[Thordaddy is one of our most loyal and prolific commenters. Most of the comments he has submitted have not appeared here, on account of his customary horrific abuse of English syntax, diction, and prosody. Most of them are simply incomprehensible. They have not therefore passed the threshold set by the criteria of our comments policy. Nevertheless, Thordaddy has some terrific insights, which over the course of years of earnest effort to understand him, I have at length come to appreciate. Thus, this post. All thanks to Thordaddy for his honest persistence. Now, if only he could school himself to write like a Christian …][Thordaddy: for the love of Christ, don’t get cocky: write like a Christian, for God’s sake. Your comments to this post will not otherwise see the light of day.][And, also: God bless you for your earnest loyal persistence.]
Self-hatred comes along with the vicious radical autonomy of modernism (that Thordaddy has so emphatically noticed to us all) as a package deal. If you are radically autonomous, then you alone are capable of fixing your own life, and so you are alone responsible for so doing. There is then no one to help you. You alone are alone at fault. Your fault is intrinsic, given along with your radical ontological autonomy, and therefore incorrigible – at least by you. Your fault is your own decision.
Naturally then you hate yourself for it (every man knows in his heart that he is responsible for himself; there is no escape whatever from this knowledge). But one cannot hate oneself and live; so your self-hatred is directed instead upon some Other, a wicked and as suspiciously odd therefore ostensibly blameworthy scapegoat, who works well enough as a halfway credible field for the projection of your own most despised characteristics. The scapegoat allows you to feel for a few moments – those of his holocaust – that you yourself are blameless in your predicaments; that it is all his fault, and that with his death, his ostracism or bewilderment, your faults likewise die; so that you are then free of responsibility, ergo of guilt, or shame, or blame – ritually pure and unimpeachable.
I.e., free. Radically autonomous.
What then is the opposite of the radical autonomy Thordaddy so rightly abhors, as the root syndrome characterizing all our troubles as peoples, and as men (whether Jewish, English, or what have you)? Is it not, at least for white men, what he calls white supremacy? Thordaddy confuses readers by throwing into his scription of “white supremacy” parentheses and capitalizations in a way that seems to signify importantly to him, but which I have never quite understood. But the feeling that I get from what he has said is that by white supremacy he means, not the proposition that whites ought by right to rule over other sorts of men solely in virtue of their whiteness (and all the virtues that whiteness involves), but rather only – a far less sweeping claim – that white men should properly apprehend the peculiar excellence to which they are of all sorts of men particularly called, and so seek it.
I take it, then, that Thordaddy would have no objection to a Persian or Ugandan or Japanese man likewise apprehending the peculiar excellence to which his own sort of man is particularly called, and so seeking it. On the contrary. So I would hope, at any rate.
I.e., I take Thordaddy not as saying that all other sorts of men than white men ought to be subordinated to white men, and ruled by them, but rather that white men ought – as any sort of men ought – to seek the peculiar excellence to which such sorts of men as they are particularly called. I take him to be saying, in other words, that all men ought to seek to instantiate in themselves and in their lives as lived the supreme ideal of such men as they happen to be. They ought to seek to be supremely, perfectly white, or black, or yellow, or whatever.
All men ought, i.e., to seek the perfections proper to their own ineluctably given natures, along all the dimensions thereof.
This hardly seems a controversial suggestion. On the contrary, it is trivially obvious. It could not be otherwise, no?
This is not at all to say that in noticing this obvious, incontrovertible moral ukase, that is given with our very being as disparate from other creatures, and therefore ipso facto worthy of being what we are, Thordaddy himself is trite or trivial. On the contrary: the most fundamental truths apply universally, so that to pick them out of the confusing welter of experience is to notice most percipiently.
Thordaddy argues then, (so far as I have been able to tell from his cryptic pronouncements) that to be a white man and to be a Christian – and, being Christian, to consider oneself a beloved son of God in one’s very essence and truest being – must be to consider oneself as specially loved and wanted by God for the completion of the beauty of his creation as just the sort of being one is: namely, forsooth, and among sundry other things, a white man (with all that being a white man entails, whatever that might be). If having made me a white man God loves me as a white man and wants me to be a white man as perfectly as I can (whatever whiteness involves – again, tace re that for the nonce), why then I ought to go ahead and try to be excellent in just the way that is proper to such white men as I. Whatever that might be.
The project of being excellent in the way natural to oneself begins of course with research intended to discover that way.
But then, in order to seek the excellence proper to my own essential nature, I must first construe it as excellent. I cannot construe it as inherently vile, or evil, for that would be to repudiate it ab initio, and so to fail – to defeat myself – as an ontological project of God’s creation.
Alas for white men seeking the perfections proper under Heaven to their own essential natures, their nature qua white men – and they themselves, therefore – have in the last few decades been almost universally abhorred, in se. Alone amongst all sorts of men, white men have lately been taught that to be simply, and only, their sort of person is to be intrinsically and incorrigibly evil; and that all other sorts of persons are intrinsically better than they are.
White men therefore cannot now get well started on the project of being excellent, qua white men. They are told rather that they should not try; that they must rather reject their whiteness absolutely (together with all that it means, whatever that might be)(including, NB, their simple manhood, their mere maleness). They are told that they ought not even to try to be the Good Guys; because, being evil white men, they just can’t be the Good Guys, as a matter of pure ontology. White men qua white men are incorrigibly the Bad Guys. Especially if they are Christians.
They can do good only insofar as they delete themselves qua what they are.
Thordaddy’s argument terminates then upon a simple proposition: It’s OK to be a white man. If that’s so, then: if you are a white man, get on with being a good one, whatever that means to you.
After all, to say that it’s OK to be a white man, and that you should then get on with it (whatever it is), is no more than to say that it is OK to be you, and that you should therefore get on to being the best you that you can be. In the last analysis, it’s rather a truism, no? How could it be otherwise? What, for the love of Christ, is the alternative?