by Colin Liddell

Admiral Lord Nelson is the central figure in the history of the British Empire, the power of which was founded on the total dominance of its navy.

Although many other figures contributed to this dominance, Nelson's career sits like an historical keystone in the architecture of this period of dominance, which lasted roughly from the late-17th century to WWII.

But Nelson is not just another great man riding the tide of events and coming out on top. There is a ritualistic precision to his career and thus to the hegemony of British power. As a poet of my acquaintance once said:

"I gaze upon the Universe to see, its endless, vast machinery"

So it is with Nelson's career and the maritime supremacy of the British Empire. There is an unearthly precision about the whole thing that is almost mathematical or masonic in its details. Nelson, it should be said, was both an expert mathematician and a freemason. So, let's dive straight into the detail.

Nelson's career is associated with three great naval victories: the Battle of the Nile (1798), the Battle of Copenhagen (1801), and Trafalgar (1805).

In terms of time, these battles span the period 1st of August, 1798, to 21st of October, 1805, a period of precisely seven years, two months, and twenty days—or 2638 days divided into two periods of 974 days and 1664 days.

There is nothing obviously relevant about these numbers, but they may bear further study sometime. However, the key numbers connected with these battles are their geographical coordinates:
The Nile
Latitude 31.333332
Longitude 30.1166662

Latitude 55.70278
Longitude 12.613333

Latitude 36.29299
Longitude -6.25534
These are the most important numbers, and in this case they are extremely significant, especially with regard to the struggle that Britain was then waging with Napoleonic France, then the latest reincarnation of the Roman Empire in its ambition, iconography, and aggression.

“I am a true Roman Emperor; I am of the best race of the Caesars – those who are founders.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812
To understand the full significance of these geographical coordinates, it is first important to revisit the work of the Scottish geopolitical philosopher Halford Mackinder. Born in England to Scottish parents in 1861, Mackinder came up with what is called the Heartland Theory in a number of works published in the early 20th century—Britain and The British Seas (1902), The Geographical Pivot of History (1904), and Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).

In essence Mackinder argued that improvements in land communications, like the railroads, would unleash the inherent potential of Eurasia to become dominant over the sea powers, which had dominated World history since the time of Columbus, when breakthroughs in naval technology had ensured their ascendancy. Mackinder theorized that an empire would arise in the "Heartland," which would become the largest wheel in the global machine and turn all the other countries surrounding it like smaller cogs. In order to prevent this, special measures would be needed, such as Britain and the United States working to preserve a balance of power between the nations trying to dominate the heartland.

When he formulated his ideas Mackinder had Russia and Germany in mind. For this reason his theory put special emphasis on Eastern Europe, emphasising the need for a a strip of buffer states to separate Germany and Russia, something that seems to have been taken up by the victors of WWI in the peace arrangements.

Mackinder's theory was hugely influential on Eurasianists like Alexander Dugin as well as—by inference—the US military establishment.

Dugin added an element of millenarian moralism into the equation, viewing World history as a battle between the Telluric (land) and Thalassocratic (sea) powers for control of the "World Island" (Asia, Europe, and Africa), with the the Thalassocracies representing the slightly devious arts of trade, commerce, and banking and the Tellocracies identified with more honest agricultural and manufacturing toil.

While Mackinder's theory is commonly dismissed as outmoded or irrelevant by modern mainstream academics, a macro-empirical survey of the mega-facts suggests that the present day American Empire entirely runs on his theory, as shown by these two maps, one of which shows Mackinder's zones and the other American military bases.

The clash between the Thalassocratic and Telluric powers in the struggles of the 20th century can also be seen in the distant past: Sparta (Telluric) vs Athens (Thalassocratic); Rome (Telluric) vs Carthage (Thalassocratic).

The defeat of the two ancient sea powers of Athens and Carthage may be the reason America wasn't discovered for another 1700 years.

The same struggle can be seen in the geopolitical wars of France and Britain in the 18th and early 19th centuries, culminating in the victories of Nelson, the defeats of Napoleon, and the period of British global dominance.

Aegospotami, Telluric Sparta's Thalassocratic victory.
In such wars, the struggle has an element of asymmetry as victory can only be achieved by impinging on the element (Telluric or Thalassocratic) of the opposed power. Sparta and Rome both managed to do this, which is why Athens surrendered after its fleet had been crushed by the Spartan admiral Lysander at Aegospotami and Rome triumphed when it had both bettered the Carthaginian fleet and defeated its rival's incursion into its Telluric realm led by the great Hannibal.

In the case of Britain vs. France, French fleets, often with allies, challenged the British on the high seas, while British armies, always with allies, engaged the French on the continent.

In 1781, eight years before the French Revolution, the French managed to impinge on Britain's Thalassocratic realm long enough in Chesapeake Bay to ensure that Britain lost the bulk of its American colonies, and thus provided the preconditions for the rise of the next great Thalassocratic power. In the 1790s onwards, the struggle continued and intensified, spawning both Revolutionary and Napoleonic France.

"Carthage" in the guise of Britain was once again struggling with "Rome" in the guise of Napoleonic France. But while Rome defeated Carthage by building its own fleet—modelled on a storm-wrecked Carthaginian ship and conquering the waves—the French Empire was unable to do this thanks to Nelson's genius. Instead, it was Britain that successfully invaded Franc's Telluric realm, bringing coalition after coalition against the French after locking down the sea.

Napoleon, despite his famous maxim about attack being the best form of defence, was essentially playing defence all the way after Trafalgar. His most famous battles—Austerlitz, Jena, Wagram, and even the invasion of Russia in 1812—were essentially defence moves against the Thalassocratic entity of Great Britain increasingly impinging on his Telluric dominion.

The most significant fact of World history from a Eurasianist point of view is the importance of Europe. The White nationalist and racialist will say, with a certain degree of truth, that Europe dominates World history because of race. What they mean is that the White man is the hyper-historical race.

But there is something more to it than that, as you discover if you ask the question: Why did that hyper-historical race develop here and not there or somewhere else? Location is never an accident. There is something hyper-historical about both Europeans and Europe itself, something that exists in its very topography.

The key difference between Europe and other continents is that Europe has both Telluric and Thalassocratic characteristics. It is a large continental mass, penetrated or circumscribed by large inland sees—the Mediterranean and the the Baltic. No other continent has these characteristics in any meaningful way. Quite simply, without elaborating too much here, this dual nature increases the "historical amplitude" of Europe and its people, making what happens here greater and more significant than what happens elsewhere.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997), liberal revisionist historian Jared Diamond explained away European dominance by attributing it to a few, accidental, environmental factors. To a degree and in a sense which he would never recognise, he was partly correct, although here the "environmental" factor was Europe's geometry and dual Telluric and Thalassocratic nature. It was this that "boosted its signal" to the greatness that we find in the history books.

Now let us return to Nelson's three great victories—The NileCopenhagen, and Trafalgar. These great struggles of blood, iron, and wood above the waves are testament to the historical qualities of the Continent. Plot these battles on a map and you see something interesting and even prophetic.

Both Copenhagen and Trafalgar took place at the mouths of the two great inland seas of Europe, the Baltic and the Mediterranean, points of intense interface between the Telluric and Thalassocratic aspects.

It is hard to think of two more strategic locations from the point of view of naval warfare; and even The Nile now fits into this schemata, thanks to the subsequent construction of the Suez Canal. In fact, the main justification for Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, which precipitated the Battle of the Nile, was its potential strategic value as a base for attacking India, the Thalassocratic British Empire's sacred economic cash cow. Without that purpose, the Egyptian jaunt looks quixotic, mad, and pointless. Viewed through a Mackindrian or Eurasianist lens, however, it makes perfect sense.

Control the points where these three battles took place today and you have dominance of Europe and the Western part of Mackinder's Heartland.

But there is something even odder at work here. Plot the locations of these three battles on a map  together, and you will see that they make a triangle with its top point at Copenhagen and its base on a line stretching from Trafalgar to Aboukir Bay, the site of the Nile battle. The lengths of the sides of this triangle are as follows:
Copenhagen—Trafalgar: 2586 km
Trafalgar—Aboukir Bay: 3385 km
Aboukir Bay—Copenhagen: 3036 km

Aside from the obvious naval strategic value of the points defining it, a large irregular triangle like this may not seem to be particularly significant. But calculate their mid-point or centre of gravity and something even more remarkable happens: there is a convergence on Rome itself, the most important city in European history (marked by "M" on the map).

What are the mathematical chances of the locations of any great military leader's victories centring on an important city like this let alone the most important city in European history? Astronomical I would say. However, this is exactly what happens here, with Nelson's three battles pointing to that city with an uncanny precision that suggests history is part of a greater plan or a series of events in some giant ritual.

Be that as it may, this also speaks to the importance of Rome itself and why that city above all others should have become what was it was, the "Eternal City," the keystone of Europe, and the symbol of hegemonic Telluric power, that one European empire after another—Byzantine, Holy Roman, Austro-Hungarian, Prussian, Russian, and French—tried to revive and tap into.

Rome, of course, is not the centre of the European landmass. That is clear from a casual glance. It is too far South and too near the Sea. But it is a fitting centre for the concept explored here of a combined Telluric/Thalassocratic European historical space. To control it or circumscribe it in the decisive way that Nelson did is to initiate hegemony.


Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's new collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders and Counter-Currents' The Alternative Right

Become a Patron!