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.
(The bulk of the material for this blog post came from my original post entitle Passive Aggressive Behavior, The Truth Will Set You Free. This has consistently ranked as my most popular post in terms of views.)
I used to troll a message board. I describe this in my recently published eBook entitled Shame and Internet Trolling. I targeted a conservative, ex-military guy from Texas. All I had to do was post an article that put the Republican party in a bad light and that would set him off on a vicious anti-Liberal rant. It felt exciting to get him riled up. When he accused me of trolling and / or baiting I would defend myself saying that all I did was post an article I thought would generate interesting conversation. Because I did not comment on the article directly I maintained plausible deniability. It was fun to get him riled up but when he attacked me back I felt horrible. I had to get the last word in. I could not let him get the better of me. Sometimes other members on the message board would take his side. Then I would feel even worse.
The truth is that trolling and all passive aggression comes from shame. If I really felt the article was valuable in and of itself I would have advocated for it. But instead I tried to maintain deniability to protect myself from counter attack and maintain the illusion that I merely posted the article to stimulate discussion. Shame based behavior such as passive aggression comes from a mind that assumes that its true thoughts and feelings are not okay. If somebody else were able to observe these thoughts and feelings they would judge the mind harshly so the thoughts and feelings must be hidden and denied. To the shame based mind image is more important than reality. Of course this mindset is ultimately undermining and self-defeating. Reality is real (by definition). If the mind values image over reality it is in a sense denying reality and at odds with it. This results in more shame and anxiety to boot.
In the Book of John, chapter 8, verse 32, Jesus says, “[T]he truth shall make you free.” In the context of this post this statement is very powerful because shame (the motivation behind passive aggression) is a prison of untruth and unreality. In order to escape the prison of shame the mind must face its highest fear, to expose the truth within to the light of day and for all to see and judge (if they choose to) without excuses. This is a very tall order for someone who suffers from shame. I speak from personal experience and in my experience just as this prison takes many, many years to build and perfect it also takes some time (though not as much) to be torn down. The fear of exposure must be approached with caution and the waters tested gradually over time so that trust of the outside world is built up. Further, and most importantly, the shame based mind must learn to not abandon itself in the face of shame. I used to involuntarily say, “I wish I was dead” to myself whenever I felt shame or embarrassment. Then I would feel bad about what came out of my mouth. Now, when I experience shame or embarrassment I try to be aware of what is going on inside of me and then I say, “I can love myself through this experience.” I have more capacity to let myself off the hook. The reality of the situation is that shame is just an emotion and all emotions are real and okay. They have to be otherwise the one who feels the emotion is not okay. It is difficult to emerge from shame and appreciate this at first. But doing so brings forth the dawn of liberation for a shame based person and when this happens behaviors like passive aggression begin to fade away.
I have always been afraid to speak my truth because part of me believes that if people really knew what I was thinking they would reject me. As a result I tried to figure out what whoever I was talking to wanted to hear and said it. Over time I developed this skill until it came off as natural. People seemed to like me. The only problems were that I eventually lost touch with who I really was I what I really wanted in life. There was a true self buried deep down that was becoming angry (and sad) for being imprisoned.
At a family wedding I recently attended I had a conversation with my sisters about my aging parents. Later in the night back at their hotel room after a few drinks I sort of let my guard down and started saying some rough things about my parents and them. I let out all my resentments regarding my up bringing and how that created the situation where I no longer knew what I wanted and felt pretty much like a failure.
I told my sisters that I did not really have any feelings for our parents anymore and that every time I talk with them I feel horrible. My Dad does not say much anymore. My mother always makes me feel like I have done something wrong. I do not like feeling this and I am starting to question why I have to submit myself to those feelings just because they are my parents. I also went off on my sisters about how they treated me when I was younger, how cruel they were and how humiliated they made me feel.
My older sister tried to turn it around on me and I told her to go f*ck herself. Essentially I never felt entitled to my anger and grief. If it ever came out of me they made me feel humiliated for it. If I spoke my truth I was made to feel humiliated. That negated any entitlement I had to my true feelings and to my true self.
A therapist told me that because of my upbringing I now have to be willing to feel humiliation in order to express my truth. If I am unwilling to feel that then I will never be able to express my truth. For a long time I was unwilling to feel humiliation and as such for a long time I never grew. I was stuck repeating the same old patterns, feeling the same old frustrations. My truth only came out when my guard was down. When my truth came up I felt humiliated both for the truth I expressed and the circumstances under which it was able to come out.
For a few weeks after the wedding I felt the lingering humiliation for saying what I did to my sisters. I’m sure they thought I was the same old weak little brother they grew up with. Only now I am 40 with a drinking problem. I know what I need. I need to feel my anger and grief. I need to own my anger and grief. If I feel humiliation when that happens I need to not abandon myself and join the forces who think that I deserve to be humiliated. I need to put my arm around that humiliated kid and tell him that I am on his side.
In this life, can I really achieve anything? I think of achievement as if it is something important with intrinsic and lasting meaning. But someday I will die and whatever achievements I have made will be forgotten over time. Not even the Earth will last forever. Not even the universe will last forever. And yet I feel the need to achieve something in this lifetime. I want to leave my mark. I wonder, however, how much of this desire to achieve is motivated by shame and ego. In other words could my need to achieve actually be the need to avoid humiliation of not achieving brought on by comparing myself to others or some idealized version of myself?
If I remove the ego from the equation then I can see two legitimate reasons to achieve in life. The first reason is the awareness of being in the moment and enjoying the act of achieving. If I am enjoying what I am achieving while I am achieving then that has value regardless of whether it lasts in time. The second legitimate reason to achieve is true compassion. This can be compassion for others but also includes compassion for the self (which may be the same thing – see The Universe is Solipsistic). For example I might choose to achieve to make a living to support my family (and myself). This seems to have value as well. I call this true compassion, as opposed to false compassion which is motivated by ego or shame. For example I might choose to appear to be compassionate to make myself look good in the eyes of others.
So it seems that achievement for its own sake or out of compassion is good perhaps because it is truthful. And achievement that serves the ego is bad perhaps because it is untruthful. It is untruthful because there is an implicit assumption that life will go on forever (which it will not) and achievements are stored like wealth forever (which they cannot). It is also deceptive about what its motive appears to be.
What about no achievement at all? I suppose this could be either desirable or undesirable. Obviously if I do nothing for too long I will starve to death. That is not desirable. I could also become a drug addict and loose all motivation to achieve. That also seems undesirable. I could simply “be” without achieving for a period of time not long enough to starve to death. There is something desirable about that akin to meditation. Although I would probably struggle with that because sometimes when I am not achieving I feel lazy (a shame based emotion) and it becomes difficult to enjoy the act of not achieving. That is not a desirable situation either. And even if I could not achieve without feeling shame then it becomes some kind of spiritual achievement. That sounds desirable. Spiritual growth comes from venturing out of my comfort zone. But why do I need to grow? Is this not also the need for achievement, only bumped up to the spiritual level? I suppose there is the expectation that the spirit exists eternally, so maybe that is the difference and the motivation appears to be true. I suppose when I boil it all down it’s about Truth. If achievement is true then it is worth pursuing and if it is untrue it’s not but I still feel like I’m missing something here.