitions” and concrete examples including you, claiming to be “white man” of Roman Catholic faith, BUT NOT a white (S)upremacist, as exihibit A. And it is because white Roman Catholic is synonymous to white (S)upremacist that your denial of the latter characterization renders you “radically autonomous” as your “white” is deracinated and your (c)atholicism is liberated.

      • How is Roman Catholicism synonymous with white supremacy?

      • thordaddy

        That’s not what I wrote…

        I wrote that you as a white Roman Catholic is synonymous to you as a white (S)upremacist.

      • What does my skin color have to do with me trying to be the best person I can be?

      • thordaddy

        Apparently “nothing.” Your “skin color” means “nothing.” This is evidence of your deracination. This is a sign of your “radical autonomy.” Furthermore, are you equating “being your best” to “desiring Supremacy?” Or, are these “things” antonymous?

      • I thought you defined racial supremacy not as one race ruling another but rather a member of a particular race trying to be the best they can be. Is this not correct?

      • thordaddy

        I didn’t define “racial supremacy.” But if I actually needed to then the definition seems self-evident. Are you denying the possibility of a superior race? Are you denying that a race of men possessing a faithful desire for Supremacy is not superior to all other races who possess no such desire?

      • People who try to be the best they can be will on balance do better than people who do not try to be the best they can be regardless of race.

      • thordaddy

        Why assume that a desire for Supremacy is in spite of one’s race? What exactly leads you to this assumption?

      • I don’t assume the desire for supremacy exists in spite of one’s race. I simply don’t see any logical connection between the two.

      • thordaddy

        So there is “no logical connnection” to you, as a father, in teaching your children a desire for (P)erfection?

      • What does race have to do with it?

      • thordaddy

        Apparently “nothing.” Racial incarnation is meaningless, supposedly. Just call this “radical autonomy” though.

      • It’s not meaningless but it is irrelevant in this respect as far as I can tell.

      • thordaddy

        How do you figure that racial incarnation is “irrelevant” to a desire for (S)upremacy?

      • You’re the one making the assertion. How is it relevant?

      • thordaddy

        Do you not need to explain your desire for (P)erfection, materially? And for those that explain such desire as “racial” in nature, you must equally explain your abhorrence to such claim?

      • How do you express your desire for perfection racially?

      • thordaddy

        I will winstonScrooge (R)ight as a racially-incarnated Supremacist.

      • Do you see how you avoid being defined (that is, are radically autonomous per your own definition)?

      • thordaddy

        No… Actually, I am a white (S)upremacist and you are simply unable to conceive of a “racism/white supremacy” that IS NOT bad, wrong, evil. And as such, you are “radically autonomous” and ultimately self-annihilating.

      • Your confusing, undefined and strange use of language does nothing to help me conceive what you attempt to describe.

      • thordaddy

        On the contrary, your proliferate use of the liberated concepts of “racism” and “white supremacy” are the root cause of all the purported confusion.

      • I’m not the only one who is confused by your “unliberated” music. In fact it seems that you are the only one who understands yourself. Further evidence that you are the radically autonomous one.

      • thordaddy

        This might be plausible IF NOT for the reality that the issue at hand is persuading white Roman Catholics that they are, in fact, white (S)upremacists.

        My stance is unequivocal.

        Your stance, on the other hand, continuously dances around the meaning of “white” and “(s)upremacy” and inexplicably weaves “race” and “racism” together with the hands of white man’s most mortal enemies.

      • No. My stance is that I don’t know what your stance is because you don’t resist clearly defining your terms. I don’t know if by racism you mean hating other races or simply trying to be the best white person you can be. You seem to want to have it both ways.

      • thordaddy

        Once again…

        My claim is clear…

        White Roman Catholics are white (S)upremacists, PERIOD.

        My second claim is also clear.

        Self-professed Roman Catholics of a dominate European ancestry who deny the above are “radical autonomists.”

      • Point me to a passage in the scripture, Creed or catechism that supports this theory of yours. (Hint, you will not find one because it’s not there.)

      • thordaddy

        That’s such a silly demand that even you shortcircuited the request. But it is well known among the 40 and above, white male cohort, that traditional white Christians were understood as “white supremacists.”

      • Name one person other than yourself who holds this opinion?

      • thordaddy

        Google search:

        — are traditional white christians white supremacists

      • I didn’t see anything that would validate your opinions.

  4. thordaddy

    Your very first sentence is erroneous and cannot be copy and pasted from anything I’ve written.

    White men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective (S)upremacy are white (S)upremacists. You cannot deconstruct this understanding. All you can do is quibble over the “definition” of “objective (S)upremacy,” ie., (P)erfection. Ergo, the definition of objective (S)upremacy is (P)erfection.

    What is (P)erfection?


    • Thank you for your clarification. I have edited Subject #3 to address your concerns.

      • thordaddy

        This definition seems to be an attempt to distance his concept of white supremacy from the commonly understood concept of white supremacy, which by its plain meaning promotes the idea that white people should be supreme over (and thus hostile to) other “nonwhite” races. — WinstonScrooge

        No… This is exactly what I AM NOT TRYING TO DO. The “commonly understood concept” of “white (s)upremacy” is the liberated concept whereas my articulation represents the absolute concept. Of course, in the meta-scheme, these phenomena can be intertwined. In the realm of mundane politics though, the liberated concept has perversely illegitimated the absolute concept in the minds of the degenerately dull mass. And those who participate in this deception are almost certainly hell bound without repentance.

      • Subject #3 edited to reflect the thoughts expressed in this comment.

      • thordaddy

        The main issue is that I am assuming a level of race-real knowledge that you simply don’t possess. IOW, how can you understand what an ice cream cone is when you don’t know “ice cream?”

        If I offer every individual who crosses my path my righteousness then I have expressed a desire for (P)erfection. It need not be anymore complicated than this.

        If a group of white men share this desire, the horde of orcs call it “white (s)upremacy” (or racist a Christianity). {{{They}}} are (R)ight, absolutely, and yet murderously wrong with their liberated concept.

        So when I say that my offering of righteousness to whomever crosses my path has nothing to do with other races, this is no different than saying that my offering of righteousness is not contingent upon the existence of other races.

        I (and you) can desire (P)erfection as white men regardless of whether any other race exists.


        Because (P)erfection is universal.

        Desire for (P)erfection is racial.

      • Can you point to one instance where a white person desiring (S)upremacy unrelated to hostility towards another race was persecuted by liberal orcs?

        Why is desire for (P)erfection racial?

      • thordaddy

        I need only point to the single instance of the entire socio-political “spectrum” being against white man desiring “supremacy.” IOW, the dulled, mass desire for “equality” JUST IS animus for white men desiring (P)erfection. “Equality” dogma JUST IS the reaction to white man’s desire for objective (S)upremacy.

        Why is desire for (P)erfection racial?

        Because desire for “equality” is anti-racial.

      • So you admit that your concept of “white (S)upremacy” is by definition hostile to and not independent of other races?

      • thordaddy

        It’s not my “concept.”

        Rather, it is an articulation of the absolute concept.

        If “white (s)upremacy” then white (S)upremacy.

        The invocation of the former NECESSITATES the reality of the latter.

        Pretend that invocation of the former discredits and delegitimates the latter.

      • There’s a lot of inconsistency I need to wade through here. I will update Subject #3 once I get all of your nonsense straight in my head.

      • thordaddy

        No, there is not.

        There are two phenomena, distinct, yet, not entirely inseparable.

        And then there are the radicals who believe {{{they}}} can invoke “white (s)upremacy” without provoking white man’s desire for (S)upremacy.

      • thordaddy

        [A] white man knows, intuitively, that anti-racism IS NOT (R)ight.

        The question is what has overridden your natural intuition for what is (R)ight?

      • I reject both of your premises here. The question is more applicable to you I think.

      • thordaddy

        So you are claiming that anti-racism is (R)ight and therefore [a] white man’s healthy intuition is tending towards the (R)ight-ness of anti-racism?

      • Ok – I made some substantial edits to Subject #3 to address your more recent concerns and to separate the different ideas in the discussion. I’m thinking I should break this blog post up into multiple posts so that the various subject areas can be more easily referenced when you bring them up in future posts. This will avoid redundancy which I am sure will please you.

      • thordaddy

        Man… You are just creating a mess of a very simplistic understanding.

        YOU CANNOT and/or WILL NOT conceive of a “white (s)upremacy” that is not bad, wrong, evil (or completely advantageous to those seeking the destruction of the white race). END OF sickNarrative.

        If you aren’t willing to start from this basic premise then this whole exchange is pointless.

        WHEN you become open to a conception of “white (s)upremacy” that is good, right and true…

        Then this exchange will become much more clear to your … mind.


        You should, as I’ve been saying for ten plus years to any white male who is reading, PUT YOUR MIND ON objective (S)upremacy instead of a) denying that is means (P)erfection and/or b) begging mercilessly for a “definition” of (P)erfection (as though the word was foreign to you?) where both a) and b) represent your attempt to give no credible thought to that which is objective (S)upremacy.

        PS A “racist” is a “white (s)upremacist.” But a (S)upremacist is a separatist. So real racism is truly separationism. While anti-racism is mass miscegenation. The “lording over” aspect of the “commonly understood” “white (s)upremacy” is the self-annihilating radical projecting his instinctual totalitarianism thus outsourcing the costs of his hubris to his racial in-group.

      • I have never asked you for the definition of perfection. I have asked you for YOUR definition of perfection. I ask this because you have a habit of inventing new definitions for words and then not telling people (who are quite reasonably confused by this) what you mean. If you simply used standard English definitions and grammar you would not have created your mess in the first place.

      • thordaddy

        If you ask me.

        “How do I win the ‘game?’”

        And I say…

        Make all the right moves.

        You react…


        He who wills ALL (R)ight is (P)erfection.

        The “definition” is He.

        You are a self-avowed Roman Catholic asking me whom He is who wills ALL (R)ight?

        The self-identification plus taking your question at face-value is evidence for your “radical autonomy.”

      • No. I am simply trying to clarify what you mean by the words you haven chosen to communicate with because you are purposefully obscure. I would not have to do this if you were not choosing to be purposefully obscure.

      • Is the “He” who wills All (R)ight Jesus or you?

      • thordaddy

        First Law of (P)erfection:

        No redundancy.

        I am not the perfect man.

        At the same time, there are no obstacles to me willing all (R)ight.

      • You certainly are not perfect if no redundancy is a requirement.

      • thordaddy

        You seem to be missing the point?

      • I’d ask you to explain the point but you know…

      • thordaddy

        And [a] Roman Catholic who espouses anti-racism is a modern heretic.

      • There is no basis (scriptural or otherwise) for that claim of yours. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. I’m planning on adding a section (4) to subject #3 to address this.

  5. thordaddy

    You radical “white” [Roman Catholics] want to have your cake and eat it too. You can’t seem to decide whether “white (s)upremacy” desires to “lord over” other races or separate from them? So the quick and expedient answer is to suggest that “white (s)upremacy” is both desires. How very convenient …

  6. thordaddy

    — 4) Thordaddy’s claim that Christianity is a “white (S)upremacist” religion.

    This is not my claim.

    Real Christians are (S)upremacists.

    Therefore, white Christians are white (S)upremacists.

    Roman Catholicism is a (S)upremacist religion.

    This is the claim.

  7. thordaddy

    Ultimately, it is obvious that Thordaddy is racist according to the common understanding of this term but is unwilling to fully own his racism as is evidenced by his attempts to philosophically or “intellectually” justify it. — winstonScrooge

    This is just stupidly false.

    First, there is no “common understanding” of “racist.” Have you been under a rock so long that you missed the meta-critique of the “word with no real meaning?” That word is “racist.”

    Second, I gave you a VERY PARTICULAR DEFINITION OF “race.”

    Your race is your father(s).

    Therefore, racism is an immersion into one’s father(s) (thus triggering the anti-white father reaction of anti-racism).

    The BENEFIT of this definition is that it is not deconstructable. You take it or leave.

    NATURALLY, all anti-racists will be vigorously opposed and submitted.

    You need to wake up before it’s too late.

  8. thordaddy

    Here we see Thordaddy explicitly contradict his own claim that his concept of “white (S)upremacy” is unrelated to other races. He says quite clearly that the “desire for (P)erfection” (i.e., his concept of “white (S)upremacy”) is racial. And that “equality” (i.e., the opposite of a “desire for (P)erfection”) is “anti-racial”. One marvels at the mental gymnastics he must put himself through to make sense of all this. — WinstonScrooge

    There is no contradiction. To say one’s desire for (S)upremacy is racial and yet not related to other races is perfectly coherent. It is no more complicated than saying one’s desire for (P)erfection is of his father(s) and no “others.”

    • So your disparagement of blacks and Jews is unrelated to your desire for (S)upremacy?

      • thordaddy


        One is a mundane issue and the other a metaphysical question.

      • Whatever makes you sleep at night I suppose.

      • thordaddy

        Why is it so hard for you to recognize that your outgroup preference versus my ingroup preference is the critical factor in determining a desiring for (S)upremacy?

        In other words, because you possess an outgroup preference — whether as a result of nature/nurture, religion/ideology, etc. — you are just unable to think (P)erfection. Ergo, to give thought to objective (S)upremacy JUST DOES require an ingroup preference.

        As a subsequent effect, outgroup preference sees “radical (sexual) autonomy” as optimal.

      • I don’t consider spamming a blog to be perfect or supreme.

      • thordaddy

        And do you believe to be representing that “love thy neighbor” side?

      • Shouldn’t anyone who claims to be a Christian be on that side?

      • thordaddy

        On what side?

        No real Christian can be on the side of self-annihilation.

      • You can’t disregard Christ’s teachings because they are in conflict with your personal racist opinions. Unless you want to stop calling yourself Christian.

      • thordaddy

        Christ doesn’t preach self-annihilation and so I can absolutely disregard your interpretation of the Second Commandment.

      • It’s not just my interpretation. It’s the plain meaning of the text and the orthodox interpretation followed by most (if not all except you) Christians.

      • thordaddy

        What is the plain meaning of:

        Love thy neighbor as thyself…

      • How is loving one’s neighbor equivalent to self annihilation?

      • thordaddy

        The proper interpretation of “love thy neighbor as thyself” is reciprocation and not self-annihilation. But any interpretation shrouded in anti-racist ideology is necessarily self-annihilating. So any interpretation that demands multi-cultural/multi-racial “community” is thoroughly corrupt.

      • Like the Jews and the Samaritans?

      • thordaddy

        Was there a politically-enforced demand for jews and samaritans to be neighbors?

      • thordaddy

        Then my point stands.

        The anti-racist interpretation of the Second Commandment is false and self-annihilating.

      • Then my point stands. The plain meaning of the second commandment is obvious. You have reinterpreted it in order to conform it to and justify your racist opinions.

      • thordaddy

        I have put forth no reinterpretation of the Second Commandment. The plain mundane meaning of the Greatest Commandments is do not be a self-annihilator. Anti-racism is self-annihilation. And so any interpretation of the Second Commandment tainted by anti-racism is false and self-abnegating.

      • How is the plain mundane meaning of the greatest commandment not to be a self-annihilator? That’s not what the language says.

      • thordaddy

        Your interpretation of the Second Commandment is an explicit submission to anti-racist ideology and thus translates as a call to racial self-annihilation. Ergo, your interpretation is false and demonic.

      • But where do you get your interpretation that the greatest commandment is a commandment against self-annihilation? I don’t see the connection between it’s actual language and your proposed interpretation of it.

      • thordaddy

        Can a Pro-Creator demand self-annihilation and be considered objective (S)upremacy?

        This is a question any inquiring white boy mind would want to know?

      • But the greatest commandment does not address that issue.

      • thordaddy

        But again…

        You are perverting the reality.

        I am claiming that no interpretation of the Second Commandment can be racially self-annihilating or else it is false and demonic.

        You seem to be arguing the opposite in that “yes” a racially self-annihilating interpretation CAN BE true and a Godly?

      • I don’t believe it is racially self annihilating to love one’s neighbor as the Lord commands.

      • thordaddy

        You keep omitting the precondition to “love thy neighbor.”

        As thyself…

        In this is a reciprocation.

        Meaning, every individual “loves thyself” to his own unique degree. So do the degree winstonScrooge “loves thyself,” he shall “love his neighbor” to that degree. Likewise for thordaddy. We do not disagree on this interpretation of reciprocation.


        What if WinstonScrooge is a racial self-annihilator and thus cannot possibly “love thyself?” What then? How can he “love thy neighbor” as he loves thyself? He cannot. And so the knowledge of The Pro-Creator is that *you* as a believer and self-identified Roman Catholic are not a self-annihilator and thus no Commandments from your God could be interpreted as demands for your racial self-annihilation.

      • Good thing I’m not a racial self annihilator.

      • thordaddy

        You are too a racial self-annihilator when you allow your anti-racism to vandalize your interpretation of the Second Commandment.

      • I recognize that is your stated opinion but it has no basis in Christian doctrine.

      • thordaddy

        A “neighbor” is freely chosen. Neighborhoods aren’t built by totalitarian dictate.

        Anti-racist ideology is totalitarian dictate. Ergo, not Christian.

      • I don’t know that neighbors are always freely chosen within the Christian context. For example, the Jews and Samaritans were neighbors but did not freely choose to be neighbors.

      • thordaddy

        So a “neighbor” is really a stranger? An alien? A killer? A rapist? An enemy? A para-sight… A “neighbor” can be any such individual and a billion other kinds not freely chosen?

        This is your “definition” of “neighbor” that you must love, unequivocally.

        But don’t call this belief “universal equality.”

        It is just the plain meaning of the Second Commandment?

      • Your neighbors can be freely chosen sometimes but you can’t freely choose every person who is your neighbor. Just like the Jews did not choose to live next to the Samaritans. You can’t change the plain meaning of the second commandment just because it conflicts with your personal preferences.

      • thordaddy

        Actually, you are perverting the plain meaning of “neighbor” to fit your anti-racist ideology into Christianity.

      • That’s ridiculous. I’m using the standard English definition. It is you who are perverting the plain meaning of “neighbor” and the 2nd Commandment to fit your egocentric, racial preferences.

      • thordaddy

        That’s absurd. You don’t have a definition for “neighbor” that amounts to anything more than whomever your master decides to plop down next to you. In the real world where free white men roam, “neighbors” are chosen and not imposed by demonic forces.

        Why are you so coy about admitting that you are adamantly opposed to all-white neighborhoods consisting of free white men and their wives and children?

      • I don’t know what you are talking about. My present neighborhood is pretty much all white. No demonic force imposed a neighbor on me to my knowledge.

      • thordaddy

        Lol… Exactly.

        You chose your nearly all-white neighborhood and because of this you can afford to be a really soft Christian.

        But for those whites who are not so fortunate, they either have to become hard Christians or abandon the faith altogether in order to make peace with their ‘hood.

      • It’s a pretty middle class neighborhood actually.

      • thordaddy

        Man… Are you missing the point on purpose?

        There is neither a Scriptural prohibition against all-white community, all-white ethnostate, all-white nation NOR is there Scriptural advocacy of multi-racial/multi-cultural society. But here you are arguing for an interpretation of the Second Commandment implying just these falsehoods.

      • Except that Jesus explicitly framed the explanation of “love thy neighbor” in the context of the Jews and the Samaritans who did not like living in proximity to each other. How do you explain that away in your silly philosophy?

      • thordaddy

        What does this have to do with cloaking modern day anti-racist ideology within Christian theology? Neighborhoods just don’t spring forth randomly and thus “neighbors” are not just a thing of chance. Somebody, at some point, is making a decision of who lives next to whom. If, then, individuals are not actually choosing their neighborhoods and neighbors because totalitarian regime, but are instead forced to live amongst their racial enemies in a “hunger games” type future, your interpretation of the Second Commandment assures that healthy-minded whites abandon Christianity to that dwindling minority of self-annihilating “white Christians.”

      • Neighbors are most of the time a thing of chance.

      • thordaddy

        So “chance” and not “choice” is inherent to the definition of neighbor?

      • thordaddy

        That certainly contradicts the belief that everything happens for a reason and exposes “chance” as that which is NOT very definitive. In other words, “neighbors” by “chance,” being as unreasonable as can be, is not at all definitive of “neighborhood.”

      • Whatever. That’s just the way it works and has worked throughout history as depicted in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

      • thordaddy

        What you are actually doing though is making cover for the definitiveness of anti-racist ideology by the claimed “chance” of “neighborhood,” ie, a place not chosen by the “neighbors” themselves. Thus, practically-speaking, your interpretation gives “Christian” cover to totalitarian ideology.

      • No. Just describing reality. You can move to a neighborhood by choice but you can’t control every neighbor living near you. This should be obvious to anyone.

  9. Pingback: Thordaddy’s Use of Private Jargon / Secret Language | Winston Scrooge

  10. Pingback: Thordaddy’s Twin Concepts of “Radical Autonomy” and “Self-Annihilation” | Winston Scrooge

  11. 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