Tag Archives: God Ordained Free Will

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part IV

CIOne of the many recurring themes in his writing is his concept of “God-ordained Free Will.” Like all of his concepts he seems to have this underlying belief or expectation that I should know what he is talking about even though it is not a common term. If I express that I do not know what he is talking about he typically accuses me of feigned ignorance. As I said in Part III, I wonder if these terms are a part of a belief system with multiple adherents or if this is something he came up with on his own. There seems to be at least some overlap between his beliefs and what I could find about the Christian Identity movement. I suspect he would deny an association with them. As yet he has not clarified whether he is part of a larger movement or organization.

If one sincerely rejects God-ordained free will THEN he CANNOT POSSIBLY act as though he had it in his possession.

Here he seems to imply that I reject God-ordained free will. I do reject it to the extent that I do not know exactly what he means by it. He has never adequately defined this term to my satisfaction. As best I can tell, it seems to imply a relinquishing of actual free will (i.e., to act as one wishes to act) and instead to act according to God’s will. The problem here (in addition to being confusing) is that he seems to assume that it is perfectly obvious just what God’s will is. He rejects the notion that scripture is a reliable source of this knowledge when it conflicts with his ideology. Instead he falls back on notions that racial supremacy is a natural consequence of being born into a particular race. So from the outset this concept is illusive but he continues to talk about it as if it is not.

Let’s assume I do know what he means by God-ordained free and proceed from there. He says that if I then sincerely rejected God-ordained free will then I could not possibly act like I had it in my possession. By “reject” I assume he means that I do not believe God-ordained free will exists at all. It is unclear what he means by I could not possibly act as if I had God-ordained free will in my possession. I can assume he thinks his racial theories are in accordance with God-ordained free will and according to his radically circular logic, because I do not accept his racial theories I would not only therefore reject God but I would also not be able to act as if I did not reject God.

BUT, if one did believe in God-ordained free will THEN he could certainly ACT as though he did not.

But on the other hand if I do believe in God-ordained free will then I would be able to fake not believing in it. I hate to sound like a broken record but again, it is unclear why he makes these assumptions that one person could pretend to be other than he is convincingly and the other could not. It is also unclear why he feels this distinction is important.

Accordingly, whether this was attributable to his god… This false front was mandated by his god? That’s a question to be asked and answered by the rival worshippers of the competing gods.

I am ultimately not convinced this false front he describes exists. In essence he is castigating non-existent people for holding non-existent beliefs and worshiping non-existent other gods. This is why I wonder if he belongs to a larger movement. It would shed light on whether he is living in his own self-created fantasy world. If so, it would explain a great many things, chief among them, why he finds it so hard to believe that his concepts are not self evident to me.

For the white Christian, God-ordained free will is that “free will” which does not provoke the shame of the self-annihilating ethos NOR provides a false “peace of mind” for the toleration of said self-annihilation.

Here we find a clue (albeit an indirect clue) as to what exactly God-ordained free will means in his mind. If I read him correctly, a person knows when he acts in accordance with God-ordained free will because he does not feel shame. However, he must be on guard because he could merely be in a state of not feeling shame but still not be acting in accordance with God-ordained free will because he has somehow been able to undeservedly side step this shame.

So where does that leave us? I still do not know what he means by this term but I am sure in his mind this only confirms that I am a radical autonomist because a white Supremacist would know what this means. Circularity wins the day in his mind apparently.

63 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

He pontificated poetically on white Supremacy in general:

White Supremacy isn’t precise, but suffice… Isn’t deficient, but efficient.

I wonder if this is an actual slogan of his movement. I wonder if he even has a movement. There are other self proclaimed white supremacists out there but I have never heard one communicate as he does. I have never heard his taBOANke on Christianity from any other mouthpiece. As such, I wonder if his philosophy was taught to him from a group or whether he is a lone wolf who cooked all this up on his own. His language quoted above reminds me of the rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan. The implication is that his ideas carry more legitimacy if the words used to express them rhyme. I have never seen him use this technique before which may suggest he heard it from someone else and is merely parroting it. Then again it may just be an idea that popped in his head that sounded good to him in the moment and so he wrote it.

It casts a wide net so as to catch a very few perfect fish.

I am reasonably certain this statement refers to an idea he has articulated on a number of occasions. This idea is that 99% of the world’s population are degenerate masses who either knowingly or through ignorance pursue a path of “radical autonomy” and ultimate “self-annihilation.” As we have discussed, the self annihilation he speaks of works on two complimentary levels. One level is on the material or racial level. That is, the radical autonomist does not value his unique racial history and practices sexual deviancy (contraception, abortion etc.) and in doing so is undermining his race and ultimately bringing his race to extinction. The second level is spiritual. That is, the radical autonomist seeks autonomy from God and practices sexual deviancy which separates him from God and in doing so brings about his own annihilation.

Opposed to this 99% of the population are the 1% who act in accordance with “God-ordained free will” which protects them from self-annihilation. I am not sure what he means when he says white Supremacy “casts a wide net…” I assume he counts himself to be one of the “perfect fish” but his philosophy is necessarily narrow in the sense that it restricts itself on racial grounds to white people of northern European racial extraction. Perhaps he was again attempting to be poetic but there may be a deeper meaning that I am not catching here.

There are indestructible memes and destructible mindsets [that] manifest those memes in concrete form. There are attempts to create new memes based around understood mindsets and understood mindsets set out to create new memes.

This seems to be a more difficult nut to crack. I am reasonably certain the “indestructible memes” he is referring to are the liberal ideas and philosophies espoused by the degenerate 99%. By indestructible I assume he is suggesting that these ideas will always be around to tempt man into annihilating himself. The “destructible mindsets” are the people who believe these ideas or perhaps he is referring to the beliefs themselves. They are destructible in that they will not always be around because they will annihilate themselves or perhaps can be changed or converted to right belief. These mindset and memes work together as a self reinforcing mechanism.

But there is ALWAYS a greater paradigm enveloping it all. Perfection or Nothing. What YOU choose will have the most profoundly just consequences either way.

According to the white Supremacist, underlying these false ideas and the system that propagates them is the greater paradigm of “Perfection or Nothing.” This makes sense from the standpoint that there are circumstances where there is truth and untruth. Science makes this point clearly. The truth or untruth of any theory is born out through experimentation. Truth is more difficult to prove in spiritual matters because spirit cannot be measured like matter. As such, it is easy enough to say that one can choose between perfection and nothing. But what exactly is “perfect” can be difficult to know. He seems to think his version of perfection should be perfectly obvious to everyone. But most people do not see racism as a “perfect” philosophy. But in his mind if you disagree with racism then not only are you not perfect but you are also part of the degenerate 99% of the population. I wonder if he can see that his memes and mindsets are equally as self-reinforcing as the liberal ones.

107 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Monolog of a [W]hite Supremacist Part I

At a certain point in our dialog I stopped responding to him and started writing the posts “Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist” Parts I through VI. He had given me a lot of material and I wanted to begin the task of trying to flesh out his ideas. I think he wanted to keep commenting back and forth. But, after a while that sort of exchange becomes counter productive because our egos get involved and the discussion of the issues begins to take second place to trying to make the other person appear foolish.

But he kept commenting. This time he was commenting on my commentary of the comments from the post “Ego and Forgiveness.” It was all getting very meta. Much of his commentary was a repetition of thoughts he had already expressed. But now and again he would introduce something new. The following series of articles is my attempt to present his ideas as I understand them and provide whatever commentary on them I can. To be honest most of what he wrote was incomprehensible. It seemed to make a great deal of sense in his mind but he had trouble articulating these ideas in a way that made sense to me. Often when I asked him to clarify what he meant he became obstinate and accused me of being willfully ignorant or unable to recognize the truth of his ideas because I approached it from the standpoint of “Radical Autonomy.” He had trouble accepting the possibility that his ideas were anything but obvious and straight forward to me.

The radical autonomist, to maintain his appearance of radical autonomy, ie., his appearance of having more freedom than the rest, must ultimately destroy his Origin and blur his final destination. In other words, the radical autonomist must perpetually fill a self-created vacuum that has no beginning or end. He completes this task through cycles of self-creation/self-annihilation each time due entropic laws losing a little bit of “matter” in which to create a new Self ultimately leading to Final Liberation… Self-annihilation… No more “matter” in which to create the next new Self that was promptly destroyed when recognized as a particular impediment to one’s autonomy.

This label “Radical Autonomist” is very important to him. To him there are the true believers acting morally with what he calls “God-ordained free will” who represent a small fraction of the population. Then there are the “Radical Autonomists” who I presume seek autonomy from God which ultimately results in “self-annihilation.” He has never defined “God-ordained free will” except to say that it is the pursuit of perfection. He calls this perfection “Supremacy” but seems resistant to say that “Supremacy” in this context is related to supremacy over other people. He calls it “Objective Supremacy” which he relates to the teachings of Christ which he seems to think (inexplicably) encourage each racial grouping to perfect themselves independent of other racial groupings. He rejects the notion that this particular teaching of Christ requires scriptural support which I find confusing because how else does one know the teachings of Christ if not through scripture? What would this other source be?

As you can see his intellectual framework is very complicated and difficult to follow. Each idea is layered upon another in a complex tapestry. I have a hard time approaching it systematically. However, it all seems painfully obvious to him. As such anyone who cannot make sense of it is either willfully ignorant or under the influence of the philosophy of “Radical Autonomy.”

Several times he has labeled me a Radical Autonomist and seems to assume I follow all the tenants of Radical Autonomism that he sees laid out in his head. It is unclear to me what he thinks these tenants are other than the ultimate desire to break free from God. But I have no desire for this outcome. This he will not listen to but sees every action I take and every idea I express to be further evidence of his beliefs.

He talks about the Radical Autonomist “creating cycles of self-creation and self-annihilation.” I’m not sure if he is referring to the Eastern notions of reincarnation where the ultimate goal is to escape the cycle of rebirth. It seems to fit on some level because there is the idea of achieving “no self” which sounds a lot like his “Self Annihilation.” However, in the Eastern context (at least to the extent I understand it) escaping the cycle of rebirth is a desirable outcome and to him it is not. He sees it as separation from God but I think this is a mistake. I believe according to the Eastern model, liberation from the self is a return to God. In other words it is the “self” that causes the separation from God.

He talks about “no new matter being available to create a new self.” I am not sure what he is getting at here. I am not even 100% sure he is talking about reincarnation. Certainly most sects of Christianity do not believe in reincarnation with the possible exception of the Gnostics. His rhetoric does not echo other Gnostic themes as far as I can tell, however.

So in the end I arrive where I started with him. Trying to make sense of his ideas is extremely confusing. The more I try the more confusing it becomes. But I will continue.

108 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

Thus sayeth my white Supremacist, “There seems [to be] a manner in which one steps beyond basic self-awareness to that creation of the original ‘ego’ set out to push one’s psychological envelope. From the internal monologue to the inter[n]ally manufactured dialogue with one’s ‘ego’ is that initial kickstart seeking to maximize one’s autonomy.”

Here again is the word “autonomy” which in his world carries negative connotations because it suggests an attempt to break away from God. As I said he never made it clear what actions are autonomous and what actions are considered to be in line with his so-called concept of “God-ordained free will.”

In response to his statement I attempted to bridge the gap by suggesting that we both are probably in agreement that the ego is a maladaptive reaction to a misconception of reality. Where our opinions differ is that I believe this process to be largely unconscious whereas perhaps he thinks it is intentional and thus incurring guilt. Of course, he proceeded to snatch this olive branch from my hand and slap me across the face with it.

He went on to profess, “I don’t see things in terms of adaptive and maladaptive. The fundamental human process in my view is perpetuating self-annihilators. I do not grant abiogenesis.”

The term “self-annihilator” is another buzzword of his which I think he uses interchangeably with the term “radical autonomist” in that a “radical autonomist” seeks autonomy from God by acting not in accordance with “God-ordained free will” and by doing so ultimately annihilates himself. I’m not sure what his remark about abiogenesis is in relation to as I never suggested that man arose spontaneously from inanimate matter nor do I know why he thinks that is relevant to the conversation.

He continues, “I ‘see’ an ‘evolution’ usurped by the self-annihilators. I ‘see’ the human being driven by raw desire with just enough good few ones choosing right to constitute an ascending continuum. The ‘ego’ really stands as one’s only truly trusted confidante or very worst enemy OR the appearance of one’s very worst enemy, but in fact one’s understood and very much trusted driving force…. This latter individual is the radical autonomist. His ‘ego’ is that which can get him off the hook with the degenerate masses.”

I’m not exactly sure what he is getting at here. I think he is suggesting that the self-annihilators have somehow exited the flow of evolution and it is the “good ones” who are evolving upward in an ascending continuum. Both types, however, have egos only one sees the ego as an enemy and the other sees it as a guide. But it is unclear what goes with what. His final statement about the radical autonomist using his ego to get him off the hook with the degenerate masses seems a little clearer to me. What I think he is suggesting is that to the radical autonomist, the ego is a clever trick used to absolve him of responsibility for his own actions. He can say, “it’s not my fault I robbed that bank, it was my ego.” To an extent he is correct that the concept of ego may be used in such a way. A sociopath might do that. But a person seeking to do right and act ethically and morally would not do this.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier blog post “Ego and Forgiveness” which this thread is in response to, is that there is a sense by some that guilt and shame should be perpetually carried around even once amends have been made and maybe for no other reason than being born the wrong type. Realizing that perpetual shame is largely the result of abusive situations imprinted on the psyche and formed into the ego is the way out of this situation and into authentic morality. For one cannot truly act morally if one is only doing so in order to avoid feeling shame. Morality should be exercised whole heartedly in other words. Otherwise it is an empty gesture.

To be continued…

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part II

My faithful white Supremacist reader goes on to say, “An ‘ego’ entirely detached from the self is nonsensical[; a]s nonsensical as an ‘ego’ without a dominant self. So in fact, the ‘madness’ of one’s ‘ego’ is the making of one’s dominant self. Identifying that dominant self will then help one understand the origin of his inexplicable ‘ego.’”

My reaction to this statement is first, to marvel at the consistency of his position as it relates to the ego, shame and race. It seems like all the aspects of these terms that I find negative he seems to value as virtuous. In my world one should strive to separate from one’s ego but he sees the ego as an essential. I see shame as damaging. He sees shame as the glue that holds society together. As for race, he is in favor of separating people according to race and that it is desirable that races should strive for supremacy over each other. This is consistent with his view of the ego which is the source of pride, envy, lust etc. These are all qualities that would lend themselves to one person competing with another. Shame of course is the other side of the coin from pride and (to the supremacist) is the rightful mindset for the person who does not share the supremacist’s viewpoint.

Next he says, “The presumption is a God-ordained free will [be] ABLE to envelope even those ‘acting’ as though they had no God-ordained free will. Likewise, presuming no God-ordained free will assumes an inability ‘to act’ as though one had God-ordained free will. But this is not the ‘act’ of the radical autonomist… He very much ‘acts on’ a god-like free will. He only ‘preaches’ no god-ordained free will for the idiots that ‘will’ buy it as the excuse for his reckless, self-annihilating, totally detached ‘ego.’

These terms “God-ordained free will” and “radical autonomist” are terms he frequently employs. I have tried on several occasions to get him to define these terms with specificity but he never has to my satisfaction. That is, the definitions he proposed did nothing to clarify the terms in my mind. He seems to take offense when I ask him to clarify his arguments, often accusing me of feigning ignorance. But I don’t think I would be alone in scratching my head trying to make sense of the passage quoted above.

As best I can tell based on other comments he has made, “God-ordained free will” means a free will whereby the actor chooses to do what God wants him to do. If true, two questions logically arise. First, how does one know they are actually acting in accordance with God’s will. Second, is this any type of free will at all? By contrast (again, as best I can tell) “Radical Autonomist” seems to mean someone who denies “God-ordained free will,” seeks autonomy from God and acts in any way that differs with my white Supremacist reader’s sensibilities. There is circularity to this argument. Since he acts with “God-ordained free will” his actions are correct and therefore anyone who acts differently is a “Radical Autonomist.”

It seems to me that the ego and shame are the causes of much suffering in the world. And I do not believe God wants us to suffer. Accordingly, it is my contention that detaching from one’s ego is the means by which one acts with God Ordained Free Will. By contrast, believing the ego to be the self is to align one’s self with the desires of the ego. Among these desires are envy and indeed supremacy. I could argue this is actually radical autonomy masquerading under the guise of God’s approval.

I am sure he will disagree but the longer this dialog goes on the more clues I have into deciphering his “Suprema-speak.”

To be continued…

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Free Will Debate Part I

The free will debate has existed since ancient times. Anyone can read the various ins and outs of the debate as argued by various people. I think what is more important is the debate that goes on inside the individual.

On the surface, if I do not think about it too deeply it does feel as if I have free will. I can choose to turn left or right. I choose to make the moral choice (as I understand it) or not.

But it is conceivable that I am only experiencing the illusion of free will. When a thought pops into my head I take ownership of it. I claim the credit of my creativity. But if I think about it, I really have no idea where this thought originated. Perhaps someone, somewhere sitting at a computer is implanting these thoughts in my head and I assume they are of my own doing. In this model of consciousness there is a “me” capable of observing but that “me” is under the illusion that the thoughts I think are my own. But even under this model I seem to have the choice of choosing whether or not I will take ownership of these thoughts. But then again, this choosing could also be implanted by the guy sitting at the computer.

So I am stuck in the position where I cannot prove or disprove that I have free will. My religion teaches that God endowed man with free will. My hunch tells me I have some degree of free will but it is probably less than what I assume it to be without thinking about it too much.

Recently a white-supremacist who has been regularly commenting on my blog made the argument (if I understand him correctly) that “God ordained free-will” (his term) means actually having the limited choice between choosing to do God’s will or choosing not to do God’s will. See the comments to my blog post Procrastination When Writing is Essentially Laziness Only More Complicated. I am sure if I misstated his theory he will correct me in the comments to this post.

The question that arises in my mind is this: How can I know what is God’s will in order to properly exercise my God Ordained Free-Will in order to make the correct decision? From a Christian perspective the answer is that the Bible is the word of God and tells me what His will is. The only problem with that is the Bible says a lot of things that are open to interpretation. So I am still stuck in the position of not actually knowing the will of God.

This white-supremacist commenter also argued that the opposite of exercising God Ordained Free Will is the exercising of Radical Autonomy (his term). He goes on to say that Radical Autonomy leads ultimately to Self-Annihilation (his term yet again). Again, I am sure he will correct me in the comments if I am misstating his position. From my perspective, there are a great many hoops he needs to jump through in order to square his theories on, God Ordained Free Will, white-supremacy, and Christianity not to mention Radical Autonomy and Self Annihilation.

Of course this white supremacist has the free will to respond or not respond to this post in the comments. If he does respond (which I suspect he will) I assume he will believe his choice to respond is an exercise of “God Ordained Free-Will.” The debate will then proceed from there.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized