9k:RD/ Tartaria conspiracy theory (Q24,93)
Main entry
- Tartaria conspiracy theory -> this is tangentially related to Identitarian-fascism although not precisely the same thing. it's very uncomfortable, it's like, exactly the seed you plant when you want to sprout Identitarian-fascism and justify it, but it hasn't gotten all the way to the goal yet all by itself. if you want to sprout modern Israel you plant the Old Testament with its weird hateful conception of what all civilizations are relative to each other (God chooses which tribes die in war). and if you want to sprout some kind of weird Irish Zionism in the future then you plant this thing.
but, well, when we may be at least a decade from it blooming, a lot of it is honestly just kind of funny. it's weirdly creative and specific for a conspiracy theory. for no good reason it's all about buildings. this one is more fun to talk about than it should be.
Related
- Who funded North American empire? / We are told that countries such as Spain, France, and England were all fighting each other to control North America, but who funded these projects? / We are told that countries such as Spain, France, and England were all fighting each other for the colonization of America, but who funded these projects? (Tartaria conspiracy theory) [1] -> oh my god. frame this. some conspiracy theories are so stupid they actually end up asking legitimate questions and wrap around to being masterpieces. I love this actually, because it's the only part buried inside these long rants that actually lets you go into how historical empires actually functioned.
so. from memory only, the first thing I would say is just: the crown. in Spain in particular the monarchy had an interest in expanding and it just funded people hoping they would stay loyal. back in feudal orders proper there was always a chance the vassals would turn on the central monarch and fracture the kingdom, but that didn't mean kingdoms didn't take the chance to try to join the various centers of power together (royal family, nobility, centers of religious power maybe?) so that one particular axis of power could defeat other feudal orders that weren't contained in it. as kingdoms shifted toward urbanization and early capitalism, only eventually leading to Liberal-republicanism and most of the feudal order being broken up, that same kind of joining together of various centers of power to build an empire continued to exist in some senses even if the relationship was more tenuous. (we start with king, nobles, knights, bishops, etc; then we get a more simplified order of king, nobles, capitalists.) the early colonizers that would be scouting out land or expanding European empire into North America didn't necessarily have a lot of wealth and status to start with, although that varied somewhat, and they didn't go in with the promise they were going to 'succeed'. so there was this very dark sort of 'betting' on more empire that was going on, vaguely like people bet on the success of corporations today. why do you think the East India Company existed? because taking over India wasn't a sure thing, even as the British Empire knew India was at its weakest and the chances were 'improving'. so with historical empires, there was a bit of funding that would go down (ships, supplies, etc) but it was really all the centers of power within the empire joined together that would achieve conquering a territory or putting down the foundations of a new area of 'European civilization'. I am not pro- European empires, hence the ironic quotation marks, but I think this is one of the more clear and honest ways to describe what they were doing short of explicitly doing class analysis. they largely just thought of expanding and taking what they could. and implicitly within that, they didn't put much thought into how that would create global wars between empires, or other consequences. they probably didn't care about Kandiaronk; again, the overall configuration of 'here is our empire and here are the vassals or class-territory-owners that fight for us against other enemies' was going away only slowly. so, the obvious conclusion when analyzing these somewhat bigoted people (or maybe "self-absorbed" would be more accurate?) is this. one of their greatest concerns at the time was simply whether they would succeed. it was all a die roll to them, whether they would defeat the other empires, whether they would 'succeed' at killing tribes in a frontier war. and their answer was standing together. it was bringing together all their centers of power or bringing together their connected colonists and perhaps praying to God that they win the war. that was about how it worked. (and that's unfortunately about how it still works with the United States and Third World countries, even though the kinds of connected centers of power involved are different now.) there isn't actually a mystery as far as how several European empires each built something or fenced something in without being connected to each other.
I think there is a lot to be said about how seemingly nobody actually understands how imperialism works, including Tory types as demonstrated here, but particularly today's progressive theories of society. imperialism is all about things that sound really positive out of context: standing together, friendship, teamwork, hope, respecting experts, staying in your lane. most of the stuff commonly claimed to be usable for defeating imperialism is part of the toolbox for keeping imperialism going. — R.D. - Phrygian caps are the sign that "They" destroyed Tartarian society -> wow. this one is almost backhandedly true depending on what you think the context of it is. like, are "They" the creators of Liberal-republicanism, the emerging bourgeoisie? if so, this might be technically true aside from the fact that Tartarian society has never existed. you have to account for the fact that Tartarian society is more of a symbolic mythological thing than a real thing, and then think about what it really is — it's like one of many versions of a Heideggerian rant that modernity made everything worse, and somehow by pulling out a utopian vision of a society that contains actual physically impossible things and whose history is actually incoherent you "prove" that modernity is fake and some kind of regression from antiquity. (those have been around forever in various forms. there was like, that story from Aristotle or whoever it was about the golden people degrading into copper or something like that. I think the idea of making up a mythic past traces back to at least ancient Greece, and the concept that European fascism came up with it isn't even true.) if what you're saying is that the people who invented modernity were associated with Phrygian caps, then.... kind of. you took a very convoluted route to get there but you almost got to something meaningful.
Ideologies or fields
- / fringe history
- / pseudohistory
- / Tartaria conspiracy theory
Wavebuilder combinations
- : forms result [Item]
- --