Posted by Arguments Church of Entropy said I didn't make on Wed, 24 Apr 2019 01:17 | #

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 week ago
ok there is the rest of my comment (you had apparently commented before I had finished mine)

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 week ago (edited)
While my notion of reincarnation is likely very different from yours, it does provide for happiness in a basic sense of being true to one’s self and thus staving off the anxiety of not knowing where to go argumentatively - but rather in service of coherence to one’s own nature and one’s species system; that is to say one’s reincarnation is through children and grand children, particularly if they remain within the parameters of one’s human species, reconstructing one’s social systemic homeostasis. It is an activist truth to one’s self and one’s species which differs from the passive acceptance of the speculative Abrahamic after life and probably Hinduism (about which I know little, including its notion of reincarnation - though I gather that it is not preoccupied with our coming back to life through the next generation of our consistent species - quite otherly, it suggests that we might come to life as a completely new species, no? And that we should perhaps accept that? If that’s true of the belief, then it is not being true to one’s nature as natural systems seek replication and reconstruction of their systems - they seek homeostasis (stasis is not enough). With the idea of reincarnation through species progeny rather, there will be suffering, but not on a deep level of unanimity (to thine own self be true and all of that).

It is true that one may argue that hybridization can lead to improvement of one’s progeny and the system of which they partake, but that is a hypothesis that is likely to be more speculative and ought not be imposed on those who value their inherited forms and systems and see the experiment of radical transformation as ecologically irresponsible and destructive - rather, requiring that any such radical hypothesis of hybridization or reformation in a new species be subject to control variables of accountability to the extant, functioning bio-social system. Not saying that this is necessarily what you advocate, but the call for passive acceptance of arbitrary reincarnation would appear to be more liberalism (thus, not the way of happiness, particularly not for most males) in the name of false “that’s the way it is ness” in service of a puerile female wish to remain powerful gatekeeper through a shallow incitement to genetic competition.

Church of Entropy
1 week ago
Reincarnation is what it is, you cannot change it. The “we life on through our children” idea is a foolish one embraced by genetic determinists and fools who believe that traits reside dormant in genes. The truth is the complete opposite: genes are activated by the mind, and the mind reincarnates to the flesh with which it is most coherent.

If you are going to take the position that accepting reincarnation doesn’t improve one’s state of mind, you must substantiate it with evidence, which of course, does not exist. The desire to ascribe nefarious motivation to natural processes seems the effete path, to me. Denying reincarnation has numerous easily substantiated bad consequences and accepting it has many easily substantiated benefits.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 week ago (edited)

​ @Church of Entropy I am not a genetic determinist in the strictest sense; while recognizing the clear fact of patterns derived of genes, these are open systems. While the genes can be selected for with some deliberation (“mind”), I would not take it as far as you apparently do either, reading that rather as “Cartesian.”

I did not deny that “accepting reincarnation” improves one’s state of mind, I said that I have a different idea of reincarnation and what makes it important for happiness, at least to some of us.

I don’t ascribe nefarious motives to natural processes, I see potentially nefarious motives in denying aspects of natural motive, i.e., the desire to reconstruct one’s species, as opposed rather, to being told that one must accept arbitrary reincarnation. And that people might read you that way, of trying to promote passive acceptance - for example of race mixing and replacement - by proxy of passive acceptance as that being just another form of “reincarnation.”

Church of Entropy
1 week ago
that is a projection of your own mind, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my views. if you want to understand my views, you should read my blog and not take these shit streams with Claire as an indication of my worldview.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 week ago (edited)
@Church of Entropy what happened to the rest of my comment? (there were several paragraphs after “Cartesian” which are important to the understanding). It seems to have gotten chopped off .... I see what happened now… you had commented before I completed the prior comment… it goes on at length, carefully considered after the word “Cartesian” where you picked up. I was not projecting anything, if you would read what I said,, i said that it can look that way - as if you are trying to deny the importance of actively pursuing the reconstructing of genetic kind whereas passive acceptance of arbitrary recombination can appear liberal - not that you necessarily are, but this is a more powerful position for puerile females than for males broadly - i.e., not conducive to their natural alignment and the deep happiness of unanimity.

Church of Entropy
1 week ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I find it very hard to understand what you are saying Daniel.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 week ago
@Church of Entropy We’ll clear it up when you have a moment. ... i.e., I understand what I am saying - there is a clear logic - even if my way of presenting my point didn’t resonate with you in these particular comments.

Church of Entropy
6 days ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz good idea!

Posted by She was Kangs on Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:14 | #

NPR, Fresh Air, 23 April:

Glenda Jackson On Playing King Lear: Gender Barriers ‘Crack’ With Age
by Terry Gross

Posted by Jen Farse on Thu, 23 May 2019 06:56 | #

Over at Ecce Lux’s Hangout, I had the ugly experience of having to deal with the contentiousness of “WilltoPower” and Jen Scharf “Church of Entropy” once again…

The interesting take-away was how determined WilltoPower was to discredit me - he couldn’t, though he tried heaping every contention he could muster, trying to claim victory that I “could not prove” that people have agency (a degree of agency can be proved). It was a nasty experience, with him trying to say that virtually nothing that I say is worthwhile and then, in supreme irony, as he sided-up with Jen, for who knows what reason (((?))), he tried to go along with her accusation that I was a “biological determinist.”

While I maintain that genetics has high predictive value, same with patterns of biology, various considerations within my social constructionist perspective provide for agency and thus not pure biological determinism.

But interestingly, ironically, Jen Scharf’s “theory of reincarnation of the personality based on quantum physics” holds that we are simply determined to be reincarnated ...so, she maintains, no need to fret about our biological forms as the WN do, we should be “happy” that our personalities are determined to be reincarnated by physics.

...she adds, science observes that 5th cousins are optimal partners for people to breed with..

I thought it didn’t matter and that we have no choice?

When is your next show with (((Halsey English))) Jen?

You can talk with him about how the problem is “those lefties”...

But I thought that you said that “the left / right” distinction was obsolete, not useful and important? ..and WilltoPower is so smart as to agree with you, that the distinction is all bullocks?

Posted by Church of Jentropic Debris on Mon, 09 Dec 2019 06:00 | #

Now who you jivin’, with that cosmik debris?

Posted by Truth as Feedback serving Calibration of Praxis on Mon, 09 Dec 2019 06:49 | #

Advice to Erika.

DanielS: Truth, rather, should be placed in service of Praxis (the interests of our people), not the other way around.

Erika says: My passion is the truth and to fight propaganda and brain washing of our society the best way I know how.

DanielS: OK.

Erika: For me, learning about the Bolshivick Revolution was the final piece of the puzzle and the tactics that have been used in propaganda since then to the present is an excellent educational tool that I use.

DanielS: I can see that being a crystallizing factor for you, but you must realize that they are always trying to play both sides - just as they marshaled the “Alt-Right” to fight against emerging social organization, awareness, conscientiousness among Whites, the resistance to the increased hegemony of YKW circa 2008 it would have organized with bead on them and the complicitness of right wingers who take the pay off, or of liberals to take the license to disregard accountability to our people under the disingenuous rubric of pursuit of objective truth.

Erika: I know we are just getting to know each other so you may not be familiar with my content, goals and beliefs. I have had various different people on my show, different races etc.

DanielS: As you said, I am not familiar with your content, goals and beliefs, so I can’t really comment.

Erika: People familiar with my content know that our"mission statement” is to bring out the truth in any matter past or present and to identify the lies.

DanielS: Well, there is truth, but there is also the fact that there is so much truth and from so many different angles that one must be selective about which truths one attends to and how it might be worthwhile.

One must have a working hypothesis. I like to quote Alfred North Whitehead here, “even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

That is where I disagree with Gandalf and Church of Entropy and where I think they are leading people astray, deliberately or mistakenly, I am not sure.

Because there is so much truth and so many angles on it, one must begin with a working hypothesis ..which, in our case (I believe, anyway) should be the calibration of our people’s group interests, because we have been under attack as a group calibration - anti racism is anti group classification; and as you are well aware, it is basically anti White classification (and necessary discrimination accordingly).

That is why I am a White Nationalist, because our genus (and species) is under attack and I believe that we deserve defense. That is a working hypothesis that is not blindly guided by an objective concern for truth. It rather sees truth as a pursuit to provide feedback to our relative interests, and accountability as such, to our group calibration.

The pursuit of truth by itself may feel innocent, or one may wish to present its innocence by contrast to the deceptive rhetoric of our antagonists, but it is still a reactionary position by itself, like a rudderless boat until its pursuit has the calibration of our social group accountability to gauge those truths - by the way, a social accountability which will ultimately allow us to hold our enemies and antagonists to account as well.