I agree, but only the territories inhabited by ethnic Russians.
You have no place in Checenia.
East European Ethnocracy
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You have no place in Checenia.
Thats what the laws are in Saudi Arabia and (most of) Israel.
Chechnya has already become Russian. Unfortunately Chechnya cannot be given independence, they will turn to another Afghanistan. Why do you think Russia gave away that huge chunk of land to Kazakhstan? Just gave it away, no *hissing*, no problems? Because Kazakh people have an ability to rule themselves, and so does Latvia, and so do many other ex-Soviet states. But Chechnya is way too close to Moscow and way too dangerous to be left uncontrolled.
it's unfortunate.
Hmm, maybe you're right.
Whats the "problem" with Chechnya? How is their ethnicity different? Whats their background?
Was chattel slavery fun?
For who exactly?
And the Holocaust? Was that fun as well?
I expect colonialism was a great deal of fun for some.
Because you live in an ethnically homogeneous region and watch too much American television, you are falling into the trap of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
it is greener on the other side of the fence, greener from nourishment of blood
Multicultural societies are the result of slavery and colonialism. To advocate their continuation is immoral and wrong. Multiculturalism is simply used to sell more products and expand free markets, it has nothing to do with morality from what I can see.
Multiculturalism is an attack on non Western cultures.
The world would be a better place had colonialism and slavery never happened. It cannot be rectified by continuing the very civilizations it has created.
"State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes."
Low level warfare, and none between states that have the weapons.
"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."
I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.
"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."
"The Coming Anarchy"
This is a paradigm that is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.
Low level warfare, and none between states that have the weapons.
"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."
I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.
"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."
Did that work in Vietnam? Has it worked ever? In LICs, the native group has the advantage, depending on geography.
"The Coming Anarchy"
That's the name of a book, and it means the chaos kind of anarchy.
This is a paradigm that is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.
"State powers are heading for a standoff, when everyone gets nukes."
Even states have been dragged into LICs, but there are none between states that have the weapons.
"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."
I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.
"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."
"The Coming Anarchy"
This paradigm is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.
Even states have been dragged into LICs, but there are none between states that have the weapons.
"Ethnic groups and non state entities are becoming the dominant forces."
I'm saying that the stability of states depends on economic factors. If the present world economy, which is based on cheap energy, collapses, then ethnic groups will become more important.
"The rise of low-intensity conflict may, unless it can be quickly contained, end up destroying the state."
Did that work in Vietnam? Has it worked ever? In LICs, the native group has the advantage, depending on geography.
"The Coming Anarchy"
That's the name of a book, and it means the chaos kind of anarchy.
This paradigm is about to end. It depends on a state being able to deliver for it's citizens something more than they could achieve on their own. Since our prosperity is dependent on oil, the state is an endangered species.
Non Western cultures do not advocate multiracial/multicultural societies, because they do not practice such a high degree of control over and manipulation of, their own populations for material gain.
Africa is not the only example. Everyone is separating, or on the verge of it; Georgia is the most recent instance with Abkhazia and South Ossetia separating.
You think multiculturalism is not a shocker for places that have been multicultural for hundreds of years? You'd be surprised.
Nobody likes outsiders, outsiders don't always want to fit in. That explains current tensions between Muslim immigrants and inhabitants of whatever places to which they come -- all over Western Europe. U.S. is the same: immigrants are welcome only in some states, and some immigrants aren't welcome at all anymore. Generally, people like to live with their own kind. Multiculturalism is fun only as a bit of exotic, which means most people like to get a taste of it and go back to their usual lives. Actually, economy is one of the most rational reasons to dislike immigrants: they take away jobs from the native population and drive down salaries.
Last edited:
Ah, I see.
How would you term me?
That's because of a very odd sense of loyalty, loyalty which I still don't understand. People who have never set their foot on Russian soil and who have no relatives there claim patriotism towards Russia and support Putin. It looks odd to me because I've seen the big bulk of the populace that terms itself "Russian" but in fact comes from all of the different countries of former USSR, and they're all very different in ethnic appearance and culture.
In U.S., nationality is defined by birth. If you were born here, you are automatically American citizen. Ethnic background doesn't matter so much to people who were born here as it does to 1st generation immigrants; except for the unspoken rule that almost all U.S. presidents have been WASP men.
How would you term me?
you are definetly not Russian.
I'm glad you see.
Hassidic Jews never tried to fit in in any way. Those who were less religious and more liberal did try, but they were sifted out whenever a population wanted to "purify" itself. I'm not sure why it's so common to believe that Jews' ethnicity has been watered down. There's an unspoken rule that Jews only marry Jews and outsiders are always discouraged from converting to Judaism. They haven't mixed that much.
This rule is common to all conservative, traditional societies. Many Indians who move here seek to arrange marriage for their children with someone from their homeland. Same thing for people from all over USSR, and if they don't seek in the homeland they at least marry someone from another former USSR member. Same for Chinese and Japanese, etc. The Britons are more liberal, but they have little choice left.