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  • Institutional Withdrawal: Since January 2025, the U.S. has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, including the World Health Organization and several UN entities, labeling them “wasteful” and “corrupt”.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...

Philosophical discourse is largely about disentangling what we are talking about vs the words used to talk about what we are talking about.  This can go on for millennia in the absence of, shall we say, “shared perspectives” regarding that to which words we use refer.  This, of course, is where multiculturalism deprives us of the tools we need to avoid force and fraud as a primary in social relations:  No one can tell what anyone else is really pointing to with their verbal constructions.

So consider an “identity” as that which “identifies” what things there are “out there” about which we palaver toward some sort of shared viewpoint.

Having said all that, what follows is a Rosetta Table, however slopped together by a “language”  model—drawing its multiple “perspectives” from the digital corpus called “The Internet”.  The specific languages in this Rosetta Table are purported expressions in terms of GW, Heidegger and Etter.

My paper about Etter’s meta-perspective “The Universality Of Thomas L. Etter’s Three-Place Identity: A Formal Proof and Its Significance” is available at my github repo.

Etter, for the uninitiated, was the attendee of the 1956 Dartmouth Summer AI Workshop that Our Desi Betters thought I should not hire and instead hire a team of fellow Desis on H-1b visas to assist in my part in HP’s the $500M Internet Chapter II project.  I wanted to hire Etter, not be because of his prominence in our modern age (although utterly unrecognized by so much as a Wikipedia page); I had no idea at the time he had played such a central if invisible role.  He was merely the only person I’d been able to find over the course of 20 years since my participation in the VIEWTRON project, that seemed to have the right ideas to address a project with the high aims of an “Internet Chapter II”.  My insistence resulted in the termination of my career which had already been seriously damaged by the 1992 papers I posted following on my 1991 testimony before Congress at the START hearings meant to reorient the West away from a military stance toward a positive sum future.  Unfortunately, there was simply no way but “Through The Jew” as I saw it, to that positive future.  But that’s another tragic story we’re all finally coming to face now.

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...

The southern nations of Donald Trump’s New American Empire

Muscovy in Ukraine.  America in Venezuela (seemingly permanently).  Next: Beijing in Taiwan.  Trump has opened the door.  The pieces of the new world order are falling into place.  The authoritarian world ... the world of empires foretold by Sergei Glazyev ... is coming into view.  There is no one to defend the old order.  The dynastics of the Money Power (aka the investor class), the asset managers, the central bankers, the hedge funders beneath them will take note.  The initialled institutions of globalism ... the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WEF will take note.  The dateline banks and corporations will take note.  The technocrats and managers and ambitious politicians will take note.  Globalism will not be at all inconvenienced.  Why should it be?  China is the WEF’s preferred model for public-private partnership and social control, and the western corporations are Chinese corporations.  The powerful, therefore, have been given a shot in the arm.  Force, as the standard for national, political and social organisation, has been advanced, and sovereignty, freedom, and law have been pushed down.

Nationalist or liberal, we’re on our own.  Looking ahead, it’s probably up to Canada to hold the sovereign line.

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...

A dozen years ago I published a pair of essays on prescriptive ideologies, the first of which examined the behavioural forms required of us by Judaism and Christianity, stating:

Had I written from a more evolutionary perspective it would, of course, have been a different essay, more given to cause than effect.  This is it, or its first of two parts, at least.

Segment of an illustration from Phillip Medhurst Collection depicting Joshua fighting Amalek (Exodus 17)

An ancient and alien ambition lays over the West, and for its sake a web woven of words have been spun, not for decades or even for centuries but for two-and-a-half thousand years or more.  Today that web lays over the whole spiritual, intellectual and socio-political substance of western life.  In operation, it overlays our very nature, exploiting both our innate love of freedom and our sense of fairness, and consistently defining us as something we are not.  We can call it Judaism.  We can call it Jewish ethnic activism.  But it is a house of many mansions, one of which we think of it as our own system of faith, though it is not our system.  It is an impost inducting us into a life that serves that same ambition.  How, though, did this extraordinary situation come to pass?  What is its meaning for us?

In abstract philosophical terms it is a selective war for universalism conducted against the particularism of Nature.  The starting point in this struggle for the Universal Gentile is unpromising.  The ethnocentric, tribal, endogamous group living alone on its ancestral land is “in” Nature, of course.  But, then, so is the contrary dynamic of human migration for reasons of ecological failure or war or expansion.  The latter is as old as the first wave Out of Africa.  Yet the balance between these forces powerfully favours trait-fitness to environment and, with it, human difference (irrefutably manifesting in our technological age as the gene clusters of population genetics).  Particularism outstrips universalism.  Any engineered attempt to reverse that order necessarily does violence to Man and Nature.  Yet in the west today a battery of universalist moral, religious and political dicta do just that, having held sway since the end of World War Two in some instances and for many centuries longer in others.  In this essay we shall outline the evolutionary and philosophical fundamentals of those dicta, and explain why, even as the politics of the west shifts to the right, they will continue to contest for dominion over our lives.

Let it be acknowledged that there are causal factors for universalism in the advance of modernity and techne and in the phenomenon of empire, the role of money, and trade.  Such considerations bear on the political world in fundamental and formative ways, commending to it a political culture of openness, multiplicity, abstract values, materialism, and so forth.  But, tellingly, they are open to interrogation of their historical and methodological fact, and to the free exchange of academic and lay opinion.  No one is propagandised into the “self-evident truth” that discussing them is just terribly, terribly wrong.  No one is afraid of the social and professional costs of discussing them.  No one is accosted by secretive political activists for doing so, and accused by police of the blood libel of a monstrous, irrational hatred supposedly ever-present in the European heart and ever-ready to burst into terrifying life.  No one is then charged under novel laws that codify that libel, in practise rescinding the presumption for innocence.  No one is put before the kind of judge who finds no such hatred in his own heart yet he does not hesitate to impute it to another’s.  So no one is forced through a judicial process under which a guilty verdict is, for all intents and purposes, inevitable from the outset.  No one is then handed down a prison sentence many a career criminal will never receive.  Yet neither the judge nor the prosecutor nor the police need suffer a moment’s bad conscience.  For that would require a free and informed moral judgement, while all this drab conformity only makes automatons of everyone involved. 

No one suffers a single part of that for proposing that modernity or techne or empire are parents of universalism.  But then there is the Judaic universalism, which abides also in Christianity, and there it is a different story.  Through the Christian influence it becomes formative not only of the political culture but of all culture and of the European mind itself.  Whether we can discuss that without a Jewish political activist seeking to ascribe “hate” to us is a nice question.  But as allegedly free men and as Europeans we must clearly try.  We must make our start-point earlier in this baleful history, however.

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...