This post can probably be ignored by most of my readers unless they happen to be Thordaddy or have been following his voluminous comments and my responses in the comment sections to other blog posts. For an example please see the comment section of my previous post.
Most of our interactions revolve around the same subject matter. Because of this I thought it would save some time and effort on my part to put my stock answers in one post which I can then refer to when the subject arises again. I suspect this post will be edited on an ongoing basis.
Subject #1 – Thordaddy’s Use of Private Jargon / Secret Language
Thordaddy chooses to communicate in a purposefully obscure and at times annoying manner. He does this in various ways including:
(1) making up terms such as (a) radical autonomy and (b) self-annihilation and not adequately defining or providing examples of these terms so that I can properly understand what he is attempting to communicate;
(2) creating new definitions for terms such as (a) supremacy and (b) perfection and then refusing to adequately define or provide examples that would fit within these definitions;
(3) using punctuation in a non conventional manner such as “(P)erfection” and then not adequately explaining what this use of punctuation means, then expecting me to employ his convention without understanding what it implies;
(4) annoyingly substituting homonyms or near homonyms for regular words in an effort to appear clever or perhaps comical. An example might be instead of writing, “why to you think that?” he might write, “why do Jew think that?”
The problem with this form of communication that Thordaddy seems to not be able to grasp is that we cannot have a conversation about the ideas he is articulating unless we both share a common definition. For this reason it would be preferable if we both used standard English syntax.
It is entirely possible that Thordaddy does not want to actually have a conversation about his ideas and that is the reason why he persists in this behavior. I have never received a clear statement of his intentions as to this point.
Subject #2 – Thordaddy’s Concept of Radical Autonomy
Thordaddy has accused me of being “radically autonomous” but has consistently refused to define this term or has provided inconsistent and obscure definitions. His comments to this blog post articulates this pattern well.
In a comment Thordaddy provided the following definition for “radical autonomy”:
The consistent application of tolerance and nondiscrimination, ie., the continuous exercising of liberal ideology. Ergo, “radical autonomy” is an all-accepting indiscriminancy, ie., the surest path to self-annihilation.
He also articulated that “autism” is an example of “radical autonomy” because an autistic person “cannot know his parents.”
When asked how I fit these definitions and examples he responded:
You are radically autonomous because *you* claim that “Roman Catholic” teaching is in accord with anti-racist ideology. The reality of this contention is the exposure of your deracinated state of mind and self-annihilating tendencies. So Roman Catholic teaching isn’t of the fathers (read: racial), but rather, a matter of devoted osmosis (read: permeatingly ideological).
The standard definition for “radical autonomy” might be “extreme independence” but this begs the question as to what I am being extremely independent from. In these comments he seems to be saying that a person who is “radically autonomous” has achieved extreme independence from his race. To wit, a person who tolerates other races and tries not to discriminate on the basis of race is distancing himself from his own race / ancestors and therefor does not know his parents in the sense that his parents’ racial identity is the most important part of their identity. I suppose the connection with autism here is that in extreme cases an autistic child cannot emotionally connect with his primary care givers and therefor does not know them. I am not sure this is a good example, however, because (a) some autistic children certainly can know their parents and (b) autistic children are not autistic by choice.
In summary, if Thordaddy does define “radical autonomy” as “extremely independent of one’s racial identity” I wonder what he hoped to achieve by resisting, defining this term all this time. Secondly, I suppose my response to his accusation would be, “so what?”
Subject #3 Thordaddy’s Concept of White Supremacy
Thordaddy has defined what he refers to as “white (S)upremacy” as:
White men who believe in and therefore strive towards objective (S)upremacy are white (S)upremacists. … [T]he definition of objective (S)upremacy is (P)erfection. What is (P)erfection? HE WHO WILLS ALL (R)IGHT.
This definition seems to be an attempt to distance his concept of white supremacy from the commonly understood concept of white supremacy, which by its plain meaning promotes the idea that white people should be supreme over (and thus hostile to) other “nonwhite” races. Thordaddy has at times argued that “white (S)upremacy” has nothing to do with other races and that “striving towards objective perfection” is something akin to white people trying to be the best they can be. He becomes very dodgy when asked what “perfection” means in this context nor does he seem to be able to provide concrete examples of what a white man would do whilst in the act of striving towards perfection.
What confuses it further is that Thordaddy is at the same time, openly hostile to other races. He is frequently disparaging of blacks and Jews, for example. Perhaps he sees his “white (S)upremacy” and his hostility to other races as being unrelated and coincidental. But I think any reasonable person would find this argument dubious at best. So ultimately, it seems as if Thordaddy is racist according to the common understanding of this term but is unwilling to fully own his racism as is evidenced by his attempts to philosophically or “intellectually” justify it.
Furthermore, his “definition” above really does not make anything clear. Because declaring “objective (SIupremacy” means “(P)erfection” means “HE WHO WILLS ALL RIGHT” still does not give me an understanding of what these terms mean or what a person would do in order to strive towards objective (P)erfection. I assume the “HE” Thordaddy refers to is Jesus. But if one were to imitate Jesus, it seems very unlikely that they would act as Thordaddy does.