Thordaddy’s Claim that his concept of “white (S)upremacy” accords with Christian Doctrine

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.

Thordaddy claims that Christianity is a “(S)upremacist” religion, therefore any white Christian must be a “white (S)upremacist”. There are two problems with this claim. First, (as always) Thordaddy’s unique terminology is vaguely and confusingly defined. Second, there is no scriptural basis for this assertion.

(a) The reoccurring problem with definitions

Thordaddy uses two definitions for white supremacy: (1) the mundane definition, and (2) the absolute definition. The mundane definition of white supremacy is the common definition that most people share. That is, “the belief, theory or doctrine that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and therefore should dominate society.” By contrast, Thordaddy argues that he practices the “absolute” version of “white (S)upremacy” which he defines as a “white man who believes in and therefore strives towards perfection.” Thordaddy admits that these practices are not mutually exclusive. That is, a practitioner of absolute white (S)upremacy will often also be a practitioner of mundane white supremacy.

Now, Thordaddy often argues that the “dull masses” abhor the practice of absolute white (S)upremacy because they cannot see past the mundane version of white supremacy. This, I believe is incorrect. First, I do not think anyone would object to a white person striving for perfection unrelated to the mundane definition. I certainly cannot think of an example of this happening. Second, if the mundane and the absolute practices are often “intertwined” (as Thordaddy has said) then this is very likely the reason why the “dull masses” cannot see past the concept of mundane white supremacy. Moreover, Thordaddy is unwilling or unable to provide a clear definition regarding what he means by “striving towards perfection.” When asked for a definition or example the best he could offer was his “spreading his righteousness” to people he encounters. I assume this means him communicating his racist message in his unique communication style which again seems to only reflect the mundane definition.

In conclusion, if we are defining “supremacy” as trying to be the best you can be and a “white (S)upremacist” as someone trying to be the best they can be who also happens to be white, then I suppose Thordaddy could legitimately make the argument that Christianity is a “(S)upremacist religion”.  However, if the mundane definition is employed, then there can be no doubt that Christianity is not a supremacist religion because there is no scriptural support to support this contention. In fact, quite the opposite, as we will discuss in the next section.

(b) The lack of scriptural foundation

In the past, when confronted with the argument that his concept of “white (S)upremacy” accords with Christian doctrine has no scriptural basis, Thordaddy has never once countered with a scriptural passage supporting his position. This suggests to me that he is not at all familiar with scripture. Further, I suspect his lack of familiarity with scripture is on some level intentional, because if he was familiar with scripture, he would then have to explain the discrepancies between his arguments and the scripture. There are many obvious discrepancies. The following are a few of the most glaring examples.

(i) “Love thy Neighbor as Thyself”

In the past, Thordaddy has taken the novel position that the Second Greatest Commandment does not instruct a Christian to actually love his neighbor as a general proposition. Rather the commandment is to love his neighbor only to the extent that he loves himself. Accordingly, if a person does not love himself he is under no obligation to love his neighbor. He uses this as a license with the blessing of Christian dogma to hate his neighbor if he so chooses. I find this a novel interpretation of the commandment chiefly because, it has been my experience that (with the exception of Thordaddy alone) all Christians seem to agree that there is an underlying assumption embedded within the Second Greatest Commandment that a person would naturally love himself.

Moreover, Thordaddy’s interpretation of the Greatest Commandment is logically inconsistent with his unique interpretation of the second great commandment. His interpretation of the Greatest Commandment is to give all love to God such that there is no love remaining for the self and less still for the neighbor. In other words he sees love as a zero sum game in which there is a finite amount of love to go around and if all of a person’s love goes to God there is none left for anyone else. I would argue that the plain meaning of the Greatest Commandment speaks to the intensity of love and not to the percentage of love available. Furthermore, Thordaddy’s interpretation of the Greatest Commandment eliminates the need for the Second Greatest Commandment. That is, it would not make sense for Christ to specifically emphasize the Second Greatest Commandment in the gospels if the Greatest Commandment effectively rendered it moot.

His unique interpretation of the Second Greatest Commandment is made more peculiar still by the fact that he is obsessed with the concept of the (presumably sinful) act of self-annihilation which he seems to take delight in accusing other people of committing. I asked him point blank if he loved himself and he repeatedly dodged this question which surprised me. I would think a person who feels so strongly that the act of self annihilation is so morally wrong would naturally love himself. I assume, however, that he does not want to admit to loving himself because by his own logic he would then be compelled by the Second Greatest Commandment to also love his neighbor. In this light, his reluctance to admit to loving himself seems to prove that even he is dubious of his unique interpretation.

(ii)  “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature”

From its inception, Christianity has been a racially ecumenical religion. This is expressly stated in the Gospel of Mark:

Afterward [Jesus] appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:14-15)

Here we see Jesus himself commanding his disciples to preach the good news of his resurrection to “every creature” in “all the world.” He, by no means instructed them to limit their teachings to their own kind, let alone exclusively white people,

(iii) “The fruit of the spirit”

Racism is also at odds with St. Paul’s conception of the “Fruit of the Spirit” he writes about in his letter to the Galations:

[T]he desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh…  Now the works of the flesh are evident: … enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, … and things like these. (Gal 5:19-21)

Racism, seems very much in accord with what St. Paul describes as the “desires of the flesh” particularly including “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy”. By contrast, Saint Paul describes the fruit of the spirit:

[T]he fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control… (Gal 5:22-23)

I must say that I do not see these qualities in any of Thordaddy’s comments. This is one of many reasons (beyond his incoherence and his illogical arguments) I hold his contempt and judgment of his fellow Christians suspect. Accordingly, if he intends to hold himself out as a righteous Christian, perhaps he should reconsider the spirit behind his message. And if the spirit behind his message cannot be reconciled with his message perhaps he should reconsider his message.



Filed under Political Philosophy, Psychology, Religion

188 responses to “Thordaddy’s Claim that his concept of “white (S)upremacy” accords with Christian Doctrine

  1. thordaddy

    Good gosh, man… Your deconstructing is so wild.

    First off, Scripture does not and cannot confirm every truth whatsoever. Scripture IS absolutely true and yet not Absolute Truth.

    Secondly, the Greatest Commandment is primary with all other Commandments being a recognition of the FAILURE of man to embrace the primary Commandment, wholeheartedly. In other words, the Second Commandment is because the Greatest Commandment is relentlessly subverted by man.

    Thirdly, I do not really think in terms of “loving myself.” Just reading your description of this “issue” gave a visceral feeling of something homo and alien. What I do consider is rejecting and avoiding acts of self-annihilation which some could certainly suggest is synonymous with “loving thyself.”

    Fourthly, my “message” is wide out in the open. Free for anyone to debate and critique. I’ll take all comers, but first, I’d rather get to the disciples.

    Lastly, the promise and gift of Christ is resurrected eternal life. And there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that this gift is granted by way of racial self-annihilation. What is claimed in Scripture is that one needs to believe in The Perfect Man at bare minimum in hopes of attaining this resurrected external life. In other words, one must believe in objective (S)upremacy, first and foremost for any chance at resurrected eternal life.

    I’ll say in closing that unless and until you are cleansed of your lifelong brainwashing as it concerns the LOWER-CASED articulation of “white (s)upremacy” and concurrently OPEN your mind to a HIGHER-CASED conception of white (S)upremacy then you will not progress…

    • Again, it’s not just that your whole white supremacy thing is not mentioned in scripture, but the plain meaning of the scripture passaged I referenced contradict it.

      • thordaddy

        Christianity does not “contradict” what is whether “we” are discussing the liberated conception of “white (s)upremacy” or the absolute conception of white (S)upremacy. The best “we” could suppose is that Christianity embraces or rejects the differing conceptions. But as you’ve stated, Scripture makes no mention of “white supremacy” and thus “we” can only speculate a neutrality. Of course, Christianity is anything but neutral.

        The rival interpretations of racism/anti-racism has it seem that Christianity falls on both sides of the mundane rivalry.

        The question is from whence does your desire for (S)upremacy emanate?

        Claiming that those who answer “racially” to be anti-Christian, is nonsensical and r/evolutionary, thus CHAOTIC.

      • Nor does the Creed mention anything about your concept of white supremacy, nor do any of the church fathers, etc. If your queer beliefs were so central to Christianity don’t you think it would be mentioned somewhere? Don’t you think you wouldn’t have to wrestle with the plain meaning of scripture?

      • thordaddy

        That’s crazy talk, man…

        Never have I claimed wS to be “central” to Christianity. That doesn’t even make sense in the context of my work.

        Christ is the falsification of “universal equality.”

        Christianity can then be known as the consequential apologetics.

        The Perfect Man subverts “equality” dogma anywhere and everywhere.

        This is what a wS believes.

        Ergo, wS and Christianity are in accordance with each other.

      • You have said in the past that the only reason to worship Jesus is that he is perfect and that this justifies your curious notion of white supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        No… I didn’t write such a thing.

        I believe what I wrote is that LOGIC DICTATES worship of The Perfect Man if “worship” is to be reasonable to a secularized mass. In other words, EVEN TO A HUMANIST, it should be REASONABLE to worship The Perfect Man.

        Now, in the real world, those who worship The Perfect Man are Christians. Those Christians who worship The Perfect Man because of their father(s) are racists. Racist Christians are, in the American context, white (S)upremacists (or “white (s)upremacists” if leaning towards the liberated frame).

      • That’s not how I remember what you said but I accept your statement to represent your present conception on the subject.

      • thordaddy

        The hard reality is that Christianity CANNOT ACCORD to “universal equality.”

        When it is said that “man needs religion,” what is being said is that man needs to worship something greater than thyself (note: “worshipping” that which is “lesser” than thyself is “radical autonomy”). [The white] man in particular, has realized his worship in The Perfect Man.

        He who wills ALL Right.

        This is a RACIAL phenomenon.

        In other words, it is predominantly amongst the white race that the worship of The Perfect Man is most faithfully instantiated.

        It DOES NOT have to be this way, but it is. So it has to be this way. “Universal equality” is not.

        Even liberals of yesterday were into the project of “perfecting man” — primary by negation of innate qualities — before realizing a corrupted metaphysics doomed their vision. “Liberals” lost out to egalitarianism.

      • I don’t know what you mean by “universal equality”. Please define this term as you mean it.

      • thordaddy

        The claim of “universal equality” is the claim that no perfect man existed, exists, or wil exist.

      • thordaddy

        Egalitarians of every degree.

  2. Well I don’t but you accuse me of adhering to the “equality dogma”. How do you reconcile that?

    • thordaddy

      “Radical autonomy.”

    • thordaddy

      In other words, there is a whole category of egalitarian “Christians” who BOTH embrace and reject objective (S)upremacy. Radical autonomists in (C)atholic cloak.

      • In your world, what is the relationship between sin and perfection?

      • thordaddy

        “It” is the relationship between self-annihilation and the divine self. Interestingly, it is the “all men are created equal” which drives this repulsing dichotomy.

      • So when you say “the equality dogma” you are referring to the premise that “all men are created equal”?

      • thordaddy

        When I write of “equality dogma,” I am referring to the rejection of The Perfect Man per se. It is in this personal rejection that “equality” dogma “sees the light of day.” No perfect man = all men are created equal. Of course, “we” know that the “all men are created equal” mantra to have been grossly perverted by the same radical forces which pervert all things, but “we” are to interpret such phrase accordingly in light of The Perfect Man beaming eternally. In other words, the “all men are created equal” is not a testament the righteousness of anti-racist pathology. Ergo, he who interprets “all men are created equal” as a falsification of The Perfect Man and/or justification for racial self-annihilation is pathological, ie., memetically contagious.

      • I know of no one who believes any of that but ok.

      • thordaddy

        Of course not…

        You cannot expect the DULL mass to possess a well thought out articulation of WHY they believe in (universal) “equality.” And of course, you cannot expect the minority of devils who benefit from this lack of precise awareness to provide it to the dull mass. So you have to make this stuff out for yourself. You have to ask you why you are an egalitarian “Christian” of somesuch degree VERSUS a Christian Supremacist? You have to ask yourself how you reconcile the existence of The Perfect Man with “all men are created equal” if not “radical autonomy?”

      • But equal and perfect are not mutually exclusive. Couldn’t everyone theoretically strive for perfection?

      • thordaddy

        Only a being that believes in (P)erfection and desires objective (S)upremacy, free willingly, can theoretically aim for (p)erfection. As such, there is no “equality” amongst being.

  3. thordaddy

    Thordaddy claims that Christianity is a “(S)upremacist” religion… — winstonScrooge

    This claim is easily verified by the faith that Christians have in objective (S)upremacy. Ergo, to be a Christian just is to believe in (P)erfection, ie., He who wills ALL (R)ight.

    So a white Christian just is a white (S)upremacist, matter-of-factly.

    • But you’ve never adequately explained what you mean by those terms. In your world am I being perfect if I hate black people? Obviously you don’t use scripture as a guide for what it means to be (P)erfection. So what guide are you using? Your preferences?

      • thordaddy

        How could I, mere mortal, adequately explain, in His entirety, His will-ing ALL (R)ight?

        How can you, as self-identified Roman Catholic, genuinely inquire as to the meaning of (P)erfection?

        I hate evil.

        Niggers are evil.

        Therefore, I hate niggers.

        There is no real internal conflict UNLESS one has been liberated.

      • I’m trying to understand your queer philosophy. Obviously my definition of perfection does not match yours.

      • thordaddy

        I image your “definition” to be rather abstract.

      • I’m trying to understand what you are “trying” to articulate. You seem to be unable to explain yourself without referencing other undefined terms.

      • thordaddy

        What’s your definition of (P)erfection IF NOT “He who wills ALL (R)ight?”

      • What does “He who wills ALL (R)ight” mean?

      • thordaddy

        He who never teaches wrong.

      • thordaddy

        Is there a list of contenders for the title of “The Perfect Man?”

      • Sometimes it’s unclear to whom you’re referring.

      • thordaddy

        But it doesn’t actually matter who “He” is IF He wills ALL (R)ight. He is, by his very being, PERFECT. Even if “we” can’t know Him completely as (P)erfection per se.

        Which brings “us” to the question of whether white (S)upremacy is in accord with He whom wills ALL (R)ight?

        I write, emphatically, “yes!”

        You’ll counter, passively, “no.”

        But the entire dispute hinges on your liberated conception of “white (s)upremacy” versus the absolute conception of white (S)upremacy and how you’ll erroneously grant the former without then recognizing the necessity of the latter. In other words, to have the former, the latter must be before, above and about “it.”

      • It primarily hinges on your ill defined terminology and unorthodox syntax.

      • thordaddy

        Care to provide an example?

      • This subject is sufficiently addressed in my post entitled “Thordaddy’s use of Secret Language / Private Jargon”.

      • thordaddy

        What you mean is that you still do not differentiate between subjective (s)upremacy and objective (S)upremacy and thus cannot make any distinction between “white (s)upremacy” and white (S)upremacy?

      • No, what I mean is that I don’t know what you mean by these terms of yours. We can’t have a conversation if we aren’t using the same definitions. I’ve explained this all before many times.

      • thordaddy

        And I am writing that it DOES NOT MATTER whether you have any grasp of the difference between “white (s)upremacy” and white (S)upremacy BECAUSE as one whose first language is English, you MUST RECOGNIZE the legitimacy of (C)apitalization. In other words, it does not matter whether you can grasp the conceptual distinctions between these two separate phenomena, what matters is that you understand that a (C)apitalization creates disparity.

        So EVEN IF you cannot comprehend the absolute conception of white (S)upremacy as you slimultaneously imbibe the liberated conception of “white (s)upremacy,” YOU JUST MUST KNOW THAT THESE TWO CONCEPTS ARE DIFFERENT.

        Start here.

      • You don’t understand what I’m saying. Of course I understand the difference between the two concepts. What I don’t understand is what YOU MEAN by your queer language and syntax because you refuse to explain it.

      • thordaddy

        What I don’t understand is what YOU MEAN by your queer language and syntax because you refuse to explain it. — winstonScrooge

        This is absolutely meaningless unless you provide at least one concrete example for which I can respond with explanation.

      • thordaddy

        You write that you recognize a difference between the liberated concept of “white (s)upremacy” and the absolute concept of white (S)upremacy, but you cannot actually make heads or tails of the difference between these two concepts?

      • Again, I don’t know what YOU MEAN by these terms and concepts of yours. What is the end state of absolute perfection? What do you do to get there? You’ve never answered these questions.

      • thordaddy

        And I am writing, once again, that IT DOES NOT MATTER what [I mean] by (P)erfection (my meaning is no such thing). What “matters” is that *you* WILL NOT put your mind on objective (S)upremacy thereby generating your own intuitive understanding.


        [You] know exactly what “white (s)upremacy” is and is not.

        Where you become “radically autonomous” is in knowing “white (s)upremacy” AND NOT KNOWING white (S)upremacy EVEN THOUGH *you* are an English-speaking, “white” “[Roman Catholic].”

      • It does matter what you mean if you want to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse.

      • thordaddy



        BECAUSE the whole point/aim/purpose of this anecdote is that high IQ “white” males such as yourself WILL NOT put YOUR MIND on (P)erfection.

        Obviously. you cannot make the reciprocal charge…


        You incessantly demand MY DEFINITION OF (P)erfection.

        To which I have responded repeatedly…

        (P)erfection = objective (S)upremacy = He who wills ALL (R)ight.

      • All three of those terms of yours are equally undefined so that doesn’t tell me what’s you mean by them.

        I also don’t know what you mean by “put your mind to perfection”. So your accusation that I am not doing this is also unclear.

    • thordaddy

      Good gosh, man…

      Are you going to even attempt to put forward your own “definition” of (S)upremacy so that you might be able to intuit a white (S)upremacy that is distinct from “white (s)upremacy?”

      • You are the one putting forth these ideas. It is your responsibility to define your own terms. This is getting redundant.

      • thordaddy

        No, winston…

        I did not put forth “white supremacy.” The enemies of white Supremacy put forth that liberated conception.

        What I did bring to the fore was the idea that:

        IF “white (s)upremacy…”

        THEN white (S)upremacy.

        And so the definition becomes clearcut.

        A white (S)upremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection.

        That you cannot grasp this unraveling line of thought IS “radical autonomy.”

        In other words, you are attempting to posit (g)od AT THE VERY SAME TIME that you deny (G)od. Definitions be damned.

        Your “game” is futile and truly redundant.

      • You are the one coming to my blog with all your queer ideas. It is your responsibility to explain what you are talking about.

      • thordaddy

        Let us not forget the queerest idea of yours THAT BROUGHT ME to this blog in the first place?


        “Contraception is a ‘reproductive right’” was this queerest of ideas coming from the “Roman Catholic.”

      • I don’t believe I said that exactly but it is a right. That much is understandable. Your concepts, however, are unnecessarily incoherent because you refuse to communicate coherently.

      • thordaddy


        Self-identifying as a “Roman Catholic” and CLAIMING that contraception is a “reproductive right” was the evidence that *you* are, in reality, a radically autonomous anti-white (S)upremacist, ie., a racial self-annihilator.

        To which your radically autonomous retort is, “I don’t know what that means.”

        Well, it means that *you* attest, as a “Roman Catholic,” that contraception is a “reproductive right.” In other words, your “faith” is racially-instigated self-annihilation.

      • I attest it is a right as an American citizen. Which it is.

      • thordaddy

        Well then…

        That’s a rather novel, nationalistic submission of your “Roman (C)atholic faith.”

      • No. It’s just a fact that contraception is legal in the US. But, nice dodge allowing you to avoid defining your terms.

      • thordaddy

        …You seem to be missing the point on purpose.

  4. The point is, that you are the one coming to my blog with your queer ideas. It is your responsibility to explain what you mean by them.

    • thordaddy

      No, winston…

      Let me tell you what’s strange.

      What is strange is your inability to conceive of a “white supremacy” that isn’t any more than a self-serving liberated conception.

      What is equally strange is your amazing ability to EQUATE contra-conception to a “right to reproduce.”

      • Explain to me why or how you feel your white supremacy is not a self serving liberated conception.

        Be specific and provide examples.

      • By the way, I have never equated contraception with a right to reproduce. That doesn’t even make sense.

      • thordaddy

        First, I don’t have my “white supremacy.”

        IF “white (s)upremacy.”

        THEN white (S)upremacy.

        So what is white (S)upremacy?

        Simply ask the question?

        What do YOU CALL a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection?

        Secondly, YOU have stated that “contraception is a ‘reproductive right,’” ie., EQUAL to a “right to reproduce*.”

        * A “reproductive right” = right to reproduce.

      • I said contraception is a right in the United States. I never said it is a “reproductive right” to my knowledge. If I did ever say that I would only have meant that it is a right related to reproduction.

        Now, let’s return to the real subject which is your undefined and purposefully obscure language.

        What does a white supremacist do when he strives for perfection?

      • thordaddy

        What does a white (S)upremacist do when he strives for (P)erfection?

        The ABSOLUTE ANSWER shall be:

        He wills ALL (R)ight.

      • Are you saying you attempt to imitate Christ? If so, which of your actions do you feel are in imitation of Christ?

      • thordaddy

        Are you missing the point?

        YOU CAN ONLY CONCEIVE of “white (s)upremacy” as some “thing” that is wrong, bad, evil.

        I am telling white boy that a real white (S)upremacist wills ALL (R)ight.

        Agree or disagree?

        If you agree then you concede that white (S)upremacy is IN ACCORD with Christianity.

        If you disagree then “we” are back to square one with your INABILITY to conceive of a “white (s)upremacy” that is not wrong, bad, evil.

        Ergo, you are in a state of “radical autonomy.”

      • What do you do when you will all right? Just name one action you take. That shouldn’t be so difficult.

      • thordaddy

        I wrote that a white (S)upremacist is one who wills ALL (R)ight.

        How is that for willing you (R)ight?

      • thordaddy

        Or… You could make a determination NEVER to teach your children wrong? I attempt this every time I have a conversation with mine.

      • thordaddy

        Another instance would be in never giving my brothers “bad advice” such that asking the question of whether I have ever given anyone of my brothers “bad advice” could be answered with a resounding “yes” or “no.”

      • thordaddy

        And then there is just the effort to enlighten the dull masses via the viral effect as to the fundamental difference between a liberated conception of “white (s)upremacy” and an absolute conception of white (S)upremacy.

      • If you wish to enlighten people why do you choose to speak incoherently, refuse to define your terms or provide substantive examples?

      • thordaddy

        Because you are in a state of “radical autonomy” and this is how you converse.

        IF, on the other hand, you concede to the reality that a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective (S)upremacy is a white (S)upremacist, properly-speaking, THEN you will be speaking my language quite coherently.

      • Yes “radical autonomy”, another undefined term. You can’t define these terms of yours because they are meaningless.

      • thordaddy

        In this particular situation, your “radical autonomy” is defined as your ability to conceive of a “white (s)upremacy” while feverishly denying any knowledge of a white (S)upremacy. An analogous act of “radical autonomy” would be the acknowledgement of (g)ods while denying (G)od…

      • The only thing I am denying is an understanding of what you mean by the terms you choose to use. The reason I deny this is you refuse to define them adequately. This means you cannot define them with other undefined terms.

      • thordaddy

        And I am telling you that this redundant line of retort is just more “radical autonomy.”

        You SIMPLY CANNOT CONCEIVE of a “white supremacy” that is not bad, wrong, evil.

        And YOU SIMPLY CANNOT CONCEDE to this claim, either.

      • You don’t know what I can and cannot conceive of. Your accusation is simply your way of dodging my very simple question that you very queerly seem to be incapable (or afraid) of answering.

      • thordaddy

        Fascinating display of “radical autonomy.”

        Let me ask…

        IS a white man who strives towards objective (S)upremacy a white (S)upremacist? Yes or no?

      • That’s not what I would call him. And I don’t know why his race is relevant to the perfection he strives towards.

      • thordaddy

        Radical autonomy…

        The attempt to balance the real and the irreal on the same material plane.

        In your instance, your faith asserts (P)erfection. but your heart and mind pines for “universal equality.”

      • thordaddy

        Answer the question and be more specific or else continue to be mired in “radical autonomy.”

      • You will have to define your terms so that I know what I am answering.

      • thordaddy

        If you asked me…

        Does thordaddy call one who climbs trees a “tree-climber?” Yes or no?

        And my response was to ask you to define the “terms,” would you not conclude my evasive “radical autonomy?”

      • So “radical autonomy” means asking another person to define their terms?

      • thordaddy


        Asking you what YOU CALL a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards (S)upremacy…


        You ANSWERING me by ASKING me to “define” the “terms” is “radical autonomy…”

      • I told you. I would not call that man a supremacist. I would call him a man who believes in and therefore … etc.

      • thordaddy

        Now for your next acts of “radical autonomy…”

        Lower-casing (S)upremacy…


        Implying that the English language does not have a name for a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards (S)upremacy.

      • You are obfuscating. You know that you have a history of coming up with new (autonomous) definitions for words that already have standard definitions. Supremacy and Perfection are examples of this. This is the reason why I need you to define your terms. Otherwise we’re not speaking the same language.

      • thordaddy

        Objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = He who wills ALL (R)ight = The Perfect Man… Secularly-speaking.

        Radical autonomy = denial of objective (S)upremacy = Luciferian.

      • So what does a person practicing objective supremacy do? Give me an example of what you do to strive for supremacy? If you are going to say you advise your friends or kids, what do you advise?

      • thordaddy

        There is subjective supremacy and objective Supremacy.

        Your insistence on “objective supremacy” IS “radical autonomy.”

        Likewise, there is desire for perfection and desire for Perfection. Parallel, but not exactly equal.

        Your inability to make these distinctions suggests “radical autonomy.”

      • I am asking for your definitions of these terms. That is not an insistence one way or the other on my part. It is your inability to answer this request that is telling.

      • thordaddy

        Objective (S)upremacy = (P)erfection = He who wills ALL (R)ight = The Perfect Man = subjective supremacy… Secularly-speaking.

      • That still doesn’t tell me what that term means or what a person does to achieve it.

      • thordaddy

        Then my point stands.

        You simply cannot conceive of a (S)upremacy that is not bad, wrong, evil. In fact, you simply cannot think of “supremacy” without invoking jew, nigger and the other. And to make matters worse, you will not even recognize this reality as a lifetime of brainwashing.

      • You are the one who uses those racial slurs and yet claims to be a non bad supremacist. The fact that you are unable to define or describe what a non bad supremacist is does nothing to support your premise.

      • thordaddy

        Are you actually claiming that n…s don’t exist? And as such, it is a “lie” to write of n…s?

        And at the same time…

        Big, bad, “white supremacists” exist and this is not a “racial slur” in your radically autonomous mind?

      • I’m saying you act like a white supremacist but claim to be a white (S)upremacist. You refuse to define your term in any meaningful way. Then you accuse me of not being able to conceive of your meaningless term.

      • thordaddy

        You’re quite the hypocrite, no?

        You’re against “racial slurs” UNLESS you are racially slurring a white man as a “supremacist.”

        Fortunately, it is no racial slur to be a white (S)upremacist.

        Can you actually draw a distinction though?

        I doubt it.

      • When have I slurred a white man as a supremacist?

      • thordaddy

        I’m saying you act like a white supremacist but claim to be a white (S)upremacist. — winstonScrooge

        So you are using “white supremacist” in a pejorative sense. You are using “white supremacist” as a “racial slur.” This is clear cut evidence of your anti-racist hypocrisy.

      • I’m using the standard definition for the term.

      • thordaddy


        You are using the liberated definition of “white supremacy” AND it is still a “racial slur” whether you call it “standard” in a fit of “radical autonomy” or not.

      • If you consider it to be a slur that’s fine. It is the subject of our conversation so I’m not sure what other term you would like me to use.

      • thordaddy

        Man, you’re dense.

        The point is that your “faith” doesn’t provide any substantive prohibition against the use of “racial slurs.” That you, in fact, aren’t at all, in principle, against the use of “racial slurs.” And that your posturing over the words”jew” “nigger” is actually just more evidence for a racially self-annihilating pathology. In other words, you get worked up when an individual racially slurs nonwhites, but have no similar outrage when someone racially slurs a white person with “white supremacist.”

        Of course, underneath the posturing, is an actual subconscious recognition that such “racial slur” is not really a racial slur, after all. What it really means is “not a self-annihilating shitlib.” Meaning, a “white supremacist” is NOT a racially self-annihilating shitlib. Ergo, it is, unbeknownst to the shitlib, a perverted compliment.

      • Whatever. Please get back to defining your terms.

      • thordaddy

        If I ask your daughters…

        “Who is He that wills All (R)ight?”

        And they answer simultaneously…


        Will this “definition” suffice?

        Or, will they have been mislead?

        And by whom?

      • So when you strive for perfection, you are attempting to imitate Christ, correct?

      • thordaddy

        Why would I imitate another? I don’t believe in “redundancy.”

      • So then who is the “he who wills all right”? Is it anyone?

      • thordaddy

        The Perfect Man.

      • thordaddy

        Of course, the potential is within any free-willed white man going from this point now forward.

  5. thordaddy

    Racism is no “desire of the flesh.”

    Racism is a contingent fact of an individual being’s racially-incarnated self.

    Racially-incarnated self —> natural racism.

    The “enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy” and the like are, subsequently, largely the consequences of totalitarian multi-racial integration. Ergo, all those deleterious effects due a “desire of the flesh” emanate from the unnatural embrace of anti-racist ideology.

    • Race is essentially an arbitrary designation. It’s only important because you and others choose to make it important.

      • thordaddy

        It’s wild how you cannot recognize how such hollow declarations slimultaneously subvert your Roman Catholicism and bolster the reality of your “radical autonomy.”

        As the late Lawrence Auster was fond of pointing out, “race” is not an either/or dichotomy. The racist/anti-racist paradigm IS A Hegelian-structured SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION. “Ours” is not a matter of “race” meaning everything or meaning nothing at all. THAT’S SILLY.


        If “race” means everything to some and nothing to others, so be it. Neither group of individuals actually decide what “race” means ULTIMATELY. That truth was already determined before “us.”

        The easiest way out of this predicament is TRADITION.

        Amongst white men…

        Your race is your father(s).

        That you disagree as an outlier actually means next to “nothing” in that it does not change [a] “white man’s” idea of what is, in particular, his race.

      • Define what you mean by “white race”.

      • thordaddy

        Because you believe this:

        Race is essentially an arbitrary designation.

        Your demand shall be an exercise in futility.

        At the same time…

        The real question is WHAT IS your race and as such, what is racism? And does your racism actually collide with Christ’s teachings?

        Mine does not. Not in the least.

      • For example, are all people of European descent white in your world?

      • That is only because you have invented your own version of Christ’s teachings to conform to your beliefs and prejudices. That is the real “radical autonomy”.

      • thordaddy

        winston… Why do you continue to believe that these kind of discursive requests go to some ill-defined point you are attempting to make?

        “White” as in white (S)upremacy or the white race MAY OR MAY NOT be definitive in the various minds pondering the subject matter. What can be said is that racial self-annihilators do not get membership privileges EVEN as they help to define the white race. But “yes,” in general, when one discusses the white race, one is talking about Europeans, but many would limit this to Northern Europeans, in particular.

      • So “white” is whatever you want it to be?

      • thordaddy

        Are you even attempting to argue in good faith?

        Did you miss this?

        But “yes,” in general, when one discusses the white race, one is talking about Europeans, but many would limit this to Northern Europeans, in particular. — thordaddy

      • Right, so you are making up a definition of “white” because any definition of the term will necessarily be undefined especially around the edges.

  6. thordaddy

    Fascinating display of “radical autonomy,” I must proclaim.

    What is your race winston?

    After answering this question DEFINITIVELY…

    Define “racism?”


    Enlighten me as to how you draw a relationship between to the two understandings?

    My race is my father(s).

    Ergo, racism is immersion into and an emergence out of one’s father(s).

    The relationship is linear absolute.

    Thus, potentially parallel to striving towards Supremacy.

    • So why identify yourself as white? You and I have different fathers therefore we must be of different races even though we both identify as white. Your theory is incoherent.

      • thordaddy

        “White” is, quite obviously, a “social construct” signifying a collective relationship. “It” isn’t required to be objective. In fact, “it” is the “subjective” aspect of an objective “thing.”

        Your race is your father(s).

        This is a very objective reality. A linear absolute.

        If I say then that you are part of the white race then this generally means that your father(s) are European and/or more particularly, your father(s) are Northern European.

        “White” is the “social construct” that encompasses this not-subject-to-bean-counting collective.

  7. TD says my race is my fathers.
    I am a member of the white race.
    I have different fathers than TD.
    Therefore, TD is not white.

    • thordaddy


      You are not a member of the “white race” by your own admission.

      • thordaddy

        If you were…

        Then you would recognize that your race is your father(s).

      • thordaddy

        Race is essentially an arbitrary designation. It’s only important because you and others choose to make it important. — winston

        Unless you are going to now argue that adding “white” to “race” makes the whole thing more definitive?

      • Just because it’s arbitrary does not mean that I don’t fall under the arbitrary designations. The real question is, is this arbitrary designation meaningful?

      • thordaddy

        All things have meaning. Only “nothing” is truly meaningless.

        But the question is not whether race has meaning or is meaningless, but whether racism is in accord with Christianity?

        And this all depends on how one defines “race.”

      • If we all define race differently then it has no objective meaning.

      • thordaddy

        There is no “we.”

      • thordaddy


        If “white supremacy?”

        Then white Supremacy.

      • thordaddy

        Has it not dawned on you that in desiring “radical autonomy,” you must eschew an objective meaning of race by manner of possessing a personally subjective “definition?”

  8. I don’t know if I desire radical autonomy as I have no idea what you mean by that term. You have yet to define it.

    • thordaddy

      You desire “radical autonomy” insofar as you either a) eschew an objective definition of race and/or b) claim “race” to be meaningless.

      • You desire radical autonomy insofar as you make up the definitions of your terms to fit whatever whim you happen to hold. You have never used this definition before when I asked you to define your “radical autonomy”.

      • thordaddy

        Can you actually provide a verbatim example of the above?

        When I say that one’s race is one’s father(s), this is a very objective definition of “race.” That you disagree does not take away from the objective definitiveness of “race” as I have defined it per your request. And to suggest this definition is of a “whim” shows you to be in that place of “radical autonomy” in regards to an anti-racist egalitarian ideology which possesses as its essence “hatred for the fatherland.”

  9. Every time I have asked you to define your made up term “radical autonomy” you give me a different definition. Typically you say a specific behavior of mine fits the definition. But you never tell me what the actual definition is.

    Accordingly, I have deduced that this term of yours means whatever you want it to mean in any given situation. This is probably why you are so afraid to actually define it.

    If your term can mean anything at all then I can use it to apply to you.

    • thordaddy

      A “radical autonomist” refuses definition. “Radical autonomy” is the relentless attempt at an all-accepting indiscriminancy. Ergo, desire for “radical autonomy” is self-annihilating.

      • Then you are clearly a radical autonomist. You have refused to define your terms for years as documented in the comments to my blog.

        On the other hand, I have been very clear with my definitions and wanting clear definitions for the made up terms you use.

      • thordaddy

        Lol… You’re kidding, right?

      • Has my complaint of your secret language not been that it resists definition the whole time?

      • thordaddy

        Yes… This is your … complaint redounding in redundancy.

        Your race is your father(s).

        This is definitive. Literally, can be defined.

        This is objective. Literally, all living white males possess an absolute line of father(s).

      • My complaint is legitimate as we cannot discuss your queer ideas if I don’t know their meaning.

        Ok. We have a definition of your term “radical autonomy”. Now please define what you mean by “self annihilation”.

        Once we clearly define your terms we will no longer have to go through this redundant exchange of your making.

      • thordaddy

        Self-annihilation is self-explanatory.

        If you are unable to explain to your Self what “self-annihlation” means then it can be said that you are in a “state” of “radical autonomy.” Ergo, you are under a relentless pressure to select for “tolerance” and “nondiscrimination” at all times such that the meaning of “pro-creation” and “self-annihilation” have collapsed into an “universal equality” eliciting no sensed distinction between these antithetical orientations.

      • I’m confused. You have accused me of being a self-annihilator but none of those descriptors apply to me.

      • thordaddy

        If you are confused it is because “self-annihilation*” and “pro-creation” are not self-explanatory to you.

        Your confusion is “radical autonomy.”

        *The procedural ideation of ideological suicide.

      • No. The confusion is that you descriptors SA and RA don’t apply to me and yet you continuously accuse me of both. So either, the definitions you supplied are not accurate or they are meaningless.

      • thordaddy

        “Radical autonomy” —> “self-annihilation” is a desirously “infinite” regress. A deleterious demand for a physical dead-ending. And it is in the impossibility of attaining “Final Liberation,” [mean] time is the … chaos called anti-racist “equality.”

      • Well none of that applies to me so I still don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • thordaddy

        So unless some “thing” applies to *you*, this “thing” cannot be understood?

      • In this instance, you have accused me of something that per your definition does not apply to me.

      • thordaddy

        Where is the line between “incomprehensibility” and “not wanting to understand?”

      • You definitions do not apply. It’s that simple.

      • thordaddy

        This is because “radical autonomy” and “self-annihilation” are not matters of “application,” but rather, unattainable desires with very materially-destructive consequences.

      • No it’s because you are incapable of defining them.

      • thordaddy

        On the “dark matter” of “radical autonomy” and “self-annihilation” is the dedicated denial of this deepest and most deleterious of desires per optimal realization of “radical autonomy” —> “self-annihilation.”

        In other words, within the quantum mechanics of the “phenomenon” is a denial of the “phenomenon” serving the purpose of an “invisibility” of the “phenomenon” enabling an “autonomy” of diminishing return. Ergo, engendering a radical autonomy.

      • It’s kind of difficult to deny something that is not clearly defined.

      • thordaddy

        It’s fairly easy to deny devilish desires for in the denial is the potential for diminishing return.

      • Is that why you deny devilish desires?

      • thordaddy

        I don’t seek diminishing returns; therefore, I have no need to deny any self-annihilating tendencies.

      • Why do you deny resisting definition?

      • thordaddy

        I don’t at all deny “resisting definition.”

        And as such, this is why I would identify as a white (S)upremacist versus a “radical autonomist.”

        Clearly, the desire for self-annihilation is a denial of definition and as such this “denial of definition” is the definition of “radical autonomy” —> “self-annihilation.”

      • So you admit to resisting definition?

      • thordaddy

        No… I do not admit to being a “radical autonomist.” I would only admit to rejecting the possibility of “radical autonomy.” And in doing so, mitigating any tendency towards “self-annihilation.”

      • So you resist definition, you just don’t admit to it?

      • thordaddy

        Defining one’s self as a white (S)upremacist is rather sufficient to answer your ill-insisted point.

      • It took you two years to provide an actual definition of radical autonomy and I have no confidence that the definition will stay consistent the next time you define it. If that’s not you resisting definition then you have to define “resisting definition”.

  10. thordaddy

    thordaddy on Wed Jan 18th 2012 at 12:16:56

    I don’t get the sense that you have a learned aversion to an objective notion of Supremacy. Your talk of a fantastic African legacy and your quoting of certain Lauryn Hill lyrics calling for repentance suggests an affinity for things great than yourself.

    In America though, by and large, blacks (and a large swath of whites) are what we call “equalitists.” These “equalitists” have an affinity for things “equal” to each other. He is one who believes in egalitarianism. But in fact, he is a learned anti-Supremacist. He has an aversion to things greater than him and he never seeks to be greater than others. He thinks this is a harmonious state. For instance, he may have an aversion to a glorious legacy because such a legacy may hurt the feelings of others with a less glorious legacy just as the more glorious legacy of others has hurt his feelings. But there is no harmony in anti-Supremacy. There is only self-annihilation through the consistent application ONLY THOSE HIGHEST VALUES that can make us truly “equal.” Those HIGHEST LIBERAL values are nondiscrimination and tolerance.

    So when you state that white Supremacy, PROPERLY-defined, is an “obstacle” to blacks reclaiming their glorious past, WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE OBSTACLE???

    The white part or the Supremacy part?

    And what is the solution when separationism is, inexplicably, off the table?

    And how does this tie into “micro-aggressive” acts?

    Well, these rhetorical devices are in actuality mechanisms used to increase the autonomy of the black person WITHOUT having to separate from whites.

    When one speaks of a four hundred year desire to break “free” from “white supremacy” AND IT DOESN’T include separating from whites then we witness the pursuit of a RADICAL autonomy.

    A radical autonomy is the freedom to act without consequence. It is quite addictive. It makes the brain create things like “micro-aggressions” because EVERY IMPEDIMENT to one’s autonomy is the gravest threat. You want to detach without detaching. That’s radical autonomy. You deny a higher order and seem to dodge all consequence. That’s radical autonomy. You’re completely “colorblind.” That’s radical autonomy. You’re an “intellectual” homosexual. That’s radical autonomy. You’re a non-black black man. That’s radical autonomy. You go through life relentlessly applying nondiscrimination and tolerance to every act and thought. That’s radical autonomy. That’s radical liberation AND the surest path to self-annihilation and rule by a “default” elite.

    • If this was meant to clarify your terms “radical autonomy” and “self-annihilation,” in the words of the very annoying Terry Morris, “you failed wildly.” I don’t see how any of this applies to me in the slightest. As such, I think you use these terms indiscriminately, you are unable to define them in any consistent manner and as such, they are meaningless.

      It is interesting, however, that you want to project your very own qualities on to other people and deny them for yourself. You accuse me of being “radically autonomous” and define it (on one occasion) as resisting definition. And yet you resist definition constantly. You accuse me of being redundant and yet you have redundantly kept this silly back and forth going for more than two years. You really need to take an honest look in the mirror.

      • thordaddy

        How hard is it for you to understand that “radical autonomy” and “self-annihilation” are attempts at defying “definition” and that you are simply “playing along” with this denial.


        You’d define “radical autonomy” and “self-annihilation” for yourself.


        This is nearly impossible without a grasp of objective (S)upremacy.

      • No, YOU are playing along with the denial. You made up these terms and use them indiscriminately.

      • thordaddy


        I did not make up these terms. That is preposterous. That’s like claiming that you made up “Roman Catholicism” and because you made up that phrase then I can’t possibly understand what it means. Silly games, you play.

      • But you have your secret definitions for them, right? The standard English definitions are “liberated” according to you. But you refuse to provide what YOUR made up definitions are coherently. You resist definition because you are radically autonomous. But you can’t admit that for some reason (e.g. shame) so you must project it on to others. This is the game you play.

    • thordaddy

      Is this secretive?

      When one speaks of a four hundred year desire to break “free” from “white supremacy” AND IT DOESN’T include separating from whites then we witness the pursuit of a RADICAL autonomy.

      A radical autonomy is the freedom to act without consequence. It is quite addictive. It makes the brain create things like “micro-aggressions” because EVERY IMPEDIMENT to one’s autonomy is the gravest threat. You want to detach without detaching. That’s radical autonomy. You deny a higher order and seem to dodge all consequence. That’s radical autonomy. You’re completely “colorblind.” That’s radical autonomy. You’re an “intellectual” homosexual. That’s radical autonomy. You’re a non-black black man. That’s radical autonomy. You go through life relentlessly applying nondiscrimination and tolerance to every act and thought. That’s radical autonomy. That’s radical liberation AND the surest path to self-annihilation and rule by a “default” elite.

      • What is the over arching definition of this term of yours? You seem to want the freedom to apply it to a million individual situations (none of which have described me btw) but you always resist giving a general definition. Why is this?

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