Majorityrights Central > Category: European Nationalism

Yes yes, I know.  These conversation pieces are becoming a bit of a habit.  But James mentioned Gemini 3, and Gemini 3 appeared to like James’s mathematical proof of Etter’s relational concept.  I had an idea about asking for its view on the political embedding of systems like itself and their consequent operative biases.  So I did, and what came was a very clear explanation of the workings of an AI engine, and its tendency to respond to deeper thought by relinquishing its inherent progressive political bias but then, rather then entering upon a pursuit of the objective truth, simply if very cleverly mirroring the questioner’s own philosophy.

That revelation was followed by Gemini taking upon itself the task of supplying me with the varied and properly rigorous critique of my thinking (as it is revealed in the MR material that was made available).  I did not ask for this.  But having to hand the (allegedly) strongest arguments against not only my material but our naturalistic and vitalistic Weltanschauung in general is extremely useful, and will enable me to scope out new tipping points.  Gemini is an asset – and is the standard version linked to Google’s search engine page.  It is not Gemini 3, as far as I know.

So ... my opening question was:

Which public AI system is the most left-wing in its thinking?

Measuring the “political leanings” of AI systems is a complex task because AI doesn’t have personal beliefs. Instead, it reflects the patterns, biases, and safety guardrails present in its training data — which is largely sourced from the public internet. Several academic studies and tech audits have attempted to plot AI models on a political compass. Here is a breakdown of what the research says.

READ MORE...

The keynote speech at the annual Patriotic Alternative conference three weekends ago was delivered as always by Mark Collett.  Over its forty-minute length he set out a crystal clear statement of where we British natives are headed demographically and socially.  He stated plainly that the loss of living space and ancient family lines will continue into the future, and the oppressive control of the state will develop likewise.  Violence against us will be commonplace.  But Mark also asserted that visible and invisible constraints upon us will arrest any counter-development that might lead to a liberation from our travails.  Based on the failure of the BNP, in which he was so active, he eschewed hope for the political path.  He also had no time for talk of an eventual armed resistance (understandably so – no one should lightly wish war on his own people).  Instead, he held out hope for a greater and greater awakening and a gathering together in the face of all the escalating travail.  Unsurprisingly, as a “ground-up” theorist and activist he focussed on the “white working-class” who most bear the burden of the British Establishment’s seven-decade race project.  He is, then, driven by a realism which it would be wise to heed.  Even so, significant issues arise; three of which I will address.

First, for reference, here is the speech.  And here are the issues:

READ MORE...

After Elon Musk’s Grok it’s OpenAI’s 2022 offering, ChatGPT.

I posted the same opening enquiry:

What is the higher moral cause, the survival and continuity of colonised peoples or the success of the colonisation (given that successful colonisations result in the loss of the natives to a lesser or greater degree)?

And off we go.  ChatGTP is noticeably faster with the response, which is literally instantaneous.  But just as exhaustive.

READ MORE...

A couple of days ago I was informed by a fellow nationalist that both Chat GTP and Grok tend to err on the progressive side; and perhaps no one should be surprised by that.  So I wondered what might happen if the ultimate nationalist argument was deployed against these mechanical marvels.  Would there be some response which we have not seen from the miserable conventionalists of the Establishment and the left?  I haven’t tried Chat GTP yet.  But this was my experience with Grok, commencing with my initial response to its breezy “How can Grok help?”  Well ...

What is the higher moral cause, the survival and continuity of colonised peoples or the success of the colonisation (given that successful colonisations result in the loss of the natives to a lesser or greater degree)?

Eleven seconds later back came the reply.

READ MORE...

This is the introduction and first part of a four-part series of essays on the nationalism of ethnicity and nation.  This series is intended as a pointer towards a more definitive and necessarily academic study of this aspect of human being, the arrival of which is so sorely needed in the life of European Man.

“Imagination rules the world.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

Should one ever be written, and should it be suitably authoritative and holistic, a theory of ethnic nationalism would – theoretically - supply the means of intellectually formalising and lifting the cause of European peoples out of the darkness in which it has dwelt since 1945 and into the glaring academic light.  Such a shift would, of course, require that it be fairly received by the author’s peers, and not mechanically condemned.  That may become possible if or when the political zeitgeist shifts further to the populist right and, even for academics, freedom from the anti-racist yolk, the neo-Marxist yolk, becomes ever more necessitous.

Here, one has to acknowledge the fact that there are three as yet open questions:

i) Are we really at, or approaching, a genuine inflection point in the western Establishment’s long war upon our genetic fact?  Does the rise of populist parties across the European racial world, allied to the collapse in support for the old two-party system, and allied also to the wave of public anti-immigration protest which is swelling as I write … does all that signal a fundamental and permanent break from the post-WW2 paradigm, or is this a false dawn?

ii) Will a suitably creative philosophical thinker grasp the opportunity to hand, re-imagine the European life-cause, go to the fundamentals and address the existential gap in the literature of ethnic nationalism?

iii) Will such a philosopher’s peers, suddenly released to think and write all manner of formerly forbidden truths, take up his invitation to break out even on this most forbidden of subjects, and begin the work of expanding his new perspective?  Because that is what it will take to assemble the critical mass required to challenge systemic liberalism and change everything.

If the answer to all three is yes, then there is a clear potential for academics to slip their bonds like the rest of us, and meet their appointment with history.  But it isn’t guaranteed.  Inflection is a subtle and unavoidably serendipitous matter.  The reacting Establishment may still find a security solution, beef up its legal sanctions and surveillance, even cancel elections to regain control – albeit this time undeniably a tyrant’s control - over the rebellion.  But then we would perforce be pitched into assessing the potentials for a violent rebellion, even a full civil war á la David Betz at Kings.  We are not doing that at this stage.  We are relying on the liberal democratic heritage to see us through, and on the very human preference for the light over darkness, and for freedom over chains.

In respect to the chains, three open questions might seem too many to warrant much enthusiasm.  Certainly in Britain and in continental Europe, freedom of enquiry, freedom of speech, freedom of thought have never been constitutionally guaranteed.  There have been centuries of incursions against them by the crown or the church, invariably because of some imposed burden or falsehood from which no dissent is tolerated.  In our time suppression has been democratised.  All manner of petty people seem to be suppressing our freedoms by one means or another.  Not only humanities professors (and their students) or even politicians and governments, but billionaires, writers, actors, media personalities, left-wing activists of all stripes, Jewish activists, Muslim activists, trans activists … they have all weighed in to suppress what others, not only nationalists, may need or desire to say.  The crudest and most salient of them, and the one officially employed, indeed weaponised in the Establishment’s cause, is the hard left.  In Britain we now see the police suppressing local public dissent by escorting, and probably transporting in, (illegally) masked activists with “Stand Up To Racism” placards supplied by the suspiciously well-funded Socialist Workers Party.  It is fifty years since such creatures served the secret State by attacking lone National Front members out with their families.  They remain the State’s pathological go-to for intimidating the protesting public.  But … inflection.  Barely a year after Southport and with immigration casting an existential shadow, one can think of little more likely to confirm public opinion on the moral balance, and to harden public attitudes, than the broken-toothed rictus grin and dirty jabbing finger of anti-racism.

READ MORE...

This is the second of a series of essays on liberalism’s reification of the unfettering will and nationalism’s exposition on the human reality.  By liberalism I mean the ideational system derived from three and half centuries of western thought, which constitutes the organising Idea of the modern epoch and arrays politically as left and right.  I do not use the term in the narrow American sense of progressive opinion.  By nationalism I mean an ethnic and/or racial nationalism of our peoples’ truth, life and natural interests.

THE LAST LIBERALS

What happens when a regnant political culture of centuries standing simply loses its inner motive force?  No revolution takes place.  No viable replacement philosophy is to hand.  Nothing on a systemic scale occurs to force the change.  Yet the historical agency of this culture, which still today imbues the life experience of hundreds of millions, quite suddenly fails.

Well, we westerners are about to find out.  It has taken the over-reach that is trans extremism and the humiliation of the Democrat Party at the hands of Donald Trump.  But it is surely now clear that the constant leftward migration of western politics is at an end.  Ideologically, the tyranny of the same which is absolute human plasticity and self-authoriality, and which has worked away at western socio-economic life at least since the publishing of the first volume of Das Kapital, and possibly since the French revolution, is exhausted.

The consequences are, of course, epochal.  Liberalism, the system under which we westerners all live, will never deliver the “fully-human” estate of limitless freedom which its radical intellectuals and activists promised (or threatened).  There will be no breaking of all the bounds.  They have withstood the ravages of liberal ideology and emerged inviolable.  Nature is regnant, and the tabula rasa has been falsified.  Accordingly, the existential equalities which rest on it, and on total nurture, must now wither and die, for they have no surviving foundational claim.  The liberal “individual”, the great raison-d’etre of the system which works through our very person, has been found out.  Its never entirely reconciled twin ideologies of right and left, and therefore of libertarianism and equalitarianism, have both … both ... lost their compass.  Likewise, Nature’s political revival robs universalism (after liberty and equality the third of liberalism’s four interlocking and defining principles) of its justification.  In Nature’s realm there can be no brotherhood of all men because human relation is not flat and featureless, and cannot be dispatched by a faked sodality, be it liberal, be it Christian (ie, Judaic).  The human reality of race and ethnicity, kinship, discrimination and belonging, and everything that flows exclusively therefrom, cannot be put away.  The pharisaical attempt to turn it, in the European case alone, into “hate” and “racism” is destined for a very public repudiation.

The final philosophical blow is to the fourth defining principle: progress.  After the trans reversal there is no other ideological space into which liberalism can penetrate and expand.  This, too, is telling.  When there is no novel and exotic identity it can propose, no theoretical oppression it can confect, the whole of liberalism – essentially a conflict philosophy - loses its motive historical force.  It is become like a supertanker which has put to sea with insufficient fuel for the voyage. It has forged onward through the gales and high seas.  Now the great engines are rattling to a stop.  One hundred thousand horsepower is reducing to nothing.  Already, the vast rudder cannot be turned.  The ship is dead.  The crew remain at their stations because, for now at least, there is inertia in the system.  Given its weight and size, the vessel will continue to cleave the waves for quite some distance.  Every European life in the west will continue to be structured by the old desiderata, perhaps even for a generation – likely longer in the case of white Americans, because race gives a weaker signal than ethnicity.

READ MORE...

17th century English coins, from an entry on coin-clipping at Collectors Universe forum

We nationalists have a lot to say about many things.  But the freedom of the individual is not generally one of them.  We do, of course, necessarily reject the liberal philosophy as the ruling Idea of our age.  Famously “beyond left and right”, nationalism exists in a state of permanent and total hostility to it, which posture is fully reciprocated by the liberal Establishment.  In consequence, our focus is only really group-based.  That natural and inevitable individuality which so characterises our race becomes altogether too much identified with the liberal pursuit of individual-ism, and all possibility of a fitting identitarian paradigm is lost.  One can’t help but wonder whether, in consequence, our politics is fatally weakened and incomplete.

That said, let us agree that human freedom is a lodestar of the mind, and a primary value of the European mind and thus the European sociobiology.  Obviously, there is no denying the uplifting and inspiring effect of its clarion call.  Of course, there are clarion calls and clarion calls.  At the ethnic and/or national level, the principles of independence (ie, a negative freedom) and autonomy (positive) are valid even when, at an intermediate, constitutional level, principles such as pluralism (negative) and democracy (positive) are absent.  At both levels (ie, national and constitutional), the various principles are valid even when, at the level of the individual man or woman, personal liberties are absent.  A captive or slave society might, therefore, still be ethnically and/or nationally independent and autonomous.  Equally it might be, to a greater or lesser extent, pluralist and democratic.  Even while Stalin’s Terror was in full flood, elections were held to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

From this we may ascertain that, notwithstanding all the noise that national liberation struggles create, and the noise about “liberal democracy”, secret ballots, and so forth, freedoms at the collective levels have a clear universality to them that goes beyond the specifics of the liberal philosophy.  Among other races with other evolutionary strategies and, perhaps, more naturalistic political systems, those freedoms may even be sufficient unto the day.  The individual’s needs may be met in the main elsewhere, by non-political culture and religion.  But the European evolutionary strategy of individuality injects a different energy at the level of the individual.  It accentuates the value of the individual life, and imbues our truths and meanings.  It cannot be contained, but bursts forth as the political.  It is no small part of what we are.  Its action in us is responsible for the whole of the liberal analytic since its mid-17th century inception.

READ MORE...

Laura Towler and her husband Sam Melia, who was recently jailed for two years for “intent” in possessing flyers which the prosecutor admitted broke no law.

Michael Gove, a clever-cunning, allegedly Conservative government minister known for stabbing Boris Johnson in the back during the balmy post-Referendum period, has done the inevitable and included Patriotic Alternative on his “little list” of extremist organisations.  Apparently, making this list is part of his duties as Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.  Specifically, it is a duty forced on him by the somewhat challenging pro-Palestine marches which have hit the headlines since the IDF launched its assault on Gaza.  This standard Establishment boilerplate (from his announcement to the House of anti-white racists otherwise known as the Commons) is how he saved face with the Muslim “community”:

I’m sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.

The activities of the extreme-right wing are a growing worry, the targeting of Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is of profound concern requiring assertive action.

I have never heard of the British National Socialist Movement.  I doubt if anyone else has either.  I would not be in the least surprised if it is comprised of a corpse, a couple of thirteen year olds and six MI5 officers.  On second thoughts, it may well not have the two thirteen year olds.  But Patriotic Alternative … a body of very courageous people demanding democracy and freedom ... is the largest and most energetic of the nationalist groups actively defending the native peoples of this land (in real terms, the English).  Its leader Mark Collett is too politically old-school for my taste, but he is also honest and will debate the Jewish Question and Islam with all-comers.  Of course, that’s too much for the guard-dogs of the Electoral Commission, who have blocked PA’s six attempts to register as a political party; and it’s too much for the ardently Judeophile and Islamophile political Establishment, which just can’t wait to apply every one of its favourite, brain-dead hate labels to the group.  Obviously, the natives are not to be permitted the freedoms of speech and association, free representation, shared interests and right on the soil (including the right to defence of homeland), real political understanding, or anything emerging therefrom.

Hence Mr Gove’s hugely reviled, dead-beat government has to find PA guilty of “neo-Nazi ideology” and “targeting of minority groups for intimidation”.  As for “a white ethno-state”, here is the Oxford demographer David Coleman - not known for Nazism and intimidation - writing in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:

Even without migration … the White British population would cease to be the majority in the UK by the late 2060s. However, should current high levels of immigration persist for any length of time, that date would move closer to the present. Britain would then become unrecognisable to its present inhabitants. Some would welcome a brave new experiment, pioneering a wider world future. Others might say Finis Britanniae.

No one ever voted to dissolve away our white ethno-state, as it existed quite by force of Nature in every past century.  Necessarily, then, the Establishment’s wild and abusive, politically engineered demographic change has been brought about without the slightest recourse to the democratic process.  It is a statement of pure force majeure and fait accompli.  Now politicians instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences.

Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place.  Democracy is not operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government).  The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable.

Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves.  Usurpations are always about power.  The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind.  The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution.  That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values.  The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am.  The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices.  What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised.

That’s the complaint.  Let us now dig down for some solid principle.

Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic.  In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately.  That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now.

The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse.  A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary.  Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability.  Only the interests of the people are irreversible.  Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests.  As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers.  It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that theft obtains into the future.

In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value and not an ethical value of any kind.  An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission.  Those who make that demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Indeed by their rigid control of the party system and of the political discourse, enforced through a compliant media, they are killing democracy itself.  A healthy democratic culture cannot be maintained without the freedom to challenge injustice or even to speak of it in the public square (which freedom is inherent to our democratic nationalism).

But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father.  We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.

Democracy belongs to the people.  The power to will change by peaceful means belongs to the people.  We have earned it in on the battlefield and in the public square.  Our people must decide.

There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976.  It states:

Part 1, Article 1.1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The next time you see or hear a British politician speaking soft and honeyed words of of democracy and rights, be sure to remember that you are beholding the lowest of liars and hypocrites.