Quote note (#233)

Alexander Dugin understands the (Tech-Comm) NRx vs HRx antagonism* as well as anyone on earth:

Geopolitically, today’s Europe is an Atlanticist entity. Geopolitics, as envisioned by the Englishman Sir H. Mackinder, asserts that there are two types of civilization – the civilization of Sea (Seapower) and the civilization of Land (Landpower). They are constructed on opposite systems of values. While Seapower is purely mercantile, modernist, and materialist, Landpower is traditionalist, spiritual, and heroic. This dualism corresponds to Werner Sombart’s conceptual pair of Händlres and Helden. Modern European society is fully integrated into the civilization of Sea which manifests itself in the strategic hegemony of North America and NATO.

The Hyperborean agenda: “We need to combat liberalism, refuse it, and deconstruct it entirely. At the same time, we need to do so not in the name of just class (as in Marxism) or in the name of the nation or race (as in fascism), but in the name of the organic unity of the people, social justice, and real democracy.”

Purge Atlanteanism (“Seapower”) of all that, through intensified polarization, and it generates NeoCam Patchwork automatically. Space is the coming sea.

(I guess people are allowed one irritating joke about my name, and then we’re done with that.)

March 21, 2016admin 46 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

46 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Space, the new frontier. Like America, it will be colonized in bits, then gradually assimilated as the fear quotient rises among the herd.


    foam Reply:

    “Space is the coming sea.”

    I believe this is meant in a Dynamic Geography sense. Spatiality not Outer Space. Spatial Metapolitics. (although this does not exclude outer space colonization)

    Replace dialectics with space.


    admin Reply:

    Strategic ambiguity. (But if it has to be just one, yours covers more.)


    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#233) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Quote note (#233) […]

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    I tried thinking of an irritating joke, but all I managed to get were puns so terrifyingly bad, that they would make Kurtz rethink his relationship to horror. In the tradition of the old master, I shall leave these puns unspoken, for the less said of them, the better.

    Anyway, how does China figure into this theory?


    Irving Reply:

    >Anyway, how does China figure into this theory?

    Dugin thinks that China is basically ‘tech-comm’ country, closers to the Anglo phone countries than it is to Russia, and that therefore China must be destroyed before it destroys Russia.


    Hurlock Reply:

    That China is a natural enemy of Russia is obvious if you only look at a map of Asia, you don’t need Dugin’s pseudophilosophy to understand that…


    SGW Reply:

    If China is for all intents and purposes an Atlanticist power, in the eyes of Dugin, it wouldn’t surprise me if he’d consider Prussia and Napoleonic France to have been nations with the mentality of a naval power, as well.

    In his hands the term “Landpower” only seems to apply to Russia, and, perhaps, Iran. I’m not so sure how meaningful his addition of an ethical component to Mackinder’s land-sea dichotomy is, since these two elements don’t seem to correlate particularly strongly.


    Dotplot Reply:

    China may turn inland to hedge as the TransPacificPartners encircle them

    admin Reply:

    China, as a ‘whole’ is divided by it. Lu Xun wrote an influential essay on the difference between ‘Jingpai’ and ‘Haipai’ — the cultures of Beijing and Shanghai — that almost exactly captures it.


    Sid Littlefield Reply:

    Any chance I can get some more information on this essay?


    Dotplot Reply:

    Yes, please share

    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    I wonder how much HBD is a factor. Based on experience IRL, it would not surprise to find HRx has more German ancestry and NRx British Isles.


    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I really warmed up to all this Atlantean vs Hyperborean stuff, cool distinction.


    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 8:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • VKR Says:

    Western civilization needs to remain functional at least until it develops the technology for space colonization. We don’t seem to be on track for that. In fact the greatest sin of (((cultural Marxists))) is destroying humanity’s future in space.


    Posted on March 21st, 2016 at 11:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • spigot Says:

    Interesting similarities between this and Fredy Perlman’s ideas re: Leviathanic Worms and Octopi at the start of chapter 6 here: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan

    Meshworks-Hierarchies (a la DeLanda)
    Smooth-Striated (a la Deleuze+Guattari)


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 12:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Archon Alarion Says:


    I think it’s a bit silly, but I wonder which pole Scandinavia bends toward in this model?

    If Atlanticist, it would represent another, interesting side to the pole. I could see comparisons being drawn between hoplite and viking raider-traders.


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 1:08 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Dugin is Russian fundamentalist and can be understood as such.

    here is 5 futures of fundamentalism from “The Fundamentalist Mindset: Psychological Perspectives on Religion, Violence, and History”

    (1) Dualistic Thinking: Fundamentalists are inclined to divide the world into clear binary categories. You are either good or bad, right or wrong, with us or against us. There is little room for nuance, qualification, and probabilities in the mind of the fundamentalist.

    (2) Paranoia: Fundamentalists tend to have deep feelings of suspicion, bordering on rage, directed towards those who fall on the wrong side of the dualistic dividing lines. This paranoia is usually brought to the surface in a group context.

    (3) Apocalypticism: An obsession with the ultimate ends for society and humanity. Usually has two components. First, the desire to witness or bring about the demise of the present form of existence; and second, the desire to participate in a new beginning.

    (4) Charismatic Leadership: Fundamentalist groups are often founded by charismatic leader(s). Followers tend to be devoted to these leaders. A cult of leadership often arises.

    (5) Totalised Conversion Experience: If the fundamentalist enters the group from the outside (either from another ideology or from a state of apathy), then they become totally immersed and committed to the fundamentalist viewpoint.”


    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    It’s funny that you bring this up now, because I’ve been thinking every few weeks about the irony of the Soviet Union, a prototypical land Empire, and from a European perspective, if we can consider it part of Europe, arguably THE land Empire of modern times, being the first to accomplish many milestones in space.

    Of course the Soviet Union is odd in many ways, but arguably the most Turanian Empire ever, if a Neo-Turanian one partially based off the ideology of a secular diaspora German-London Jew, was the empire to take us into space. The irony is repeating itself in some ways in regards tto China, and maybe perhaps, who knows, Russia and India, Putinistas and Modistas.


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 3:42 am Reply | Quote
  • Dotplot Says:

    Nuclear deterrents may mimic historic defensive advantages related to island geography. sure you can invade Russia with huge mechanized armies and maybe win a conventional war where formidable predecessors did not, but it’s not worth the risk

    Gradual ubiquitization of bomber, s2s/s2a missile, and submarine tech may disrupt seaborne communication. how well do satellites bob and weave between rocket vollies?

    will Cathedral decline along with Seapower’s military advantages? lower birth rates should mean larger portions of the globe seasoned by Gnon. IP restrictions don’t hold. will rouble, Euro, yuan, Bitcoin or Bitcoin-like techs become dollar peers?


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 6:28 am Reply | Quote
  • The Dividualist Says:

    Good, this is what I was recommending, pay a bit more attention to the external, non-Anglo right-wing views.

    Then again, I don’t recommend getting too invested in them. The core problem is that they are too poetic. I think the term “heroic” captures that pretty well. And that means being more emotional than analytical, and generally speaking the world needs more analysis than poetry. I know that very painfully as a Continental European, all our heroic “poetic semi-fascisms” got us exactly nowhere.

    I mean, for example, consider Primo de Rivera: “We are not going to squabble with the establishment over the unsavory left-overs of a soiled banquet. Our station is outside though we may provisionally pass by the other one. Our place is out in the clear air, beneath a moonlit sky, cradling a rifle, and the stars overhead. Let the others party on. We outside in tense vigil; earnest and self-confident we divine the sunrise in the joy of our hearts.”

    This is awesome, inspiring – but it is poetry, it is art, it is simply not something that belongs to politics if politics is to be interpreted as systems design. It’s just not analytical enough. And yet… it has a certain romantic pull. It is a trap pretty easy to fall into.

    My recommendation to study the non-Anglo Right is largely because 1) they deserve sympathy 2) they are a force on the global playing field 3) it should be understood that the same kind of game the Cathedral is playing against Anglo conservatives grew out from the the psy-ops Anglo conservatives (old-timers in general) used against other civs, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend and for this reason even Anglo conservatives are not really fully trusted outside the sphere. So ideas like allying with Putin or Dugin won’t work out, they have a generic enmity against the whole West, not just liberals.

    So this is why it should be studied, but I don’t think it should be adopted. It is not analytic enough. While “poetic politics” sounds at least far more manly and heroic than what the left is playing, it is ultimately yet another status-game. It is precisely the kind of status-game manly men tend to like, the status-game of heroism. It certainly feels healthier but it is not a solution. Ultimately Franco ended up suppressing much of this Falangist poetic fascism i.e. paying lip service but keeping it out from actual power, and ended up listening to the libertarianish economists of Opus Dei. And that resulted in an economic miracle… and yet, didn’t a growing sense of economic materialism and instant consumerist justification contribute to Spain becoming a democratic basket case?

    Interestingly, the fact that the Anglo Right is more analytical and less poetic is not some deep racial trait. The Beowulf is precisely the kind of stuff De Rivera or Dugin would respect. This mercantile attitude emerged far later, roughly Elizabethan, and I am not even sure why, Dutch influence, Jewish influence, Greek influence through the Classics? Or it’s just the kind if stuff that happens when ship captains get high status? If that is true, maybe it would be really important to focus on spaceships. And the really funny thing is that there is something deeply poetic, romantic and heroic about that, too.


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 7:46 am Reply | Quote
  • chris B Says:

    So here you declare NRx to be liberalism in unambiguous terms. I expect Hestia to come storming in to complain about this misrepresentation…never, because they believe it too, having not understood a thing of UR. Cue Steves to burst along and explain that there are many paths to reaction like a Unitarian Universalist.


    admin Reply:

    Strictly speaking, it’s Dugin using the word (in the same way you do) as an epithet. It’s a bit like being called ‘racist’ by a Cathedralite.


    ashv Reply:

    I’m not a Hestian, but I sure don’t recognise any of their positions in our host’s caricatures. Concern for the well-being of one’s thede certainly doesn’t require any nonsense about “organic unity” or “real democracy”, which everything I’ve seen on Social Matter rejects.

    Expecting the colonisation of space in the near term is like expecting the second-century Roman Empire to discover America. The frontier may reopen one day but that doesn’t destroy the need to seek wisdom in governing the folks at home. It’s always going to be much cheaper to stay on the ground than get into orbit.


    admin Reply:

    I haven’t mentioned Hestia.


    ashv Reply:

    Sure. But I have to wonder who “HRx” refers to other than Anime Twitter Nazis.

    admin Reply:

    It’s not any kind of mystery.

    Chris B Reply:

    @ashv Hrx is myself and everything in UR that isn’t of surface value to the NRx liberalism reboot project led my Land and Hestia. It is actually an interesting study of the distributed conspiracy of liberalism. With barely a skip in their step, the Hestia guys have reinterpreted Moldbug as science government, liberalism and republicanism with no guiding hand, they just got into the flow. Our host here on the other hand is more self aware of this judo flip.


    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Cutting the complex web of connective tissues between reaction and being merely antisocial is indeed a difficult and underexplored problem in political theory.


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 10:10 am Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    I say let TRx and HRx duke it out. Meanwhile, there are questions that need to be answered, worthiness that needs to be acquired, and genuine leadership that needs to be fostered. NRx will take care of that.


    admin Reply:

    To think that NRx is involved in fostering “genuine leadership” strikes me as a very grave error.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    If you’ve been any indication, I would agree.


    admin Reply:

    If you don’t think the goal of “fostering leaders” is a pretentious absurdity, a meeting of minds is clearly unlikely. This entire “a Great New King will emerge out of our online discussion forum” bullshit is a huge embarrassment, and I’d welcome it remaining as far away from this blog as possible.

    frank Reply:

    Ayo @admin holup. I thought we wuz gon be kangs ‘n shiet…

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I prefer the term “Grand Wizard” personally.

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Serious question: What programme is there for hard-headed anti-progressivism save building what sovereignty one can where one can?

    admin Reply:

    If there’s a sovereignty conservation law (as per MM and now Chris B), can sovereignty be built anymore than it can be destroyed?

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Sovereignty is ownership. Over a fixed amount of property, there is only so much ownership to go around. but the amount of property that may be owned is not fixed. That is one of the primary points of enterprise/catallaxy (or family): building new property over which one may be sovereign.

    admin Reply:

    “Try to be productive” doesn’t seem like an obviously controversial maxim. It would be nice to see the reactosphere’s chronic “Prepare to rule!” LARPing showing similar sane self-restraint.

    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 2:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dotplot Says:

    @“Putin [has] a generic enmity against the whole West, not just liberals.”

    doesn’t he recognize, correctly, that West = liberals? Russia funds some right wing parties of note in the West, defends proven institutions in the Middle East against liberal jihad and jihadist jihad, and propagandizes effectively via RT / ZeroHedge. what other positive program is possible?

    not analytical? check the improvement of the Russian military in less than a decade from the Georgia war, the removal of chemical weapons from Syria and the relief of Assad. if you’re looking for something literary, read the long UN speeches championing realism and state continuity. read Lukyanov’s opinions at en.globalaffairs.ru

    Russia is not a good partner on the basis of the predictive power of their state intellectuals’ critique. Russia may be a good partner because Russians have recently seen the extent of Western vindiction, because they are innoculated against Marxism, because they mistrust international solidarity after the independence of other former Soviet provinces, and because Russia is strong

    Dividualist, what should I read about Spain under Franco?


    Posted on March 22nd, 2016 at 11:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Akira Says:

    Dugin on China:



    The second category: geopolitical formations being interested in multipolarity, but not being symmetrically complementary to Russia. These are China, Pakistan, the Arab countries. The traditional policies of these geopolitical subjects have an intermediate character, but strategic partnership with Russia is not their major priority. Moreover, the eurasist alliance of Russia with the countries of the first category strengthens the traditional rivals of the countries of the second category at the regional level. For example, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have serious contradictions with Iran, as China with Japan and India. On a broader scale, the relations of Russia with China represent a special case, complicated by demographic problems, by the heightened interest of China to the scarcely populated territories of Siberia, and also the by absence at China of a serious technological and financial potential able to positively solve the major problem for Russia of technological assimilation of Siberia.

    All the countries of the second category are delivered before necessity to manoeuvre between America-centred unipolarity (which does not promise anything good for them) and eurasism.

    With regard to the countries of this category Russia must act with the utmost caution – not including them in the eurasist project, but at the same time aiming at neutralising as much as possible the negative potential of their reaction and actively countering their active inclusion in the process of unipolar globalisation (for which there are enough reasons).

    Paradigm of the End:


    Despite being the most ancient and superior traditional civilizations and despite their scale and spiritual importance, China and India have never raised their own eschatological concepts of nationalism, have not identify their ethnic history with the history of mankind, and thereby have not lent such a dramatic element to international relations or conflicts. In addition, neither the Chinese nor the Hindu traditions were characterized by “messianism” or claims of the universality of their religious and ethnic paradigms. This is the static, “permanent”, relatively “conservative” East incapable of and not willing to accept the challenge of the West. National theories in which the Chinese or Indians are expected to rule the world never existed in China and India. Only among the Iranians and Arabs did such national, racial theories of an eschatological orientation exist. The history of the previous centuries has shown that the real scale of this ethnic teleology – which was clearly expressed by the Islamic religious component – is too insufficient to consider it a serious contender to the counterpart of the “peoples of the West.” The function of the vanguard of “the ethnos of the East” has therefore been uniquely assigned to the Russians, who were able to develop a universal, messianic ideal on a scale comparable to the Anglo-Saxon ideal, and implement it in historical reality at large. The eschatological idea of the Orthodox Kingdom – “Moscow as the Third Rome” – was later transferred to secularized Petersburg Russia, and eventually to the USSR. Orthodoxy came from Byzantium through Holy Rus to the capital of the Third Rome. This is analogous to how the Anglo-Saxons proceeded from the ethnic concept of the “tribes of Israel” to the American melting-pot as an “artificial eschatological liberal paradise.” Russian messianism, originally based on the concept of the “open ethnos” became the formula of “Soviet patriotism” in the 20th century which gathered the peoples, ethni, and cultures of Eurasia under a massive, universal cultural and ethical project.


    Posted on March 23rd, 2016 at 1:57 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Well I don’t know about your guys’s kings but I met someone who was supposed to be from at a wedding last christmas about so it’s not too far for us.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    apparently my tags are missing. i meant I meant someone who was supposed to be on our of kings, one of the “seven little kings” at a wedding a few months ago, so it’s not too much of a stretch for us,

    i used tags


    Posted on March 23rd, 2016 at 5:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Son of Olorus Says:



    Posted on March 24th, 2016 at 8:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    “Try to be productive” doesn’t seem like an obviously controversial maxim.

    Nor did it seem to be an obviously controversial maxim to the adherents of Marxism at first.

    Your ideology presupposes egalitarianism.


    Posted on March 27th, 2016 at 10:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Nick Land & Sea Power – informationtradition Says:

    […] … and a Dugin recollection. […]

    Posted on June 21st, 2016 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment