Tag Archives: Contraception

Exploring the Motivation Behind the Accusation of “Self Annihilation”

pic stackIn this post I would like to discuss Thordaddy’s oft repeated sentiment that I am a “self annihilator.” I believe he accuses me of being a self annihilator because I have admitted that my wife and I use contraception. To clarify, we are both in our forties, have been married for 15 years and have had two children. I suppose this accusation annoys me a little because there is an intense energy of judgment attached to it. He is a self-identified white supremacist. As such I understand that to him, it is no insignificant act when a fellow member of the white race commits an act of self annihilation (such as the use of contraception) because such an act impacts the white race at large. In other words, the use of contraception by any member of the white race works to prevent other potential members of the white race from coming into being and accordingly makes the white race weaker relative to other races with higher birth rates.

The first problem with his “logic” is that in order to have an emotional investment (i.e. to feel) that the concept of racial preservation is important one must accept the proposition that a race is a real thing. This may sound like splitting hairs but I wonder where the white race begins and ends in his mind. Is it confined to Germany, Scandinavia, France and the British Islands? Does it include Eastern Europe or Spain? How far east does it go? How far south does it go? The point is that the divisions between the races (if they are even real distinctions) are not clear cut. Accordingly, if they are not clear cut perhaps the distinctions are merely gradations of the same thing and not distinctions at all.

The second problem I have with his “logic” is that people can use contraception and procreate. Accordingly the use of contraception is not necessarily self-annihilating in outcome. As I have stated, my wife and I use contraception and have procreated. To my knowledge we have not annihilated ourselves to the extent that we can do anything to keep ourselves alive through the process of passing on our genes to the next generation. Moreover, even if one of my acts (i.e., the use of contraception) is self-annihilating in nature according to his definition I also commit many other acts that are not self-annihilating in nature. I eat well, I exercise, I take care of my aged father, I provide for my family, I work, I write and create, I worship etc. Does he honestly think my use of contraception erases all of these other non self-annihilating acts such that in my entirety I should be labeled a “self-annihilator”?

The main problem with his accusation of “self-annihilation” is that it is both counterintuitive and lacks logical consistency. Apparently “self-annihilation” does not mean the actual annihilation of the self. This is evident by the fact that I have committed self annihilating acts and yet I still exist and I have procreated twice to boot. Nor does self annihilation mean “racial annihilation” as the following interchange indicates.

WS : When you say self annihilation you mean racial annihilation correct?

TD : No… When I write of self-annihilation, I am referencing the totality of annihilating all aspects of the self including the spiritual, intellectual and physical self. When I speak of racial self-annihilation, I am speaking of the annihilation of one’s racial self WHICH may or may not have spiritual, intellectual and physical relevance to he who annihilates his racial being?[sic]

It would make sense if he meant “racial annihilation” by the term “self annihilation” because the argument could certainly be made that my wife’s and my use of contraception is in fact preventing more white people from coming into being. In this manner In that I can see the logic behind saying that the use of contraception equates to an act of racial annihilation. However, he clearly denied that this was what he meant which leaves me scratching my head.

Nor does “self annihilation” mean the annihilation of the soul as the interchange below indicates.

WS : According to your belief system do these acts equate to the death of the soul?

TD : No… But they could render the soul interned in a state of genuine radical autonomy, ie., Hell DUE a real desire to annihilate one’s own being…

So then what are we left with? Perhaps the interchange below can shed light on Thordaddy’s obscure thought process.

WS : [H]ow [then] can a person annihilate themselves? …

TD : A person can annihilate his Self with acts of self-annihilations. The most obvious acts of self-annihilation being suicide and abortion, but more subtle acts being homosexuality, miscegenation and contraception…

In other words, if I read him correctly (and that is never a sure bet with Thordaddy) to be labeled a “self annihilator” one must only commit the acts that Thordaddy has predetermined to be self annihilating. It is the acts themselves that affix the offender with the label regardless of whether these acts are counterbalanced by non self-annihilating acts and regardless of whether the commission of these acts result in an actual annihilation of the self.

As with all things Thordaddy it necessarily involves a circuitous journey from point A to point B through an ocean of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo and ill defined terminology. His concept of “self annihilation” is no different in this regard. That said I do believe a couple of points can be distilled from the chaos.

The first point is that Thordaddy sees “self-annihilation” (whatever it truly is) as a morally negative or sinful act. This has no basis in Christianity as far as I can tell even though he often cloaks his use of “self annihilation” in Christian terms. He employs the accusation of “self annihilation” in an aggressive way that immediately puts the accused on the defensive. Because of this the question as to whether “self annihilation” as he defines it is in fact a morally negative or sinful act gets lost in the shuffle. In other words, it is not a given that “self annihilation” as he sees it is actually bad or wrong even though he discusses it as if that question has already been decided.

Second, Thordaddy connects “self annihilation” with his belief in white supremacy. As such, he connects this term to his racial identity. He therefore sees himself justified to judge the members of his race who are not acting or thinking as he acts or thinks. In other words, he sees these “self annihilators” as betraying the white race team which then gives him the moral justification to judge them. This is the “intellectual” veneer with which he covers his judgment. However, I suspect it is merely the excuse he is looking for to pry into and gossip about other people’s private affairs which I would not be surprised to learn is his true underlying motivation.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

68 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity Part II

treeThordaddy gave me a lot of material to work with in the comment section of my last blog post “Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity.” A great deal of what he pontificates about there has to do with abortion and contraception and the impact he believes they are having on his “race.” The perpetuation of his race seems to be equated with Christianity in his mind even though there is no scriptural or any other basis to support this. Quite simply, no where in the New Testament does Christ, St. Paul or any other writer talk about the preservation of one’s race as a priority spiritual or otherwise. If fact, the great commandment to love one’s neighbor directly transcends the very idea of racial priorities.

One claim he has been harping on lately is his feeling that liberals claim or believe “abortion [to be] a reproductive right” and by making this claim they equate abortion with reproduction. I have tried to explain to him that if some liberals do say “abortion is a reproductive right” what they probably mean is that the legal right to have an abortion is related to the right to reproduce and not that they are equal. He, however, proceeds with his rants as if this most obvious point was never made. This ability of his to wear intellectual horse blinders is exactly what I am talking about when I say that he exists in his own box of subjectivity. Within this box he his free to believe what he wants and to ignore the most obvious facts or logic if they conflict with his subjective viewpoint.

Another claim of his is, “THE ISSUE at hand is the white race’s existential crisis (and with him a dying Christianity) and the SELF-ANNIHILATING ETHOS of the liberals AND mainstream liberal ‘Christians.’” What I find interesting here is that he equates the ultimate survival of one’s “race” with one’s self. Moreover he sees the survival of the “white race” as the primary goal of Christianity. He often accuses “liberals” of believing in “self-annihilation for salvation” to which I think he is saying that liberals believe they achieve spiritual salvation through the annihilation of their race. Given that he is so obsessed will race, I suppose it makes some sense that he would feel this way. However, I am pretty sure no one he labels as a liberal Christian thinks race and spiritual salvation have any real connection at all. They are apples and oranges. As such, his accusation although it probably makes sense inside his box of subjectivity makes no sense outside of it in objective reality.

When asked what his basis within Christian dogma is for his beliefs his response is that Christ was a perfect man. Based on this premise he feels that man can strive to imitate this perfection which he also refers to as supremacy. This seems to be his rational for his doctrine of racist white supremacy although the logical connection between Christ’s perfection and the white race he feels to exist is unclear to me. This is especially true when considering the fact that Jesus himself was not a white man. Either Jesus was perfect in all things but race (which would make him imperfect) or his Semitic race is the perfect race (which would make the white race incapable of becoming perfect). Obviously, his logic seems to break down when subjected to scrutiny but I suppose inside his box of subjectivity (where rational scrutiny does not exist) it makes perfect sense.

He does make a point that the use of contraception demonstrates a desire not to reproduce specifically as to the sex act during which the contraception is used. However, he mistakenly expands this concept universally, claiming that the use of contraception demonstrates a desire never to reproduce at all (and by extension to annihilate one’s race). Obviously his expansion ignores the fact that a couple who uses contraception in one instance can and do choose not to use it in order to procreate in another. (Again, his box of subjectivity allows for this). He then argues that this desire not to procreate is an act of “self-annihilation.” Now obviously I still exist after I have had sex using contraception. So I must assume he equates the passing of my genetic material on to the next generation keeps me existing in some way. The fact that he places such importance upon the perpetuation of a blood line is interesting in and of itself. However, the fact that he wants to attribute this perpetuation of a blood line as a Christian spiritual priority is a bit bizarre. It is more than obvious to probably every other self-identified Christian that the physical blood line and race are of zero importance to spiritual salvation. There is no scriptural basis to his argument. Nor does his strange argument carry water that Christ’s spiritual perfection advocates for a doctrine of white racism.

I did bring up the example of a celibate religious and asked if this was not an example of self-annihilation according to his unique viewpoint. He responded, “No… Because the truly celibate stands as empirical exemplar of immaculate spiritual, intellectual and physical discipline. His incredible discipline is neither the thought of nor an act of self-annihilation.” This seems to be a weakness in his argument that the primary goal of Christianity is the perpetuation of the “white” race. By leaving room for spiritual (i.e., non physical or racial) salvation and ignoring the fact that the consequences of a lifetime of celibacy are far more devastating than the occasional use of contraception in terms of perpetuating the white race seems inconsistent at best.

He goes on to say, “The intent of the truly celibate IS NOT TO self-annihilate or refuse to bring more of one’s Self into this world, but rather, a calling to bring the most spiritually, intellectually and physically disciplined SELF that one can muster into REALITY.” By this he seems to argue that intent is the metric by which one can be labeled a “self-annihilator”. In other words, in order for one to be a self-annihilator he must intend to be one. I am pretty sure, however, that if I suggested it is not my intent to self-annihilate when I use contraception that he would not concede the point.

96 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Deconstructing a Radically Autonomous Box of Subjectivity

SkylineOver the course of my last two blog posts, How to Get More Traffic to Your Blog and The Mentality Behind Baiting and Trolling, as well as their respective comment sections I have been having a dialog with an individual named Thordaddy. I assume from his perspective our discussion has been a debate about what he thinks “Liberals” believe about abortion and contraception. From my perspective the dialog has been more of an exploration of his belief structure. In particular I have observed that he maintains this belief structure through the use of a box of subjectivity. Within this box he is free to make up his own definitions and rules of logic. In a sense he is free to believe anything he wants because inside the box his subjective mindset becomes objectively true.

Most notably, Thordaddy argues that Liberals believe abortion is reproductive right. He also argues that Liberals believe contraception is reproductive right. He defines reproductive right as the right to reproduce. Abortion / Contraception and reproduction are antithetical. Therefore Thodaddy concludes that the Liberals’ belief structure is illogical and wrong.

There are many problems with Thordaddy’s argument however.

First of all not all Liberals are in favor of abortion. In fact, it has been my experience that most people are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. A good example of this are Libertarians who tend to be conservative on issues of economics, public policy and foreign policy but liberal on social issues. So the label of Liberal as a monolithic category in which to place people is highly suspect. I suspect people who are monolithic in their thought structure (like Thordaddy) will always see the world and other people in this way. This tendency to categorize and label (in effect to place people in boxes) is analogous to the box of subjectivity in which he has placed himself.

Second, Thordaddy argues that because Liberals believe abortion “is reproductive right” and Liberals also believe contraception “is reproductive right” then abortion and contraception are per se the same thing. This is the transitive property which holds that if A = B and B = C then A = C. The problem with this argument is, however, that no one but Thordaddy use either phrase “abortion is reproductive right” or “contraception is reproductive right.” It would be more accurate to say that the right to abortion and the right to contraception are legal rights related to a person’s reproductive right. As such you might be able to say that C = A + B + Other rights not discussed in this blog post. But, this in no way makes A and B equal. A reading of the comment section in the previous posts will show that I pointed this out to Thordaddy but he did not acknowledge it. This is a great illustration of how he is free to believe what he wants within his box of subjectivity.

Third, Thordaddy switches back and forth between saying Liberals believe Abortion IS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which no one does) and saying Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT whenever it suits his purposes to do so. These two phrases do not mean the same thing. The first phrase if true and if it is also true that Liberals believe “contraception is reproductive right” would support his transitive property argument. However, none of that is true. Thordaddy also says Liberals believe ABORTION IS A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT (which is true to the extent that abortion is a legal right which is related to the reproductive process). However, the fact that he has argued using both phrases further diminishes the potency of his transitive property argument. Unfortunately, explaining these nuances is complicated. Accordingly, it is a simple task for him to persist in his illogical argument as if its logical flaws have not been demonstrated. This is a key strategy that allows him to remain inside his self constructed ideological box.

Fourth, Thordaddy self identifies as a Christian but does not seem to follow any of the tenants of Christianity. I do not say this to judge his religious beliefs, mind you. I am pointing it out because he has judged other people’s religious beliefs rather harshly. He seems to argue that because he self identifies as a Christian and he self identifies as a white supremacist that therefore Christianity is white supremacy. This is another obvious misuse of the transitive property objectively speaking. But it serves his subjective purposes well in that it provides moral cover for his racist beliefs even though there is no logic or reason supporting it. But logic and reason exist in the realm of the objective which he is not ultimately interested in. His ultimate interest is to remain encapsulated within his subjective box thinking that it is objective.

Fifth, Thordaddy argues that I am not Christian because I use contraception in the context of marriage after having had two children. Because he equates contraception and abortion he sees this (I presume) as a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Kill.” (Ex 20:13). Let us put aside the argument that contraception is not killing a life but rather preventing a life from coming into existence in the first place. Let us also put aside the argument that abstinence and contraception produce the same result. Now, Jesus Christ (from whom Christianity gets its name and belief structure) stated that the “Great Commandment” is to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. (Matt 22:36-40). This in effect, elevates Love Thy Neighbor above Thou Shall Not Kill in importance. Why then would he believe that the use of contraception bars a person from being a Christian whereas hating one’s neighbor does not?

Clearly, both logic and Christian doctrine are not his strong suite. But none of this matters to him while he is encapsulated inside his radically autonomous box of subjectivity.

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part II

“Abiogenesis is the manner in which a radical autonomist pays lip service to the legitimacy of one’s origin in the barest and basest sense so as to not appear absolutely nutty if he were to pontificate on his TRUE belief about Origin which means NOTHING to him and so he embraces abiogenesis like the circular jerkular that he is… Still, he maintains his perpetuating self-annihilation.”

The definition of “Abiogenesis” is “the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter.” According to the white Supremacist’s pronouncement above I assume this is what he thinks I believe as a “self-annihilating radical autonomist” (his labels). Moreover, I gather he thinks the reason I believe in abiogenesis is because, although I do not care about my ultimate spiritual origin or racial origin I must at leaPeriodic_table_svgst acknowledge that I have an origin otherwise I would appear crazy to some hypothetical outside observer. I will attempt to address each “point” in his theory in the paragraphs below.

First of all, I do believe that life is constructed with non living matter. In other words the types of atoms that make up my body can be found on the periodic table of elements. At least some of the types of atoms found in my body can also be found in non living matter; iron for example. So in a sense I do believe in abiogenesis in that human bodies are constructed of the same material stuff that makes up everything else in this material universe in which we live. I suppose wrapped up in his accusation is the assumption that there is nothing special about life or that life is somehow an accidental byproduct of materiality coming together in random combinations. In other words, the belief in abiogenesis must also deny the existence of God or spirituality.

But this is not true. The belief in biochemistry can exist side by side with a belief in God. For the record, I do believe in God. I also disagree with his assessment that I believe in abiogenesis because my origin is not important to me. Let me repeat, I do believe in God as my origin and final destination and that is important to me. I suppose he is also suggesting that I do not hold my racial origin as important. This is true to an extent. I am interested in cultural history and I do have a certain affinity for the “white” race having been born and raised within that culture. But my whiteness certainly is not the most important part of my life or even something I think about very often. So he is correct when he states that my racial origin is not important to me in that I do not think it is ultimately important whether one race goes extinct over a period of time. This has been happening since the dawn of man. And races do not truly go extinct anyway; they interbreed with other races, produce mixed offspring and the genetic code is passed on. In this sense the concept of race is really an artificial construct, somewhat illusory and literally skin deep.

Although he has never clearly articulated the point, when he calls me a “self-annihilator” he seems to be doing so on two separate but connected levels; the material and the spiritual. On the material level he believes me to be a self-annihilator because my wife and I use contraception and have limited our offspring to two children. This (I believe he thinks) is self-annihilation on the racial level. Other races reproduce in larger numbers than white people and will edge white people out of existence eventually. On the spiritual level, I am a self annihilator because by using contraception I am disobeying God’s will and am acting autonomously. Accordingly, I am pulling myself away from God and in the process annihilating my self ultimately. As an interesting side note, on the material or ultimately less important level my use of contraception seems to affect a larger group of people than myself (i.e., my race) however on the spiritual or ultimately more important level my use of contraception only affects myself.

Finally I must address another interesting aspect of his accusatory statement regarding abiogenesis. Part of his false assumption regarding the motivation behind his other false assumption regarding my belief in abiogenesis is the notion that I am somehow concerned that other people will think I am “nutty” if I profess no belief what so ever as to my origin. The difficulty I have of even articulating this idea suggests how muddled and confused his thinking is on this subject. I am not sure who he thinks I fear will judge me on this belief I do not in fact have. What is more interesting is that this is an example of the subtle, psychological current of judgment and shame that surfaces from time to time in his ideas. This, I believe, is the true underpinning of his beliefs, the reason he compares himself to others, the reason he blames others and the reason he so desperately clings to his beliefs despite their logical flaws. Shame is a powerful yet subtle force that shapes the way a person views the world and treats other people.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Contraception, Morality, Conservative Christians and Shame

I was involved in a comment section discussion for another blog post entitled “Breaking Sex.” The blog itself is a community for conservative Christians so it follows that they have a strong anti-contraception philosophy. Basically the author argued that contraception goes against the natural order of rolling the dice every time the urge to have sex is acted upon. Because the use of contraception goes against the natural order it is illicit and immoral. As evidence of the immorality of contraception the author points out the negative impact contraception has on the fertility rate and how a population that uses contraception will naturally be replaced by a population that does not use contraception and this is all indicative of God’s will.

It is always a little dangerous for me to get involved in comment section discussions, especially ones involving religion or politics. Although not my intent, people often interpret my view-point as hostile and accuse me (directly or through implication) of trolling. Once this happens it is easy to fall into the back and forth flame war type discussion. I used to relish this type of interaction but now I do my best to avoid them.

As I have stated many times before on my blog, these types of interactions are seemingly never about the actual ideas being discussed. They seem to always be about passive-aggressively shaming the other person. Of course this is always denied by both sides.

The Christian conservatives seemed to be arguing in favor of using shame as a means of enforcing morality on an otherwise immoral population. Specifically as to contraception one commenter argued life was better in the 1950’s when the use of contraception was outlawed both legally but also through shame and public opinion. I argued that shame is a poor means of motivating people to act morally because they will only do so grudgingly and with resentment. Further, when a person is shamed they tend to want to shame other people and it spreads like a virus creating a population of unhappy, repressed, dishonest and angry people.

This conversation does raise an interesting question. Is shame ever justified?

In his book Healing the Shame that Binds You author John Bradshaw argues that there is healthy shame and toxic shame. Healthy shame is normal and occurs when a person acts wrong and is repentant for acting that way. Toxic shame generally results from abusive situations and results in people carrying shame around with them wherever they go. They feel shame all the time in other words. I tend to overlook the healthy kind but I suppose there is a place for that. In my opinion most of the shame I see is the toxic variety so I have adopted a more sweeping anti-shame philosophy than probably John Bradshaw would espouse. Perhaps my situation is unique and my mindset is biased.

It is my observation that conservatives tend to be pro-shame as a glue that holds society together. Liberals use shame as well but generally to argue for freedom from an oppressive societal forces like religion or oppressive morality. My general feeling on the subject is that shame creates and spreads misery. In this respect I do not view shame as a fair trade-off for a well-organized society.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized