Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:35 | #

When is Majority Rights going to have a long overdue interview with Eurasian philosopher Alexander Dugin rather than giving attention to a hick clown like Jim Giles and Neo Nazi costume dreser Bill White

Good intellectual discussion between Alexander Dugin and Sergei Kapitsa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Kapitsa

“The Apparent and the Unbelievable”: Alexander Dugin and Sergei Kapitsa (English subtitles) Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b-ad0wdo4

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:22 | #

Speaking as a fellow “hick”—Iowa style—to Jim Giles, I can say both of us are interested in the Bill White letter because of its implications for free political speech.  The First Amendment is concerned first and foremost with protecting political speech and, for some odd reason, it seems we “hicks” are the most concerned about protecting that freedom while the more urbane sophisticates are more concerned with preserving the kinds of speech never intended to be protected by the First Amendment.

Why do you suppose that is?

PS: Although we both consider Bill White to be more of a service to our enemies than of service to our people, focusing on that detracts from the primary issue and is the sort of ill-considered trash-talking of the imprisoned that reminds me of the “courage” of people who are “anti-racist” activists with the blessing of the current theocracy of Holocaustianity.

Posted by tc on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:43 | #

Inded, indeed. THAT is my gripe against this “intelligentsia” of ours.

You, we, here at MR run a wonderful, but let’s admit it - mutual masturbatory association as in we all are aware of the simple fact, that we are not getting out of our predicament without a murderous, bloody fight. Not a barfight, where you may lose a tooth, but an all out fight with all you have to give - just to stay alive - and have a chance to repeat the pleasurable experience an other day.

And what do we do? Do we prepare? No. We point fingers, pull the ladders, and cry wolf at everyone, who comes here and states, that it is time not only to consider, but to actually start taking and giving lives.

Yes, this meeting place is useful, as are others - to a point, and I understand, that the admin can not cross that point. But the arrogance is undeniable. Arrogance based upon what? Accomplishments? Deeds?  What?

As you show your contempt for Jim Giles, for being the hick he is, you roll your eyes, when others in our own camp point at you with the same disdain. Jim Giles has actually produced some certain - although admittedly random - results, some, that I cannot point out, for the obvious reasons.

We need alot more hicks of his ilk and less of the kind you, we are.

But let me just put it plainly, as we hicks generally prefer: I don’t like you - and if I was to actually lift a finger, it would not be for you, but for Mr Giles and his likes. One could build empires on that stock…

Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:39 | #

@Fred Scrooby

I didn’t call Mr Bowery a hick I called Mr Giles a hick because his only concern is about immigration other than that he totally in line with Jewish agenda.

Check his archive where he interviews a notorious historical shill who is affiliated with all the major Jewish think tanks AEI, Jamestown foundation, etc where he fully supports the Soros/CIA/Israeli puppet state in Georgia’s attack on Russia during the Georgia-Russia conflict called “The Empire Strikes Back”.

Basically what he wants to is Jewish. I don’t know why like other WN who are only concerned with immigration just don’t convert to Judaism and create Jewish communes in the US. 

In another broadcast with John De Nugent he bashed Dr Duke and complained about white leadership although he fails to show a clear message of what he would do.

There is no critical and analytical discussion or deconstruction of current western thought like The Enlightenment like Dugin’s debated with Kapitsa.

Seems like a rudderless ship to me it knows the direction it is going but no means to achieve it.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:34 | #

JamesUK writes: Seems like a rudderless ship to me it knows the direction it is going but no means to achieve it.

You’ll be surprised, then, when Jim Giles’ appeal to mid-level military officers bears fruit while your appeal to the intelligentsia fails to do so.  Jim has the right idea for his niche:  Appeal to the honor and courage of the men who took an oath.  My role with Jim is to try to direct that honor and courage.  Talking to Dugin has its place and those who do it have their place but really, the rubber needs to meet the road sometime, and I see Jim Giles as the leading figure there.

Honor and Courage for Truth and Freedom.

Posted by tc on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:16 | #

My oppinion stands. Also I’d like to point out, that what Jim Giles is doing is called interviews. This activity has it’s own internal rules and guidelines if you want to bring out the most from your subject.

I do not know Mr Giles, but the one thing I’m sure about concerning his personality, that he is a hick. The other thing I know, that what he does has already had some unintended consequences and in this dirty war we are engaged in at hte moment, one doesn’t know which crack will be the one, that brings down the dam. It can literally happen at any time, anywhere @ the slightest provocation. Things are that tense.

You look back at what brought us here, the past deeds and attitudes of our elite, and one thing stands out quite uniquely: arrogance.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:01 | #

Oh, by the way, I listened to the debate with Dugin, and Dugin is intellectually impoverished.  He needs to read some of the work I was involved in regarding the new philosophy of science that makes a place for you and I in its ontology—a new philosophy of science arising from the circa 1900 crisis to which he refers.  I’m not going to go over and over this with philosophers—I’ve got much more important and urgent work to do and little real help with it, and if ADL useful idiots like GT have anything to say about it, I’ll have no help whatsoever—indeed I’ll more likely be dead or imprisoned.

I’ll simply leave the would-be “philosophers” with this quote from the work I helped fund with the last of my professional capital as a founder of the network revolution:

Here is where I see the broader significance of PSCQM. I believe its chief accomplishment was to mathematically extend the basic conception of lawful change that underlies current scientific practice. This extended lawfulness retains Markovian separability, but no longer requires that we separate things into functional parts. To put it another way, it no longer requires that the internal variables be inputs connected to outputs. The links between parts, and even between past and future, can now have a two-way information flow. This is easy to say, and it turns out to be rather easy to formulate mathematically, but it also turns out to be very hard to digest. Indeed, most of the work since PSCQM has involved trying to digest it. We have studied numerous examples, which provided numerous surprises, and a lot of work has gone into grounding the mathematics at a more fundamental level – we’ll come to this in the next section.

Major changes in science are foreshadowed by movements in the culture at large. A variety of cultural movements in modern times, ranging from the counterculture of Woodstock to the arcane isms of Continental philosophy, share a strong discontent with the technocratic narrowness of science as it stands. The broad message here is that nature, including human nature, has many ways of being besides using things. A world that is nothing but functionality is a world fit only to be used. The world of the engineer is an abstraction geared to a particular mode of activity, not the world we live in. 

But the world of the engineer is also an enormous intellectual achievement, and there is the problem. It is romantic folly to think that throwing away this achievement would return us to some imagined idyllic state of nature. I would like to think that PSQM offers a hint of a less foolish path. It clearly describes radical alternatives to functional composition that are none-theless accessible to the engineer’s mathematical tools. It also shows how these can simply explain some of the more puzzling laws of physics. This is certainly not The Answer, but it does offer hope that there may be ways to steer the intellectual power of science into a better partnership with our real human nature.

Others who pretend to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment and our current predicament with whom I have communicated haven’t yet grasped the importance of this work and I have nothing more to say to them about “philosophy” either until they have.  This is the frontier of Western thought.  Useful idiots like GT who are hostile to such work are really no better than intellectuals like Dugin who refuse to buckle down and help with the hard work ahead of us.

Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:42 | #

Sorry I forgot to post the link to the De Nugent interview. Good interview.

http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio2009/stream.nugent.mp3

@James Bowery

But he supports US foreign policy as mentioned of his support for Soros in Georgia.

If the US were to go to war with China tomorrow he would probably fully support that to.

Is he one of these “patriots” that thinks the US is selling out to China?

So what exactly is he discussing with troops/what is he advocating?

But you need an analysis and an ideological underpinning to keep continuity.

There doesn’t seem to be any continuity between WN political groups other than they are against illegal immigration. 

Why would anyone support a WN movement when WN can’t even agree/have a consensus within there own movement?
Could you imagine these people running something as complex as a government especially the US government.

If by a miracle a WN party did come to power the government it would fall apart within a year.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:59 | #

Jim Giles not only admits his need for leadership, he is actively seeking it among the military leadership—the real military leadership: mid-level officers who haven’t sold their honor for promotions.  I agree that these are our best hope.  More power to him.  My presence, support and guidance is essentially American and is focused on helping such leaders conquer larger moral territory.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:29 | #

Jim Giles not only admits his need for leadership, he is actively seeking it among the military leadership—the real military leadership: mid-level officers who haven’t sold their honor for promotions.  I agree that these are our best hope.  More power to him.  My presence, support and guidance is essentially American and is focused on helping such leaders conquer larger moral territory.

We need CO’s of ballistic missile submarines and a couple of aircraft carriers or it won’t do us any good. A couple of divisions of half-retarded grunts won’t do shit for us.

Posted by PF on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:44 | #

That Alexander Dugin video is awesome. Thanks JamesUK!!!!

Posted by Astrid on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:15 | #

Science is a method. Anyone with money can avail themselves of science and scientists and engineers to discover facts about the physical world that they can then use for whatever purpose they want. To hold ‘science’ responsible for what is done with this knowledge is moronic.

A variety of cultural movements in modern times, ranging from the counterculture of Woodstock to the arcane isms of Continental philosophy, share a strong discontent with the technocratic narrowness of science as it stands.

Science can’t be ‘narrow.’ It has a certain use and purpose and doesn’t exclude anything anymore than a shoemaker who won’t tailor your pants is ‘narrow.’

The broad message here is that nature, including human nature, has many ways of being besides using things.

I don’t see where science in any way contradicts this.

A world that is nothing but functionality is a world fit only to be used.  The world of the engineer is an abstraction geared to a particular mode of activity, not the world we live in.

Yes it is geared to the world we live in. Every house, chair, staircase, doorway, hypodermic needle, and tomato shipping crate has to be engineered.

But the world of the engineer is also an enormous intellectual achievement, and there is the problem.  It is romantic folly to think that throwing away this achievement would return us to some imagined idyllic state of nature.

Romantic folly? It would be unutterably bafflingly stupid beyond belief.

The almost frighteningly destructive babbling Fred linked to is much worse, being eerily similar to the anti-everything white male Christian Euro agenda. Now science is not only suspect, it has ‘seedy’ origins. (It was Gallileo, not Bacon, who supposedly invented the scientific method, btw.) And of course there is no discernable truth which means that morality is relative. And another of the white males we used to admire, Bacon, was really no good, along with most scientists.

And imagine requiring or even asking scientists to share their world with ‘us’ and ‘educate us’ as to what they’re doing. Don’t people know that the work is often years of private and painstaking research. Little step by little step, every one of them changing the actual brain of the scientist, enabling him or her to proceed deeper into an area that has never been explored before. If we can’t share their experience, is it their fault?  There ‘s no elitism going on there, it’s just the way it necessarily is.

Posted by Astrid on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:53 | #

Science can’t be ‘narrow.’ It has a certain use and purpose and doesn’t exclude anything anymore than a shoemaker who won’t tailor your pants is ‘narrow.’

Oops. Didn’t work at all! - how about just - It has a certain use and purpose and isn’t any more narrow than a shoemaker who won’t tailor your pants.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:35 | #

Astrid, why is it that you read “the technocratic narrowness of science as it stands” as “science”? 

Are you a technocrat?

Posted by Astrid on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:47 | #

James,

Because of the meaning given to the phrase by the sentences following it.

Couldn’t possible answer cuz couldn’t possibly know what exactly YOU mean by it.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:57 | #

Oh, I get it.  You’re an idiot.

Posted by Astrid on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:05 | #

And you’re a brilliant interlocutor.

Posted by uh on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:50 | #

And what do we do? Do we prepare? No. We point fingers, pull the ladders, and cry wolf at everyone, who comes here and states, that it is time not only to consider, but to actually start taking and giving lives.

Killing and dying for ideas is fun, but amounts to what in this age? I ask as one who’s pushed the same ideology everywhere. Nothing amounts to nothing.

BTW if “science” originated with Bacon, it could be legitimately described as ‘seedy’—pace J. de Maistre. Fortunately we don’t rely on the scientasters, wagging their fingers at practical science, for advancement.