I am not sure who else is reading these posts except myself and the white supremacist who has been obsessively commenting on my blog. I have now found myself in the situation where the subject of my blog posts concerns the comment section of the last blog post (which in turn concerned itself with the comment section of the post before that). The statistics WordPress provides me indicate that people from countries other than the United States are viewing my blog and I do get likes from people who are not the white supremacist so there are definitely other people reading. I cannot imagine why this is but if you (gentle reader) fall into this category please make a comment so I do not have to only read the comments made by the white supremacist which will make it easier to steer this blog in a much needed different direction.
The white supremacist has several clichéd catch phrases that he repeats over and over. Interestingly, this is a trait common to almost every conservative I have observed. I suspect this is a way of simplifying the world by labeling things and placing them into categories. Rush Limbaugh does this a lot for example. Among the white supremacist’s favorite catch phrases are “Radical Autonomy”, “Self-Annihilation” and “Objective Supremacy”. He has steadfastly refused to define either of these catch phrases in a satisfying manner. For example, he has accused me on many occasions of having committed the sins of Radical Autonomy and Self-Annihilation. As best I can tell one annihilates himself by being radically autonomous. I am not sure exactly what this means but I know that he connects these two terms with being a “liberal” (another one of these categories conservatives love to throw around). He has also accused me of “not believing in Objective Supremacy”. I have explained to him that I do not know the definition of “Objective Supremacy” and as such, I do not know whether I believe in it or not. He seems to take this response as a confirmation of his belief that I do not believe in Objective Supremacy.
The essential nature of these words is how they are employed in a circular manner to define each other. A liberal is radically autonomous and therefore a self-annihilator who does not believe in objective supremacy. He has made the argument that all definitions are circular within a “closed system” of thought. I agree that he is closed minded but I do not think that is what he means. I think what he means is that all definitions are ultimately circular because nothing can be defined without reference to something else. This is true, however he has not defined these terms in reference to other concepts except in one illogical instance.
When I pressed him for a definition of “Objective Supremacy” he provided a list of terms one of which included “God of the Bible.” I then asked him if Objective Supremacy means God why not just say God? He avoided answering this question which I found interesting. I have stated several times that I believe in God. So, if God means Objective Supremacy then by the transitive property I must also believe in Objective Supremacy. Accordingly, he either does not think that I believe in God (which he has not stated) or Objective Supremacy means something other than God. If so, he is logically contradicting himself. I have no doubt that he will deny this (see the inevitable comments below). I also have no doubt that the explanation he provides for his denial will raise more questions than it answers.
He has not made any comments in the past few days although I am pretty sure he has been regularly checking my blog because for a few days I have seen 1 U.S. visitor with a number of views. In a very real way it is a relief that he has not been commenting. The constant back and forth although on some level amusing is also draining and negative. I am confident neither one of us will ever appreciate the other’s viewpoint. But the exchange is ultimately not about proving the other wrong. As with all trolling it is about getting a reaction out of the other person and getting the last word in on the argument. If he does comment on this blog post I intend to press him to make clear the contradiction regarding his “definition” of Objective Supremacy. But if he does not comment on this blog so much the better.
Continuing on my Lenten theme of spiritual exploration, I would like to discuss some ideas I had on the ego and the spirit. This is just me thinking on paper and not any conscious attempt on my part to instruct or to judge anyone else. I certainly do not profess to have all the answers, I just like to think and write about what is on my mind. Anything I write should be taken in that spirit.
To being, it seems to me that the ego never sees above its own level. For example Jim might hate his neighbor Bill because Bill offended him in some way years ago. Bill, who was not aware he offended Jim all those years ago, has grown to hate Bill in return because he senses Bill’s hostility. In this example, both Jim and Bill are operating on the level of ego. They sense the hostility or threat from the other and have taken steps to protect themselves from this threat.
But there is a bigger picture that the ego always fails to see. This is the bigger picture (I believe) that the Second Great Commandment “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (MK 12:31) addresses. But in order to see this bigger picture one must step out of their ordinary existence and look beyond material things such as race, political affiliation or petty grievances (for example). It also should not make a difference that the other side does not adhere to the same rules. These are the rules of the spirit after all which are per se above the rules of the ego. Of course, on the level of ego it very much makes a difference that the other side does not play by the same rules.
The ego centered counter argument to the spiritual approach is to say that by following this logic Jim will leave himself venerable to Bill who does not follow this logic. To a certain extent this is true. When a person is physically attacked the ego takes over completely. The fight or flight response is very primitive, rooted in in materiality and self preservation. It is also very necessary, normal and appropriate for survival in emergency situations on the material plane of existence. However, most of life is not an emergency situation. In the modern American world, Bill and Jim have a choice during the majority of their days and weeks to listen to the paranoid call of the ego or to rise above it and listen to the call of the spirit. When people are constantly operating on the ego level of self defense their neighbors will sense this and react accordingly. As long as a person remains unaware of the ego and its motivations he will be governed by his ego. However, with awareness comes the ability to see the ego in action and the ability to chose to go along with the ego or to set aside the ego’s instructions.
To dismiss the ego in this manner implies that the self is in control and making a fully conscious decision. It is somewhat paradoxical that coming more into the self in this manner also means to act more in accordance with the will of God (at least in the context of the Christian world view). I say this because to act in accordance with the Second Great Commandment one must dismiss his ego and make a conscious decision even if the neighbor has not dismissed his ego. Logically there is no other way. It seems to me that to argue otherwise is to attempt to make the self autonomous from God which is ultimately an act of self-annihilation. This is another paradox of the ego in that the ego acts motivated by self preservation but the end result of ego based action is always an act of degradation and ultimately to the detriment of the self.
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 take 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.
“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 least 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.
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.
“[W]hat you deem ‘shame’ is simply a rejection for any tolerance of self-annihilation. If I feel truly shamed I KNOW I have degraded myself and there can ultimately be no tolerance for self-degradation in those that honestly desire free will.”
Essentially the white Supremacist is claiming here that he never feels shame. I find this hard to believe given his desire for superiority over other people. I believe his true motivation for superiority is shame masked heavily with denial. He clearly feels himself to be in a position to judge other people who do not share his vision of reality. He labels them “radical autonomist” and “self-annihilator”. When you label something you confine it to a box that may or may not match up to reality. It is a convenient way to reference a concept but it often produces lazy thinking.
“But there is already the impetus to label everything which may or may not have anything to do with putting that now labeled something into a ‘box.’ What is a ‘box’ anyway? This ‘something’ you’ve labeled ‘box’ that then holds other ‘somethings’ requiring designated labeling seems a special kind of ‘something?’ How does this ‘box’ actually ‘confine’ somethings and seemingly not “confine” other somethings? So if I label wS a self-annihilator, how is he really ‘confined’ to a ‘box’ when he already rejects white Supremacy? What exactly is the nature of your confinement when labeled a ‘white’ self-annihilator in a state of radical autonomy ‘boxed-in’ by the self-delusion of being a true Christian?”
I can see here that he missed my point. His labels do not confine me in reality. His labels confine me in his head. He then mistakenly believes these labels in his head to be reality.
“PS. A white Christian is a white Supremacist and rejects all acts of self-annihilation.”
So here we get into his notions of Christianity and what a “true” Christian actually is. He takes the position that white Supremacy is true Christianity. In a previous exchange I asked him how he squared this assertion with the Second Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Jesus’ commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you.” His response was that he did not love himself and so therefore he was under no obligation to love his neighbor and Jesus’ remarks were solely directed to his disciples specifically with respect to the other disciples and thus carried no authority with respect to him as a mere reader of the gospel. I found these arguments, labored, technical and weasely frankly. It seems to me he was following the letter but not the spirit of the law which is an attitude Jesus rejected.
I further wonder how he squares white Supremacy with the beatitudes specifically, “Blessed are the meek: for they will inherit the earth…, Blessed are the merciful: for they will be shown mercy… Blessed are the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God,” (MT 5:5-9) and “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.” (MT 20:16)
I have no doubt he has an equally labored, technical, weasely response. Be sure to read the comments to find out.
To be continued…
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…