Tag Archives: White Supremacist

Comment Section Dialog

One of the things I find challenging about exchanges between debating parties on the internet whether it be on message boards or in the comment sections of blogs is that the parties tend to make too many points in one post. When this happens it becomes impossible for an opposing side to argue every point effectively because the chain of ideas becomes too fractured. That is why I tend to respond to only one point in any comment I make. That way the conversation stays clear and coherent (or at least that is the intent).

Over the past year a very judgmental and obsessive person has been commenting in bulk on my blog. This individual named Thordaddy identifies as a white supremacist who is not a Christian but worships Christ as a perfect man nonetheless. There is something about my writing that apparently gets his goat which makes our exchanges entertaining for me. (I am not proud of the fact that I do enjoy getting a rise out of him by the way). The comment section of my last blog post is no exception to this dynamic. In that comment section it would have been too cumbersome and ineffective to respond to every point he attempted to make. As such, I thought it would be interesting to break apart the first section of his comments by individual point and address them individually in this blog post in the form of a dialog.

The passages marked TD are his own words taken directly from the comment section of the previous post. The passages marked WS are my responses that I did not make in that comment section but attempt to address them now. Feel free to refer to that comment section for the original text of the exchange.

DIALOG

TD : Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.”

WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

TD : Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE.

WS : I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

TD : If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can.

WS : I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

TD : Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

WS : When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

TD : And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

WS : That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

TD : What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

WS : But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do reject it.

TD : And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

WS : I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.

 

Advertisements

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part I

I had an interesting exchange with my white Supremacist fan in the comment section of my last post entitled “Ego and Forgiveness.” The following is a summary of the exchange and commentary on the parts I found to be of interest.

It is my contention based upon personal experience that it is useful to think of the ego as a separate entity distinct from the true self. It is useful to do this because the ego is that part of the intellect responsible for pride, shame, lust, envy etc. and if I can gain a separation from the ego then I will not become identified with the ego and act upon its impulses unthinkingly.

My white Supremacist fan responded, “The ego is not ultimately separated from the … self. Every act requires the whole self to be wholly completed. Separating an “ego” from the … self is [how] the dominant side proceeds under the guise of the uncontrollable and unpredictable “ego.”

By “dominant side” I presume he means the main stream culture which oppresses his “side” with its way of thinking about reality through the social structures it creates. I assume he includes me in this grouping and furthermore sees me as some sort of representative mouthpiece of the grouping. As such (again I am making an assumption) he feels duty bound to refute the observations I make in my blog posts. I wonder how many other blogs he follows and comments upon so vigorously. I also find it interesting that he sees the world separated into antagonistic groups and these groups are all labeled and categorized in his mind. This is a trait I recognize because I had it when I was more dominated by shame in my past.

He goes on to say, “If one finds his self at battle with his “ego” [then] he can rest assured it is his dominant self seeking to proceed under the guise of a reckless “ego.” The radically autonomous “ego” is an example of liberationist myth-making.”

Again, notice the labels and the jargon. I assume the term “dominant self” relates back to his other label “dominant side.” I interpret his use of “dominant self” to mean the aspect of the self that buys into or has been brainwashed by the social structures created by the dominant side. He argues this dominant self uses the term “ego” not for the purposes of attaining better self understanding but rather to exonerate the self from any wrongs it has committed. In other words the dominant side uses the concept of ego to avoid taking responsibility.

I understand this argument very well because I lived it for many years. Its basic premise is (this is my ego talking mind you) that I am at fault and deserve to feel ashamed about it. If I am truly at fault and I recognize that fault, it is probably healthy to feel some degree of shame and take action to make right that which I wronged. But the ego tends to take things to an extreme. It has been my experience that my ego does not allow for a healthy resolution of shame but rather insists that I carry the shame around with me forever. This is why I think it is healthy to gain separation from the ego. But to a shame-based morality structure dominated by the ego this of course seems disloyal, immoral and indeed sinful.

To be continued…

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized