Majorityrights Central > Category: Artificial Intelligence

Seen through the mists, the White Horse at Uffington, the only authentically ancient white horse carved in the chalk of England’s downs.

Gemini again, beginning this time with the Trumpian pursuit of regional dominion, but arriving at the nature of the East Asian Mind, and ours, and the contest thereof.  Hence we arrive at the nationalism of ethnicity that must then flow, and catch a flavour of some of the other conversations Gemini has with folks like me trying to make something happen.

Is there evidence that America is adopting the Eurasianist / Glazyevian strategy of a system of empires or dominions under the rule of force, replacing the West’s rule of law?

Yes, there is!

Evidence from late 2025 and early 2026 indicates the second Trump administration has formally pivoted toward a foreign policy that mirrors the “system of empires” or “spheres of influence” model, specifically through its 2025 National Security Strategy. This strategy, which officials call the “Donroe Doctrine,” explicitly abandons the post-1989 “global hegemon” role in favor of an unapologetic imperial posture in the Western Hemisphere. 

1. Rejection of Rule of Law for Rule of Force

The administration has systematically dismantled the “rules-based international order” in favor of transactional, force-based diplomacy: 
  • Institutional Withdrawal: Since January 2025, the U.S. has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, including the World Health Organization and several UN entities, labeling them “wasteful” and “corrupt”.

  • Direct Military Intervention: In January 2026, the U.S. launched Operation Absolute Resolve, a military raid into Venezuela to apprehend President Nicolás Maduro. This action was conducted without UN authorization or Congressional declaration of war, marking a shift toward military coercion as a primary tool.

  • Resource Imperialism: The administration has reasserted claims over Greenland, and threatened to use the U.S. military to seize control of critical energy and mineral assets across Latin America to prevent Chinese “incursions”. 

2. Adoption of the “Spheres of Influence” Model

The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) marks a decisive break from liberal internationalism. Its core tenets align with Eurasianist logic by accepting a world divided into regional domains:

  • The “Trump Corollary”: This official update to the Monroe Doctrine asserts that the U.S. will not only block foreign military presence but also “deny non-Hemispheric competitors” the right to own or control “strategically vital assets” in the Americas.

  • Encouraging Rival Spheres: By framing European allies as “competitors” and criticizing NATO as a “burden,” the administration signals an acceptance — and even encouragement — of other powers (like Russia and China) dominating their respective regions, provided they do not interfere in the U.S. sphere.

  • Flexible Realism: The NSS replaces the goal of “spreading democracy” with “flexible realism,” which prioritizes raw economic extraction and border security over human rights or international law. 

3. Comparison to Eurasianist Strategy

Analysts at Brookings and the Carnegie Endowment argue this strategy effectively adopts the “Glazyevian” view that global stability is best maintained by a “balance of empires.” By treating the Western Hemisphere as a private dominion where U.S. force is the final arbiter, the administration has transitioned from the leader of a global system to the master of a regional bloc.

In reply, and being very lazy, I lifted a comment of mine from an exchange between Thorn and myself on this very subject:

READ MORE...

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 Charge of the Light Brigade”, Richard Caton Woodville Jr, painted 1834

In a rash and over-confident moment I decided to approach our AI friend ChatGPT again, this time on the question of Final Cause as it is presented in Heidegger’s thinking from the mid-1930s on. “Late” Heidegger is more speculative and elusive than his earlier work.  It shows a direction of travel away from the material world, with its political aspect, and towards a more metaphysical thesis, and likely reflects his bruising encounter with the Third Reich’s Education Ministry in Berlin, which caused his resignation in 1934 from the post of rector at Freiburg University.  Had he remained engaged in the National Socialist state system … had he actually opened a conversation about being with the party’s intellectuals, as he had wished, we might never have seen his famous “turn”.

In any event, a frontal assault on Heidegger’s “late” redoubt necessarily runs the risk of out-running one’s heavy brigade in the rear and becoming isolated among his main force.  That force is, of course, skilfully arranged to establish superior ontological depth and win a quick and painless victory.  When, as commander of the attacking force, one is confronted by such a situation one must perforce hold off the counter until the heavies finally appear.

The charge began quietly and with an unduly impertinent question:

What is the point of pretending, after Heidegger, that being dwells in a four-dimensional space of earth, sky, divinities, and mortals when, in reality, being dwells on the razor-edge of time (localised in space)? Is it simply to introduce a sense of the sacred to modern life? What, then, about the substantial minority of the northern races who do not possess expressed genes for faith ... who never possessed them even in the religious age ... but for whom truth, free of spiritual presumption, is the authenticator of being and liberator of self?

A couple of seconds pass and away we go, beginning with Heidegger’s conflation of the fantastical with locality (which is a bit of a stretch for me):

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...

I watched this for the first time yesterday, and certain things in this conversation jumped out at me; though presented (((typically))) of course, in a taken for granted manner by the Weinsteins and Rubin as benign and wholly salutary, this discussion raised red flags for me regarding their positions and at certain points; and should also raise red flags for anybody who cares about European peoples.

As these are fairly clever men, presented as cutting edge academic authorities, this conversation is a good place to expose the deception, egregious bias and the kind of language games that put forth their agenda as taken for granted.

I’ll be adding remarks as time permits. Critical commentary is forthcoming and should add up pretty quickly.