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

This post is part of a series of posts designed to address the common topics brought by a frequent commentator to my blog named Thordaddy. Please see this post for an introduction to this series.

I.  Radical Autonomy

Thordaddy has accused me of being “radically autonomous” but has consistently refused to define this term or has provided inconsistent and obscure definitions. His comments to this blog post articulates this pattern well.

In a comment Thordaddy provided the following definition for “radical autonomy”:

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.

He also articulated that “autism” is an example of “radical autonomy” because an autistic person “cannot know his parents.”

When asked how I fit these definitions and examples he responded:

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).

The standard definition for “radical autonomy” might be “extreme independence” but this begs the question as to what I am being extremely independent from. In these comments he seems to be saying that a person who is “radically autonomous” has achieved extreme independence from his race. To wit, a person who tolerates other races and tries not to discriminate on the basis of race is distancing himself from his own race / ancestors and therefor does not know his parents in the sense that his parents’ racial identity is the most important part of their identity. I suppose the connection with autism here is that in extreme cases an autistic child cannot emotionally connect with his primary care givers and therefor does not know them. I am not sure this is a good example, however, because some autistic children certainly can know their parents.

In summary, if Thordaddy does define “radical autonomy” as “extremely independent of one’s racial identity” I wonder what he hoped to achieve by resisting, defining this term all this time. Secondly, I suppose my response to his accusation would be, “so what?”

II.  Self-Annihilation

Thordaddy has also consistently accused me of being a “self-annihilator” without providing an adequate definition for what he means by this term. Presumably, there is a racial component to this term. That is, because I practice “anti-racism” (his term) that I am somehow annihilating myself through the annihilation of my race. As far as I can tell, however, I still exist, my race still exists and I have procreated two members of my race. As such, I really have no idea what he means by this accusation.


Filed under Political Philosophy

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

  1. Pingback: Thordaddian Stock Response Repository | Winston Scrooge

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

  3. thordaddy

    One seeks “radical autonomy” as a complete detachment form The Father. So the “radical autonomist” is attempting to construct a world without The Father. Of course, when one reject The Father, one is rejecting an aspect of himself. He is annihilating a part of himself. He who denies The Father is a self-annihilator.

    Now, I know you are going to claim to believe in The Father, but then you will deny being racially-incarnated, ie., of your father(s). So this stance — I believe in The Father, but don’t believe in my race — is ALSO self-annihilating such that IF you were to truly hate your father THEN you would hate a part of your self. Again, you would be a self-annihilator.

    Now, you will write that you do not hate your father, but there is good evidence to suggest that you very much look down at your father(s) for their past “racism.” There is also a good chance that you were not aware of this antipathy UNTIL you became a “Roman Catholic.” Together, you have come to the novel idea that “Roman Catholicism” is to be against your father(s) (yet, not ultimately against The Father). This is fallacious. And requires a deep examination on your part.

    Many believe The Church to have been usurped. Not many see “its” anti-racism as point-blank proof of that usurpation.

    The white (S)upremacist is under no such illusions.

  4. I don’t know what you mean by that.

    • thordaddy

      You have no concept of race.

      You know of no one who hates their father.

      Even your Roman Catholicism will not acknowledge objective (S)upremacy.

      But your interpretation of the Second Commandment is indistinguishable from modern anti-racist ideology.

      Man, where do you actually stand?

      • Choosing not to be hostile to one’s neighbor is not the same as hating one’s father. Your inability to distinguish between the two is your issue, not mine.

      • thordaddy

        Certainly, they are not the same “things,” but they are nonetheless connected to each other by “racism” of somesuch, no?

        If you hate your father then you hate that aspect of yourself that is your father’s aspect, no? And if you hate thyself somesuch, how do you then love thy neighbor as thyself? Well, you will love thy neighbor who hates his/your father, too! So you have a mutual love for anti-racism. And you help destroy the neighborhood in what amounts to a degenerate cuckling of virtue-sniveling.

      • But I don’t hate my father. So what’s your point?

      • thordaddy

        Of course you do, but in comes in the form of hating your “race” instead.

  5. But I don’t hate my race either.

  6. [Comment from Thordaddy mistakenly posted in the comment section of a different blog post.]

    If you conceive a “self” and “free will” as not real things then you will provoke the very consequences inherent to those beliefs. It shall be no different for those who conceive of a self and free will as real things. Consequences to these beliefs are a given.


    If you do conceive of the “self” and “free will” as not real things THEN do not be surprised when someone else perceives the “self-annihilation” and “radical autonomy” in “you.”


    Notice how none of those who deny a “self” and its “free will” call themselves “robots.” Otherwise, “we” wouldn’t listen to a thing “it” had to say on “self” and “free will.”

  7. TD – How do you account for the arguments made against free will such as you cannot control your thoughts and you had little or no control over your past experiences?

    • thordaddy

      How do I “account for arguments” made against “free will?”

      Such are arguments are obviously put forth unwillingly.

      • So you have no logical counter argument?

      • thordaddy

        “Logic” does not exist out of free will.

        So in questioning A GIVEN unwillingly is to defy logic per se.

        No free will = no will = unwilled = unwillingly = defying logic…

      • That’s not true. Logic exists independent of free will. One can choose to respond to an inquiry logically or (as you have often done) illogically. Moreover, according to Christianity, in the beginning was the logos.

      • thordaddy


        No. Free will and Logic are in perfect accord. A free will is logical. Logically-speaking begets free will. Logic does not need defy a free will nor does a free will defy logic.

        Your “state” of “unwillingness” is illogical.

      • As usual I don’t know what you are talking about. Can you please translate your secret language into standard English?

      • thordaddy

        How could you?

        *You* aren’t even certain of your “self” or a “free will.”

        And the result of this uncertainty is certainly an inability to freely communicate with those certain of themselves and their free will.

      • The inability to communicate has nothing to do with certainty. It has to do with your queer use of language and your refusal to coherently define your terms.

        Why are you so certain you have a self and a free will? How do you account for the fact that you cannot control or predict your thoughts with certainty?

      • thordaddy


        BECAUSE the “inability to communicate” has to do with uncertainty.

        “Certainty” infers and implies an “ability to communicate.”

        In doubting a “free will,” unwillingness!

      • You clearly lack the ability (or are unwilling to) communicate clearly. I’m not the only one who has made this observation. So then, by your own “logic” you must be uncertain, no?

  8. [Comment from Thordaddy mistakenly posted in the comment section of a different blog post.]

    The topic at hand is the reality of the “self.”

    What’s missing from the discussion are the consequences of doubting the reality of the “self.”


    One starts HERE ^^^…

    Then different conclusions might be reached?

    Gamma resistance is futile.

  9. thordaddy

    When you state…

    Logic exists independent of free will.

    You do so unwillingly, ie., without a free will.

    Thus, YOU negate the claim while affirming the reality of free will.

  10. I have merely questioned the idea of free will and the self. I have made no conclusions. How can you be certain of your own free will if you cannot control or predict your thoughts? You still have not addressed this point.

    • thordaddy

      That’s not the “question.”

      The question is whether Free Will exists and not whether my free will exists. A question, quite obviously, you could never answer, anyway. Implicitly, you can only question YOUR “free will.” But to question is to doubt, undoubtedly. Because, after all, you are questioning FREE WILL, absolutely.

      • The fact that you will not answer this question tells me you are not so firm in your “belief” that free will exists.

      • thordaddy

        Not at all… It’s just that your idea of “free will” as the ability to control or predict one’s thoughts is altered framing.

      • Explain what you mean by that.

      • thordaddy

        What I mean is that you are framing free will in a manner conducive to an alternate reality.

        If you assumed Perfection, you would not doubt Free Will.

        You doubt Free Will because you reject objective Supremacy.

      • In what way am I framing free will In a manner conducive of an alternate reality? We exercise our free will by making decisions. This is done by thinking, no? Where am I wrong?

      • thordaddy

        If one does not or cannot “control” and/or “predict” one’s thoughts, does one lack free will if one also desires objective Supremacy?

      • Where does the desire for objective supremacy come from? How can you be sure this desire is your own thought?

      • thordaddy

        In other words…

        If one desires Perfection, one possesses free will whether one can control and/or predict this desire (as if that were even necessary in the first place)?

      • Define what YOU mean by “free will”. It does not seem as if you are using the standard definition.

      • thordaddy

        The point is is that I don’t need to know for certain where the desire comes from because the desire just is free will and the question is whether there is Free Will or not?

        And my answer is very straight forward:

        There is Free Will because there is desire for Supremacy. Period.

        No definitions, doubts or deconstructions required.

      • But the definition of free will requires agency on your part. What you are describing does not fit the definition.

      • thordaddy

        So desire for Supremacy is neither suggestive of agency nor an expression of free will?

      • I don’t know what one has to do with the other. Please explain the connection you feel exists between these concepts of yours.

      • thordaddy

        Well then, I suggest that in searching for agents of free will to seek out those individuals who desire objective Supremacy.

        Or, do you have a better method?

  11. What is the connection you see between “striving for perfection / objective supremacy” and free will? How does one relate to the other?

    • thordaddy

      The connection is in rejecting objective Supremacy one will inevitably DOUBT his own free will and ultimate agency.

      • I don’t reject “objective supremacy” because I don’t know what you mean by that. But I still reserve the prerogative to question free will as it is defined in standard English. I recognize that you are not bound by standard definitions so therefore your terms can mean anything you want them to mean. They can even have no definition apparently. How can you expect anyone to discuss these terms under these circumstances?

      • thordaddy

        Of course, you do…

        The first tell in *your* insistent lower-casing of the matter “at hand.”

        In other words, suggestion of *your* rejection is in conceiving an objective Supremacy as “objective supremacy.” This BLATANT lower-casing is the signal of DOUBT. And “doubt” is intimately intertwined with Free Will.

        But more emphatically, *you* cannot “reserve the prerogative” without acknowledging the “free will” to do so or else the determination is a termination of true communication.

        No one can talk to a “rock.”

      • It is funny that you expect me to obey the grammatical rules of your secret language when you know that I don’t understand it and you refuse to explain what you mean with clarity. For this reason I reject your first argument.

        Secondly, by “reserving a prerogative” it certainly feels like I am exercising free will as long as I don’t think about. But when I do think about it, I must question the idea of free will because “reserving prerogatives” requires thought.

        You cannot talk to a rock but you can talk to yourself (whatever that happens to be in the final analysis).

      • thordaddy

        Is English not your first language?

        Is Capitalization not vital to understanding English?

        Such that…

        God is not equal to god?

      • The point is, I still don’t know what you mean by your term objective supremacy. Perhaps if you defined it clearly and in standard English I’d have a better idea as to why it’s capitalization is so important to you.

      • thordaddy

        So if I state that one can find free will and agency in a desire for objective Supremacy and *you* retort, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘objective supremacy,’” what explains *you* changing the subject OTHER THAN a rejection of objective Supremacy?

      • I have to understand it before I can reject it.

      • thordaddy

        You have to acknowledge objective Supremacy before you can hope to understand “it.” And that’s just the trick. By refusal to acknowledge there is justification for a lack of understanding. So the doubt is rationalized.

      • thordaddy

        How else do you explain your insistent lower-casing of Supremacy to supremacy as though “equality?”

      • I’d gladly uppercase it if I knew what you were talking about and agreed with you.

      • thordaddy

        If *you* believe in Perfection, it is within this belief that *you* doubt free will.

        How so?

        Meaning, how do *you* believe in Perfection, unwillingly?

      • thordaddy

        How does one believe in Perfection, unwillingly?

      • Why couldn’t someone believe in perfection unwillingly? People believe lots of stuff for different reasons.

      • thordaddy

        So one can “reason” unwillingly, too?

      • I don’t know and neither do you.

      • thordaddy

        On the contrary…

        It makes no sense to reason, unwillingly, when not reasoning at all, willingly, would do the “trick.”

  12. If you knew the answer to that question then you would also be able to explain how you can reconcile your belief in free will and the fact that you are not in control of your thoughts.

    • thordaddy

      That’s easy…

      Free Will is not equal to “controlling my thoughts” although controlling my thoughts is certainly suggestive of Free Will.

      And it is just not true that *you* do not “control your thoughts,” although *you* may conclude that because *you* do not control ALL of your thoughts that *you* then control no thought at all. Which seems to be the case? And the case is *you* falling deeper into “radical autonomy.”

  13. What’s the difference between your use of * and “ ?

    • thordaddy

      When I use * it is to denote that you are in doubt of your Self and its free will and I then should also be in doubt of your Self and its free will, but I am not. And I am not because I am certain of your “radical autonomy.” A really irreal real.

  14. Do you believe your certainty makes it true?

    • thordaddy

      Are there equal consequences to being certain of Free Will and doubting one’s “free will?”

      • thordaddy

        I would say that there is a perfect Truth.

      • Would you say that seeking Truth is striving for perfection?

      • thordaddy

        No, not really… Because you are essentially saying that seeking an Absolute is subjective. Which it seems to be insofar as one is concerned with Self. But if one denies the Self and then claims to seek Truth, why? For “other?”

      • No. It would be for God. The Absolute cannot be subjective. By contrast, your *certainty* of this dogma and secret language of yours (that as far as I can tell you made up on your own and no one else shares) is completely subjective. Your *certainty* also prevents you from exploring possibilities that may lead to Truth.

        Now look, as far as I’m concerned you can go in peace and believe what you want. I’m not going to your blog and harassing you with my invented dogma and language. You came here.

      • thordaddy

        I’m not really sure what you just wrote?

        You asked if “Truth” is “perfect?”

        I said I would say that there is a “perfect Truth” or that “Truth is Perfection.” *You* seemingly downgrade Truth in the manner *you* describe.

        The real disagreement is whether one can seek Truth while doubting “Self” and “Free Will?”

        Of course, the cognitive fix is in asserting Truth as “no-self” void of “free will.”

        The problem is the “unwillingness” implicit to the “seeking” of this perfected Truth?

        How is this overcome?

        What mechanism are *you* invoking?

      • When you are *certain* as you claim to be, you close yourself off to learning new information that may be at odds with your *certainty*. I would think someone who *strives for perfection* would want to know Truth whether it conflicts with his *certainty* or not.

      • thordaddy

        It all depends on what “certainties” are being discussed. And the knowledge that not all “uncertainties” are equal.

        But the real question is whether *you* can seek Truth unwillingly? And, if so, how?

      • We’re discussing your *certainties* and why you choose to harass other people who question them.

      • thordaddy

        Actually, this is a discussion about the consequences of doubting “Self” and “Free Will.”

        The disagreement over whether with this doubt the ability to seek Truth?

        I say that it is crippled, necessarily.

        *You* cannot say AT ALL.

      • If you are *certain* about what you already think you know then you cannot seek Truth. Uncertainty is necessary to seek Truth in other words.

      • thordaddy


        But *you* haven’t at all established the truth in the idea that one must be uncertain about “Self” and “Free Will” to seek Truth.

        At the same time, uncertainty about “Self” and “Free Will” impedes seeking Truth, obviously. Because “seeking” just does imply a self-willingness.

      • Yes I have. You agree that you cannot control or predict your thoughts. Agreeing with that, how can you be sure of self and free will? All you have argued is that you are *certain* in the face of this truth but you have not given a logical reason why you feel this to be true.

      • You have not addressed how you can be *certain* of your free will in light of the fact that you cannot control or predict your thoughts. How do you reconcile these two *certainties*?

      • So, you don’t beat your own heart or perform the vast majority of bodily functions willingly. We’ve also established you don’t think entirely or perhaps at all willingly either. The way your white fathers have brought you up presumably plays a major role in how you act and the decisions you make. Where exactly does your *free will* enter the picture?

      • thordaddy

        *You* argue with “bad faith.”

      • On the contrary. My position has been straight forward from the beginning. You, on the other hand are evasive, communicate obscurely and project your imperfections on others.

      • thordaddy


        Only a “radical autonomist” could execute blatant censorship, unsolicited editing and arbitrary redirection only to still claim that his “position has been straight forward from the beginning.”

      • Lol…

        Only a radical autonomist would invent his own version of Christianity and secret language, refuse to explain either properly, expect other people to agree with both, and then troll their blogs when they request reasonable and warranted clarification.

      • thordaddy

        That’s complete nonsense.

        What does it even mean to “invent his own version of Christianity and secret language?”

        YOU claim to be a Roman Catholic and INSIST that this way of being is synonymous with “anti-racism.”

        I claim that a Roman Catholic, by definition, is a racial Supremacist and that any adoption of “anti-racism” is “self-annihilating,” ie., will lead to the annihilation of the Roman Catholic self.

        No inventions… No secret language. Straightforward.

        *Your* only retort is to claim complete and utter ignorance of the terms “racial,” “Supremacist,” “self-annihilation” and “anti-racism.”

        *You* apparently cannot intuit the self-evident meaning of any of those terms and I obviously have failed to explain the self-evident meaning to *you*. Regardless, *you* cannot grasp the subjects at hand.

        So… *Your* concept of Roman Catholicism as synonymous with “anti-racism” (defined as opposing those white people who think they are better than niggers because “white skin”) stands in stone impervious to change or progression.

        Thus, paradoxically, *you* remain in a state of “radical autonomy.”

      • I’m not the only one who has had difficulty translating your queer speech. In fact I have observed no one who communicates in your manner, using any of your magic catch phrases that you refuse to define in standard English and yet expect other people to understand. This is what Is meant by “your secret language” and it’s plain for all to see.

        Look up the word “catholic” to see what it means. Hopefully that will clear up your confusion.

      • thordaddy

        “catholic” mean[s] “universal.”

        Which is to say…

        Perfection is universal.

        DESIRE for Perfection is racial.

      • I’m with you up until your last radically autonomous (i.e, invented for your own egotistical purposes) point.

      • thordaddy

        And it is a racial desire for Perfection that [you] believe anti-Catholic.


        A racial desire for Perfection is entirely in accord with Roman Catholicism because racial desire is a real and unimpeachable reality.

      • The Roman Catholic believes itself to be the universal Christian church which means it is open to all races. You don’t have a leg to stand on as to this point.

      • thordaddy


        How does this contradict white Supremacy or delegitimate racial desire?

  15. Explain why you feel “desire for perfection is racial”?

  16. As you choose to communicate queerly and make up your own definitions I am asking what you mean by your terms. If you communicated in standard English we wouldn’t have this issue.

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