Another one is "Tartars" instead of Tatars, and labelling basically all of central Asia as either "Tartarstan" or "Transoxiana"
Discussion
yeah, i watched serbs mocking russians calling this one girl "tartarica" i figure it meant like, peasant hillbilly type. the girl was pretty stupid tho. but so was the dude riding her.
Ha, reminds me of a Palestinian chick in my college Russian class - we were pretty hood friends, and I gave her shit one time by calling her a "terroristka," which she laughed at, but then gave me an education on the situation in Palestine.
reminds me also about how the british royalty (mostly) has been poking the bear and the dragon for hundreds of years, it may even be nearing a thousand years of animosity.
the british came to dominate the seas, after smacking down all their continental neighbours, but asia and eastern europe's land connection was something they could never dominate. afghanistan is one of the most famously indomitable parts of that region, but in general, whoever those royals are, they hate asia and eastern europe, and everything in between. there must be a reason for it going back, why the vendetta. i know about the tribes that retreated to russia after pissing everyone off in balkans and middle east, who "adopted" judaism (which is technically not permitted, right?) and then went about masquerading across europe as tho they were j00s and were not. probably pretty much phonecian/carthaginian... i think some call them the khazars and they have some connection to the ashkinazi. but that probably explains the vendetta. that and envy, because they simply don't have land power and that's now going to be a big problem for the Western established oligarchies.
the attack on iran coincided with the full completion of a land route between china and the middle east. the iranians can blockade the suez canal now, without impacting their neighbours to the east, which means the chinese may greenlight it.
Yeah that new Silk Road is going to make things interesting. It looks like the land powers are getting their shit sorted and that's exactly what western naval strategy has always tried to prevent. MacKinder vs Mahan strategy. IMO Mahan's strategic theory is more ideal for a culture that emphasizes freedom, but we've dropped the ball there so hard that I think the oligarchs in charge of the west consider free navigation to be a threat to their power and are trying to replicate the heartland theory in North America. IMO, it will backfire, as they effectively yield the seas to either the Eurasian heartland or free people who will care more about freedom than their silly laws.
But the new curveball is the orbital sea, basically. Anyone can take advantage of that geography, no matter their location, and it has all the benefits of ocean access. And another curve ball is bitcoin, of course. Anyone can access, and I think it will cause the cost of accessing space to fall dramatically. Its going to get really really really interesting.
Great conversation gents!
Thanks for bringing Mahan and Mqckinder to my attention.
You're welcome, as always! Mahan's theory has been the basis for American naval power and was basically the same basis for British naval power, except they had/have a different guy. Mackinder, iirc, had the theory that political power coalesces in geographical "castles," which are large areas that support large populations, surrounded by terrain that makes a natural barrier, and the ultimate castle is Eurasia, and I might be conflating a few things, but iirc he called it "the world island" and whoever controls it is the master of the world. So British strategy has been to do anything to keep Eurasia fragmented, and the US' strategy has focused more on preventing anyone from becoming a regional hegemony - that's what's behind being all aggressive to Iran. The stuff about ideology is just for the headlines.
Fascinating. I need to find a way to be invisible to both the Mahanian and Mackinder superpowers.
Gray man strategy. Or something close to it. Need those sunglasses that blind the facial recognition cameras.
i think just moving to the mountains is enough. i have zero ambitions of any kind of political power, i just want my goat ranch and my bunker and the rest of the universe can go to hell
this also relates to the way that modern governments define their hegemony as "including" ... list of things that is the waterways and coastline areas. NOT the land, because it's based on maritime law. they are not allowed to claim the land.
it's also quite relevant with the impending geomagnetic pole shift/micronova event coming that the largest region, with likely good weather during a minor glacial period, that is almost certainly following the disaster, cuts a line straight through about the balkans and the eastern edge of africa (of which, there is a very big rift that is about to open up in northeast africa as well, could become new land and/or an island forms). the right places to be on the planet now are basically, the region around the carpathians, the mongolian plateau, the eastern rocky mountains. almost everywhere else is going to be washed away into the ocean bed.
obviously, this is a major advantage for the eurasia region, since essentially it's likely to have the greatest internal navigability as well, as almost certainly there will be new seas forming and potentially straights, like, the region around southwest siberia is likely to sink and baikal turn into a sea.
anyhow, yeah, if eurasia gets its shit together, it can become a lot harder to control. all the resources are available to one single land connected region, and it would presumably be connected by railways. it's also notable that railways have been quietly sabotaged and removed from the transport equation in most of the western world. one of the few places i know of in the world where rail is still a primary transport is Bulgaria. even next door serbia has muntered most of their main long haul rail network, yes, in favour of highways. the highways also, seem to be something the thallassocrats focus on. i hate roads, rubber wheels and trucks and highways. horrible things, noisy, dirty, disgusting. and dangerous.
I hate cars and roads too 😂. People give me a weird look when they hear that, its like a heresy to them.
America's Amtrak is famously retarded. Probably nothing nice has been written about it in decades. Considering how awesome America's rail network was before highways, it does look suspicious that its now crap.
i don't recall exactly where i read about that, was a story on zerohedge i think. just pointing out how incredibly government-controlled and not-libertarian the entire project of the US highway network was. they were sorta trying to argue that self driving cars might make roads better, but they were of the opinion that railway was far better and functioned very well before the government took over transport.
the same thing happened all across the world as well. trams were phased out, railway stations closed, rail lines abandoned, very often just left to get covered in weeds. the only kind of rail that didn't get wiped out was subways, but IMO subways are very fucking dangerous, for all kinds of reasons not the least of which being how easy a hydrogen explosion could be set off in one.
anyway, it just makes me think that there is a military strategy reason behind it. that is, that a land force is strengthened by a functioning passenger and freight train network, and tricking people into supporting its dismantling is a sabotage attack that seeks to keep the control of the land power from sea and air power.
To some degree, definitely. I'm just not sure how far they purposely went with it. The US highways system was entirely planned around it being an airstrip for military operations, if necessary.
I think part of the reason trains are less favored now is the economics of a single provider. As long as there's competition, the passenger or freight space purchaser wins. But there was a wave of railroad bankruptcies which left a single provider in a lot of regions. I'm pretty sure its all the government's fault - first for inflating liquidity with credit money and getting the crash, and then by regulating and subsidizing. A free market can't survive a Democratic government... The only thing free markets need is to be left alone, and that's the only thing a democracy can't do.
There was a deliberate attack on a Japanese subway that killed a bunch of people - the attacker made a chemical and put it in the ventilation. That's all I remember, but its enough to make me nervous on subways. That and all the thugs. Its just not safe.
yeah, i it was a poison gas attack. yes, subways are extremely vulnerable to gas attacks. methane or hydrogen would be incredibly destructive if you could get it to fill enough of the space then detonate it at the edges, a whole city would have huge swathes collapsed.
anyway, yeah, what happens, is based on the power structure and keeping people ignorant of the nature of power is the first task they have. everything else is just auxilliary to that goal.
what changes the situation can only be where either the whole thing collapses (which is going to happen when the oceans wash everything away) or some people who know these things, show up with far superior firepower and run a process of adjudicating evidence of crime that this crime scene earth has, and putting all of the perpetrators, and their accomplices one place, and the rest of us, to a new place prepared for us. preferably that already had the disaster cycle just pass.
outside of those two scenarios, there is simply to just be small and unimportant and live on the edge of that road network where it's improbable there will be any strategic value to fucking with your life.