Category Archives: Georgia

Multi-Ethnic Fascism?

Hasbrudal writes: Isn’t fascism just a kind of ultra-nationalism, the most important thing is what defines the nation, if it’s a multi-ethnic nation, the fascism will reflect that. If the nation is defined in very narrow terms, e.g. how the Croatian fascists during WW2 viewed Serbs, despite having much more in common on the surface than a Tartar and a Slav from St Petersburg, then it can get very granular. I don’t think Mussolini or Franco gave too much thought to the “Jewish Question” without prompting from Berlin.

There is no such thing as multi-ethnic fascism as far as I can tell. There has never been one single case of multi-ethnic fascism recorded in history. This is probably because the phrase is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. If it’s fascism, it’s not multi-ethnic. If it’s multi-ethnic, it’s not fascism. Period.

In a fascist state, when there are multiple ethnicities, religions or languages spoken, the fascists always, always, always, try to wipe out all of the ethnicities and turn them into a single ethnicity and wipe out all the religions and get everyone to speak one national language. For instance, Franco tried to turn everyone in Spain into a Spaniard who spoke Spanish. Hence he waged war on all of the other ethnicities and their languages. Mussolini waged war on all of the other languages in Italy (falsely called Italian dialects), not to mention the non-Italian languages in Italy. I think he went easy on the Germans in the north so as not to anger Hitler.

Fascism is a sort of nation-building run wild, or you can think like I do and say that all nation-building in the modern era is basically fascist, which it is. This is because all nation-building projects try to dissolve all of the ethnicities in the country and turn them all into one ethnicity and try to wipe out all of the languages in the country and make everyone speak one language.

In the case of religion, fascists would probably try to wipe out all of the other religions and force everyone to be a particular religion. The Croatian Ustashe actually ordered Serbs to convert to Catholicism or die in a similar way that Islam was converted by the sword (convert to Islam or die). ISIS is practicing this sort of convert or die Islam right now. This convert or die method of spreading Islam is very much in the Muslim historical tradition no matter how much Muslims lie and say it isn’t.

As you can probably tell, I do not think too much of nation-building projects. However, I have met people from the 3rd World who justified nation-building projects in strong terms. One man I know was an Iranian Azeri who spoke Azerbaijani but justified the Iranian government’s attempt to wipe out the Azeri language as a necessary step that Iran would have to go through in order to build a nation.

Nation-building projects are also often accompanied by mass killings. The emergence of the state of Israel, birthed in blood like so many new nations, is a good contemporary example of bloody nation-building.

Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Abkhazia, Kurdistan, Lithuania and Latvia are all modern examples of it. The first four were all quite bloody. One of the disgusting things about nationalism and nationalists is that when the nationalists are a minority in state dominated by another ethnic group, they are all about minority rights, decentralization, regionalism, federalism, autonomy, etc.

Then as soon as these nationalist punks get their independence, what’s the first thing they try to do? The first thing they do is persecute all of the new minorities in the land where they are now a majority. Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kurdistan are excellent examples of this. Kurdistan is a particularly awful example, as in Southern Kurdistan only Sunni Muslim Kurds have full rights. Non-Kurds? Of course not. Kurdish Yezidis? Nope. Kurdish Christians? No. Kurdish Shabakis? No. Kurdish Shia Muslims? Nope. Assyrian Christians? Are you kidding? They are not even Kurds. Sunni Muslim Arabs? Not at all. Shia Muslims Arabs? Even worse.

In the first elections in Southern Kurdistan, everyone except for Sunni Muslim Kurds was seriously disenfranchised. I mean in a lot of places they were actually denied the right to vote. Non-Kurdish Sunni Muslims were also driven out of many villages in order that they could be populated by Sunni Muslim Kurds.

With independence, Georgia immediately said that everyone in Georgia was a Georgian and revoked the ethnic and linguistic rights of everyone else. This was the cause of the Ossetian and Abkhazian rebellions. Russia had nothing to do with either of them, especially as they started back in 1991 when Gorbachev was President.

With the new fascist Nazi coup in the Ukraine, the rights of Russian speakers were revoked, and their supporters and politicians were murdered. Keep in mind that the CIA was up their knees in all of this. Everyone was a Ukrainian. No one else had any rights. Hence the declarations of independence in Crimea and the Donbass. Russia had nothing to do with those declarations of independence. Those are Russian speakers in those areas, and they despise Ukrainian nationalists who they call Nazis (because they are).

Keep in mind that Crimea never agreed to become a part of an independent Ukraine. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, the Crimeans said they were not a part of this new country. Several referenda were held in Crimea early on, and the votes were 80-90% for independence.

The new Ukrainian state subsequently calmed them down, and for the next 20-some years the Ukraine was in a stalemate with maybe half the population supporting radical Ukrainian Nazi nationalists and the other half more pro-Russian or wanting a federal state, including all of the non-Russian minorities in Ukraine, of which there are quite a few. So Crimean independence has nothing at all do with Putin, as it started way back in 1991 under Gorbachev as with the Georgian separatist splits.

71 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Assyrians, Azeris, Christianity, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, Georgia, Government, History, Islam, Kurdistan, Kurds, Lithuania, Middle East, Modern, Nationalism, Near East, Near Easterners, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, Shiism, Sociolinguistics, Sunnism, Turkey, Ukraine, Ultranationalism, Yezidism

Jihadists Mass Executing Christians in Syria

Here.

Apparently ISIS has been executing Christians for refusing to convert to Islam – they were ordered to convert or die. The phrase “Islam was spread by the sword” refers to how Islam spread. Many non-Muslims were offered the choice of “convert or die.” If they refused, they got the sword – they usually got their heads chopped off. This is how Islam spread – by the mass murder of non-Muslims, often Christians.

We now have proof of an incredible 100,000 Georgians beheaded or burned alive because they refused to convert to Islam. The martyrs of Otranto are 813 Italian Christians beheaded because they refused to convert to Islam. In 1389, there was a mass slaughter of Copts in Egypt. Many had been converted at the point of the sword, but later they marched into Cairo, stating that they were returning to Christianity. All of the men were seized by the Muslims and beheaded in an open square in front of their women. This was done in order to terrorize the women, but the women refused to be fazed, so all of the women were then killed.

The most recent case involves 12 Christians – men, women and a 12 year old boy – who were seized by ISIL in Aleppo and ordered to convert in front of a crowd. They refused. The boy had his fingertips chopped off. He was then badly beaten. The three men were then badly beaten. Then all four were crucified, causing their deaths.

Next eight Christians, six men and two women between the ages of 29-33 were brought before the large crowd and ordered to convert. They refused. The two women were then raped in public. While they were being raped, the women prayed which caused their captors to beat them even harder. Then all eight were beheaded. After they were killed, their headless bodies were then crucified and left up for two days.

36 Comments

Filed under Africa, Christianity, Egypt, European, Georgia, History, Islam, Middle Ages, Middle East, Murders, Near East, North Africa, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Syria

Who Should We Feel about Separatist Movements on Russia’s Border?

noneofmany writes:

Well I’m probably not exactly a white nationalist in the sense your thinking. I’m on the side of letting Russia just have the Crimea,for instance, since the historical justification of Russia’s intervention there is strong enough to warrant intervention when you factor in the nature of the Ukies leadership.However I wouldn’t say the same for Estonia, Latvia or western Ukraine.

Your justification for calling Estonia and Latvia illegal states is sufficiently broad to consider virtually every country bordering Russia an offense to Russian territory.

I do not think they are illegal states. I think the Russians are spread all over Estonia, but the Russians are in the southeast only of Latvia. There is no excuse to treat an ethnic group like that. I would not mind the Russians there stirring up some shit, but I do not want Russia to get involved militarily.

I supported the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia when Georgian ultranationalists took over.

I also support the secession of the Transdniestrians from Moldova after they went independent and apparently ultranationalists took over.

I do not mind Nagorno Karabakh splitting off from Azerbaijan when Azeri ultranationalists.

And I would to see Transcarpathia leave this new Nazi Ukraine. They already want out.

I would also like to see northern Kosovo split free and merge with Serbia as they wish. It is a crime what is being done to those Serbs.

I would like to see most of Novorussia go free. That means all of Donetsk and Lugansk, Kharkiv, Odessa, Zaporozhye and maybe Kerson. You really would need solid majorities in all of those places to want to break away, otherwise I would not support it. There are local Russian undergrounds in all of these places and they have been carrying out attacks for some time now. They claim they have 30,000 men, but that is probably an exaggeration.

I have no problem with the NAF or the local guerrillas at the provincial level  trying to take over Kharkiv and Zaporozhye at least. They have mass support there. Maybe Odessa and Kherson too if they have enough support. The problem with going further west is that conquest becomes less justified and now you are conquering an enemy people instead of liberating your own people.

As the NAF gets further to the west, there will be fewer Russians and consequently less support for the NAF. The Ukies will fight harder, and if those provinces do not want to go to the NAF, who could blame them? The Novorussians and some of the eastern provinces have a right to self-determination, but so does everything west of the Dnieper most of whom I assume want to stay in this Ukraine, ultranationalist or not. The Ukies have a right to self-determination too you know.

Most states on Russia’s border have few Russians living there. There are no Latvia-Estonia type problems in other places that I am aware of.

2 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Georgia, Kosovo, Nationalism, Near East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, Russians, Serbia, Serbians, South Ossetia, Ukraine, Ultranationalism

Zionists, Nazis and a Bit of History

I agree with the general tone of this article by the Saker.

Zionists, Nazis and a Bit of History

The Zionists

Oh this is too good!!!  My two “favorite” Russia-hating Uber-Zionists join forces in the New York Times to call for the salvation of the Nazi Junta in Kiev by a massive injection of capital.

Priceless.

Here is what they wrote: (full text)

Save the New Ukraine

A NEW Ukraine was born a year ago in the pro-European protests that helped to drive President Viktor F. Yanukovych from power. And today, the spirit that inspired hundreds of thousands to gather in the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, is stronger than ever, even as it is under direct military assault from Russian forces supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine, which was demoralized and riddled with corruption. The transformation has been a rare experiment in participatory democracy; a noble adventure of a people who have rallied to open their nation to modernity, democracy and Europe. And this is just the beginning.

This experiment is remarkable for finding expression not only in defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity from the separatists, but also in constructive work. Maidan’s supporters have moved from opposition to nation building.

Many of those in government and Parliament are volunteers who have given up well-paying jobs to serve their country. Natalie Jaresko, a former investment banker, now works for a few hundred dollars a month as the new finance minister. Volunteers are helping Ukraine’s one million internally displaced people as well as working as advisers to ministers and in local government.

The new Ukraine, however, faces a potent challenge from the old Ukraine. The old Ukraine is solidly entrenched in a state bureaucracy that has worked hand in hand with a business oligarchy. And the reformers are also up against the manifest hostility of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, who wants at all costs to destabilize Ukraine.

One drawback is that the new Ukraine is a well-kept secret, not just from the rest of the world but also from the Ukrainian public. Radical reforms have been hatched but not yet implemented.

It is instructive to compare Ukraine today with Georgia in 2004. When he became president that year, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately replaced the hated traffic police and removed the roadblocks used to extort bribes from drivers. The public recognized straight away that things had changed for the better.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet found a similar demonstration project. Kiev’s police force is to be restructured, but if you need a driver’s license, you must still pay the same bribe as before.

Mr. Saakashvili was a revolutionary leader who first stamped out corruption but eventually turned it into a state monopoly. By contrast, Ukraine is a participatory democracy that does not rely on a single leader but on checks and balances. Democracies move slowly, but that may prove an advantage in the long run.

The big question is, will there be a long run? Although Russia is in a deepening financial crisis, Mr. Putin appears to have decided that he can destroy the new Ukraine before it can fully establish itself and before an economic downturn destroys his own popularity.

The Russian president is stepping up the military and financial pressure on Ukraine. Over the weekend, the city of Mariupol came under attack from forces that NATO said were backed by Russian troops, undermining the pretense that the separatists are acting on their own.

Ukraine will defend itself militarily, but it urgently needs financial assistance. The immediate need is for $15 billion. But to ensure Ukraine’s survival and encourage private investment, Western powers need to make a political commitment to provide additional sums, depending on the extent of the Russian assault and the success of Ukraine’s reforms.

The reformers, who want to avoid the leakages that were characteristic of the old Ukraine, have expressed their wish to be held accountable for all expenditures. They are passing extensive legislation but also want the International Monetary Fund to go on exercising oversight.

Unfortunately, just as democracies are slow to move, an association of democracies like the European Union is even slower. Mr. Putin is exploiting this.

It is not only the future of Ukraine that’s at stake, but that of the European Union itself. The loss of Ukraine would be an enormous blow; it would empower a Russian alternative to the European Union based on the rule of force rather than the rule of law. But if Europe delivered the financial assistance that Ukraine needs, Mr. Putin would eventually be forced to abandon his aggression. At the moment, he can argue that Russia’s economic troubles are caused by Western hostility, and the Russian public finds his argument convincing.

If, however, Europe is generous with its financial assistance, a stable and prosperous Ukraine will provide an example that makes clear that the blame for Russia’s financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin. The Russian public might then force him to emulate the new Ukraine. Europe’s reward would be a new Russia that has turned from a potent strategic threat into a potential strategic partner. Those are the stakes.

The way the NYT presents these two bloodthirsty clowns is also typical. One, Soros, is a “philanthropist,” while the other, Levi, is a “philosopher”. They might as well have presented them as modern-day saints.

Clearly, the Neocons and their Zionist allies are in a full war mode, they fear that their Russophobic Nazi regime in Kiev is going to tank, and they are terrified at the consequences. As they should.

The Nazis

Well, just as predicted, the Rada in Kiev has declared Russia an “aggressor state“.

Now all that is needed to “prove” their point is a major false flag to show that hordes of Spetsnaz GRU throat-cutters are slaughtering babies in their cribs (Kuwait), blowing up peaceful shoppers (Markale market), committing genocide (Srebrenica), massacring villages (Racak) or using Viagra as a weapon of war (Libya). Then Putin needs to be upgraded from “new Stalin” to “new Hitler” (or both) and, voilà, the US and NATO will have to “shoulder their historical burden” of having to defend “civilization, human rights, freedom and progress” against the revanchist Russian aggressor.

I am sorry to have to say that, but I consider a large-scale false flag a virtual inevitability by now. God willing, the Junta is in too much disarray and chaos to make it happen, but I think that everybody in the Novorussian resistance needs to go to “red alert” for some crazy move by the Junta.

The Belly Is Still Fertile from Which the Foul Beast Sprang

Guys, I am constantly getting a flow of comments about “Jews this, Jews that”, “Nazis this, Nazis that”, and the “killer argument” of “Jews cannot be Nazis, and Nazis cannot be Jews”. Guys, think again. Look at all Zionists and Nazis have in common:

1) the belief in the existence of races/ethnicities
2) the belief in the superiority of their own race/ethnicity
3) the morbid obsession with blood and racial purity
4) a phenomenal propensity to use violence to achieve their goals
5) the belief that their opponents are not really human
6) a morbid interest for the occult (Ahnenerbe, Kabbalism)
7) a rabid hatred for Russia, Russians and Orthodoxy

Now, of course, they also happened to hate each other. So what? Trotskists hated Stalinists and vice versa, the SS hated the SA and vice versa and the Jesuits hated the Lutherans and vice versa. But in each case these movements spring from the same well (Bolshevism, National-Socialism and Frankish Papism).

Zionism and Nazism are born from the same fetid womb: 19th European secular nationalism and, as Brecht so well put it: the belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang. This is also the root of Ukrainian nationalism, Russian pan-Slavism, and many other ideologies. Most of them have lost traction and have been repudiated, but in Israel Zionism is still the main official state ideology, and the same is true for the part of the ex-Ukraine run by the Nazi junta in Kiev.

Now, since there are apparently quite a few of you who still hold on to racist/racialist ideas, I feel the need to repeat here what I wrote in my post AngloZionist: Short Primer for the Newcomers:

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw man argument which deliberately ignores the non-commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evildoing. So to be very clear: When I speak of AngloZionist Empire, I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which form this Empire’s “deep state”.

By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists, (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists, and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialist Anglos. To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in no way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russians Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.

This is why the listing of Jews in power in Kiev because what is missing from the picture is either a list of all Jews who are not in power in Kiev or the list of all non-Jews who are in power in Kiev, or both.

Zionism is to Jews what National Socialism is to Germans and what Communism is to Russians: a pathology triggered by a slight but crucial modification of these nation’s “spiritual DNA”. This is like comparing healthy tissue to a malignant tumor: very similar but different enough to be fatal.

The real enemy:

The real enemy is not the Jew, the German or the Russian, of course. The real enemy is evil, satanic ideologies. As Saint Paul so eloquently put it: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12). He did not say the “1%ers” of course, but if you ask me, this is close enough.

I recently got an email from a friend who asked me to stop using the word “Ukie,” and I decided to follow his advice because even if some or even most Ukrainians nowadays might support the regime of freaks in Kiev, some, even maybe most, do not.

Yes, Soros and BHL are Jews. Really evil, bloodthirstily and ugly buffoons who I despise from the very bottom of my heart. And yes, their ideology is the kind of Neoconservative Zionism which has become so popular in the USA and in the past decades in Israel (the original Zionists were dramatically different, socialists, secularists, and actually, I think – honest if mistaken idealists). Oh, not that I believe for one second that either one of them sincerely cares about his fellow Jews or about Israel. Not at all. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not need to care for Israel at all to be a Zionist. Are you shocked by that statement? Okay, hear me out. Here is what I wrote in my “primer”:

Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word Zionism means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel”. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again.

Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?

The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and apparently in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions  at the very least, a high risk thereof.

Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.

First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide.

This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go.

Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc.

In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies, always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.

So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”.

So we need to be very careful here.

First, we cannot fight an Empire whose nature and essence we do not understand.

Second, we cannot fight an enemy who we cannot even name. I therefore submit that speaking of the AngloZionist Empire is not only correct but even crucial: “Anglo” refers to historical roots and geopolitical reality, “Zionist” refers to its ideological world view. HOWEVER, as soon as we start “counting Jews” or saying that Nazis and Jews cannot be in the same junta, we are immediately falling back into a completely discredited 19th century West European ideology which has triggered many millions of deaths in all the major wars of the past couple of centuries.

This is bull. Acting like a bull. In a corrida.

Personally, I don’t even believe in the word race. Here again, I will quote my “primer:”

First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education, or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist but not a race.

Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

But I am aware that there are people out there who consider themselves as Jews or Jewish (never understood the difference between these two terms, but never mind). I say – let them. But let’s not paint them as the enemy when the enemy is a tribal ideology which is shared by millions of people who do not consider themselves as Jews (US Evangelicals, for starters, millions of them).

If we miss the real target and get distracted by the fake one put in front of us by the real enemy, we will act just like a bull in a Spanish corrida: we will always miss the real enemy who will exhaust us and then kill us.

Let us please be smarter and stop constantly chasing the wrong enemy. Let’s hit the real enemy where he really is, where he hides, where it will really hurt him. Let’s accurately name him. His name is “Legion” because he has many ideologies and manifestations, and he shows up in any and all human groups.

Please read the above post carefully, please re-read my “AngloZionists: a short primer” for a fuller discussion.

Kind regards to all, cheers,

The Saker

5 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conservatism, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Georgia, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Journalism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, War, Zionism

Russophobia Run Amok

Via The Saker. The Saker is right. If Strobe Talbott says it looks like there is going to be a major Wahhabi offensive in Chechnya next year, what he means by that is he is going to try to get one started. The role of the US in the Chechen insurgency is hard to figure, but it has been well known for a long time that the neocons have always supported the Chechens against Russia because there is almost nothing the neocons hate more than Russia. Nevertheless, the precise role of the US, particularly the CIA, in the Chechen insurgency is very much clouded in doubt.

Oh how much they hate and fear Russia and Putin

A (well anonymized) anonymous reader sent me a very interesting link today.  It is an opinion piece by Strobe Talbott for Reuters entitled “In 2015, Vladimir Putin may witness his empire’s death knell” in which Talbott predicts that:

The year ahead could see the outbreak of the third Chechen war, which, in turn, could be the death knell of the Russian Federation in its current borders. (…) For the past five years, the situation has been more or less quiescent, though neighboring republics have been rocked by violence. The lull in Chechnya, however, ended in early December with a series of bloody incidents in the Chechen capital of Grozny.  

The group behind the resurgence of unrest is advocating a “Caucasus Caliphate,” with ties to al Qaeda and, more recently, Islamic State. There is at least an indirect tie between outside support for Islamic radicalism in the Caucasus and Putin’s sponsorship of Russian secessionism in eastern Ukraine. By proclaiming ethnicity and religion as the basis for Russian statehood and aggression against its neighbors, Putin is inadvertently stoking the forces of secessionism in those parts of Russia that are historically and culturally Islamic.

Needless to say, Talbott, himself a former Deputy Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral, married to Brooke Shearer, also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior aide to Hillary Clinton with links to banks Commission, is the archetypal US “Deep-Stater”. He is also considered a “Russia specialist” which, in Foggy Bottom parlance means a rabid Russophobe. A person like Talbott is very much “plugging in” the US Deep State and if he says that next year there will be an insurgency in Chechnya, we can be darn sure that the US will try to create one.

Of course, this does not at all mean that they will succeed.

In fact, I am quite sure that there is zero chance of overthrowing Kadyrov, never mind of Chechnya breaking away from Russia. If only because there is overwhelming evidence that the Chechen people want nothing to do with Wahhabi terrorists and that they in fact form a very strong power base for Putin.

Not only that, but Russia truly has formidable military capabilities in and around Chechnya. They keep a low profile and do not get involved in law enforcement or counter-insurgency operations, but only because the Chechens handle these tasks superbly. But make no mistake, Russia can flush at least 100’000 highly trained, motivated and superbly equipped men into Chechnya drawn from the 58th Army of course, but also from various special forces, Internal Ministry and State Security troops.

The weak link in the Russian Caucasus is in Dagestan and the border with nearby Georgia from which attacks could come. Could the US at the very least rekindle the Wahhabi insurgency (possibly supported by Nazi units from the Ukraine)? Yes, of course. But their chances to succeed in anything more than one or several truly ugly terrorist attacks are very, very slim.

I think that Talbott probably understands that, but he just cannot help by daydream out loud being, as he no doubt is, aware that if Russia prevails in her defense against the AngloZionist Empire this will mean the end for the latter.

The US deep state is simply saturated with Russophobia, phobia in both the sense of “hate” and “fear”, and so it should. Just like all the other western invaders of Russia in the past, the AngloZionist Empire has completely cornered the Russian Bear which now has to fight for its very survival. Neither side will back down and only one will prevail. And my money is not on the US, neither is Talbott’s, at least now deep down. He must realize that the writing is on the wall. Hence the hate and the fear.

8 Comments

Filed under Caucasus, Chechnya, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Georgia, Government, Islam, Near East, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Terrorism, Ukraine, USA, War

A New Nation Is Born

The official page of the new country is here.

Today, on May 11, 2014, a new nation has been formed in Europe – People’s Republic of Donetsk. The results of a referendum on whether or not the Donetsk region should be part of the Ukraine or should secede from the Ukraine are now in. 89% of voters voted to declare independence from the Ukraine and 10% voted to remain a part of the Ukraine. 1% spoiled their ballots. Turnout was high at 75%. The results lined up very well with an opinion poll taken by several US news organizations the day before which showed that 96% of those planning to vote supported independence.

Ukrainian media said that they capture several “terrorists” in a truck in the region. The Ukrainian forces said that they found 1 million ballots premarked “yes.” Pro-independence forces denounced this as a false flag operation. Ukrainian media also said that they had tapped a phone call between one of the independence leaders and the head of a Russian neo-Nazi organization in which they independence leaders said that he planned to falsify the results in favor of independence and that he had talked to Putin about this. Pro-independence forces said that the phone call never occurred and was made up by Ukrainian media.

Ukrainian media and government has run a very large number of lies during this whole series of events and at any rate, the results line up well with opinion polls.

Soon after the results were announced, the new government said that they would set up their own military and would proceed with what they called an amicable divorce from the Ukrainian state. They also said that they were switching currency from the Ukrainian hryvna to the Russian ruble. The region is heavily industrial and has deep economic ties with Russia. Much of Russia’s raw iron and sheet metal is produced in plants in this region. There are also large coal mines in the Donbass area.

The West condemned the new elections as phony and said that no government would recognized them. It remains to be seen how Russia will react to the declaration of independence. Hopefully they will recognize the new country!

Elections were also ongoing in Lugansk while this post was being written. Turnout is high, but no results are in yet.

The Kharkiv region postponed their independence referendum scheduled for the same day as they said they were not ready to hold the elections yet.

Donetsk is definitely now an independent country in the eyes of its leaders. Whether they will remain an independent nation or ask to be annexed to Russia in the future is not known.

Three other regions of the former USSR are in the same boat. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have declared independence from Georgia after violent rebellions. Russian troops are now placed in both new countries. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have offered suggestions that they may wish to annex themselves to Russia in the future.

Eastern Ukraine has never really been a part of anything called the Ukraine. It has always been a part of Russia, called Novorussiya, ever since Russia conquered the region in 1750. It remained a part of Russia after the Bolshevik revolution and was only attached to the Western Ukraine (the Ukrainian SSR) in 1924. It is really just a part of Russia and it has no business being in the Ukraine.

The true Ukrainian state is Western Ukraine from Kiev to the West,  especially Galicia, Volhynia, and Bukovina. Bukovina used to be a part of Romania and Galicia and Volhynia were first a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and then a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During WW2, the pro-Nazi Banderist Ukrainian nationalists ethnically cleansed most of the Poles out of the region, murdering 100,000 of them in the process.

However, the region of Transcarpathia where the Rusyns live has never really been a part of the real Ukraine and they want no part of this new state. This region recently declared their independence from the Ukraine. Transcarpathia is home to Rusyns, a separate people who speak a language closely related to but separate from Ukrainian. Other groups of Rusyns live in Slovakia and Poland. The ones in Poland are called Lemkos.

All hail the People’s Republic of Donetsk!

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

6 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Georgia, History, Modern, Near East, Poles, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, South Ossetia, Ukraine, War, World War 2

India As an Imperialist Country

Creaders writes:

The man white ally with India. The white man is always covering India. White man media do not report the real truth about India and all India transgression was forgotten. India is a key player against China. But I will honestly say its not a NATO style alliance but a low level type.

India invade Diu, Daman, Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli from Portugal, no white man newspaper ever bark.

India invade Hyderabad, white man keep quiet. India invade Kashmir, white man keep quiet. India invade Sikkim, white man keep quiet.

When India invade Kashmir, India say Kashmir ruler like India but so I don care if they people hate India. When India invade Hyderabad, India say Hyderabad people like India, but I don care the ruler hate Indian.

When India annex Manipur and Sikkim, both people and ruler hate India. India say fuck it, I just want your land, never mind if you hate me. In fact, Indian just know how to talk and talk. They are liars and can come out any reason to harm you.

white man keep quiet. India invade China, white man keep quiet.

China arrest India’s aggression in 1962 Sino-Indian war, white man say China is aggressor and send arm to India.

India is really a crap nation.

I thought US imperialism was bad until I heard about Indian imperialism. India is obviously one of the imperialist countries. Even worse, like the early United Snakes, Zionist Israel, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it has been conquering and annexing land since the day of its birth. I suppose one could argue that many new nations engage in a “nation-building project” that involves some sort of conquering of other people’s land to annex their lands into the new nation.

However, if we look around the world, we do not see a lot of examples of new imperialist countries engaging in nationalist conquests upon independence.

In the modern era, the examples are not many:

Nazi Germany: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.

Imperial Japan: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.

Fascist Italy: program of conquest, annexation and colonization in WW2.

Indonesia (independence in 1949): Program of conquest and annexation of Aceh, East Timor and part of New Guinea now called Irian Jaya. There was also a project of settling colonized lands with settlers in order to subdue the natives. A number of genocides ensued. This project was led by an openly fascist political party pushing a fascist project called Pangasinan.

Pakistan (independence in 1948): Attempted to annex Kashmir by force (uncertain if Kashmiris wanted to be annexed by Pakistan). Annexed Balochistan by violence soon afterwards after Balochis voted not to join Pakistan.

Israel (independence in 1949): Its very birth was created by invasion, conquest, ethnic cleansing and displacement of natives. Colonization of new land by settlers followed. The following years, more and more land was conquered, more natives were thrown off the land, and more settlers were moved onto new conquered land. The project continues to this day.

Russia (newly independent in 1991): Invaded and conquered Chechnya which declared independence from the new Russian nation. Later invaded other Caucasus republics attempting to break away from the new nation.

Armenia: Invaded and conquered part of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabagh on an uncertain moral basis but strategically because it was full of Armenians. Later conquered “buffer zones” of Azeri territory similar to Israeli “security buffers.”

Georgia: Invaded South Ossetia when South Ossetia refused to join the new country called Georgia.

Morocco: Invaded and conquered Spanish Sahara after the region was decolonized. It then settled the area with 200,000 settlers.

Sudan: Upon independence in 1954, launched a war against South Sudan that continued for decades and killed 2 million people.

Eritrea: Soon after achieving independence in 1991, Eritrea attacked Ethiopia and tried to annex border land. It also attacked Djibouti and tried to annex part of that country.

Ethiopia: After independence, Ethiopia immediately annexed Eritrea. This led to a 30 year war which Eritrea finally won and achieved independence from Ethiopia.

Somalia: The new nation of Somalia attacked Ethiopia in 1977 and attempted to conquer the Ogaden region and annex it to Somalia.

Libya: In 1978, Libya attacked Chad and attempted to annex a strip of land called the Aouzou Strip.

However, India seemingly takes the cake. Soon after independence, India quickly invaded Hyderabad, Diu, Daman, Goa, Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Sikkim, Manipur and Kashmir. All of these places had decided that they did not want to be part of India, but India invaded them anyway. Sikkim was actually a separate country, but India invaded it anyway and annexed the place. Many people died because of India’s imperial conquests. The Manipur conflict lasted many years and the Kashmiri conflict continues to this day. Many other areas in the Northeast also refused to join India in the beginning and all were attacked sooner or later.

In the midst of this wild imperial conquest spree, apparently India received 100% support from US imperialism. When India attacked China in 1962 for no good reason, US imperialism supported them 100%, apparently as an anti-Communist move against China. India was even supplied with weapons with which to attack the Chinese people.

When you talk to Indians (generally high-caste Indians) one thing you will note is the fanatical nationalism many of them have. Many don’t know their country’s history, but if you recite it to those who know about it, almost 100% of them will support Indian imperialism to the hilt. The average Indian is an ultra-nationalist, a nationalist fanatic. In part this is because the media and the government has been pushing fascist like ultra-nationalism from the early days of the Republic. The number of Indians opposed to this fascist ultra-nationalist and imperialist project must be very small, because you never hear of them.

Of late, radical Indian ultra-nationalism has been married to Hindu fanaticism in the form of Hindutva ideology. This is a marriage of fascist ultra-nationalism and with radical religious fundamentalism. The result has been a potent movement that looks fascist in many respects. This nascent fascist movement has taken high caste and middle class Indians by storm. We should not sit idly by and watch this fascist movement form while we twiddle our toes. Instead we should watch this dangerous movement very closely. It threatens not only India itself but parts of the rest of the world too.

78 Comments

Filed under Africa, Armenia, Asia, Colonialism, East Africa, East Indians, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Georgia, Germany, Hinduism, History, Imperialism, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Libya, Middle East, Morocco, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, North Africa, Pakistan, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Settler-Colonialism, Somalia, South Asia, South Asians, Sudan, Ultranationalism, US Politics

Does Multilingualism Equal Separatism?

Repost from the old site.

Sorry for the long post, readers, but I have been working on this piece off and on for months now. It’s not something I just banged out. For one thing, this is the only list that I know of on the Net that lists all of the countries of the world and shows how many languages are spoken there in an easy to access format. Not even Wikipedia has that (yet).

Whether or not states have the right to secede is an interesting question. The libertarian Volokh Conspiracy takes that on in this nice set of posts. We will not deal with that here; instead, we will take on the idea that linguistic diversity automatically leads to secession.

There is a notion floating around among fetishists of the state that there can be no linguistic diversity within the nation, as it will lead to inevitable separatism. In this post, I shall disprove that with empirical data. First, we will list the states in the world, along with how many languages are spoken in that state.

States with a significant separatist movement are noted with an asterisk. As you can see if you look down the list, there does not seem to be much of a link between multilingualism and separatism. There does seem to be a trend in that direction in Europe, though.

Afterward, I will discuss the nature of the separatist conflicts in many of these states to try to see if there is any language connection. In most cases, there is little or nothing there.

I fully expect the myth of multilingualism = separatism to persist after the publication of this post, unfortunately.

St Helena                        1
British Indian Ocean Territories 1
Pitcairn Island                  1
Estonia                          1
Maldives                         1
North Korea                      1
South Korea                      1
Cayman Islands                   1
Bermuda                          1
Belarus                          1
Martinique                       2
St Lucia                         2
St Vincent & the Grenadines      2
Barbados                         2
Virgin Islands                   2
British Virgin Islands           2
Gibraltar                        2
Antigua and Barbuda              2
Saint Kitts and Nevis            2
Montserrat                       2
Anguilla                         2
Marshall Islands                 2
Cuba                             2
Turks and Caicos                 2
Guam                             2
Tokelau                          2
Samoa                            2
American Samoa                   2
Niue                             2
Jamaica                          2
Cape Verde Islands               2
Icelandic                        2
Maltese                          2
Maltese                          2
Vatican State                    2
Haiti                            2
Kiribati                         2
Tuvalu                           2
Bahamas                          2
Puerto Rico                      2
Kyrgyzstan                       3
Rwanda                           3
Nauru                            3
Turkmenistan                     3
Luxembourg                       3
Monaco                           3
Burundi                          3
Seychelles                       3
Grenada                          3
Bahrain                          3
Tonga                            3
Qatar                            3
Kuwait                           3
Dominica                         3
Liechtenstein                    3
Andorra                          3
Reunion                          3
Dominican Republic               3
Netherlands Antilles             4
Northern Mariana Islands         4
Palestinian West Bank & Gaza     4
Palau                            4
Mayotte                          4
Cyprus*                          4
Bosnia and Herzegovina*          4
Slovenia and Herzegovina*        4
Swaziland                        4
Sao Tome and Principe            4
Guadalupe                        4
Saudi Arabia                     5
Cook Islands                     5
Latvia                           5
Lesotho                          5
Djibouti                         5
Ireland                          5
Moldova                          5
Armenia                          6
Mauritius                        6
Lebanon                          6
Mauritania                       6
Croatia                          6
Kazakhstan                       7
Kazakhstan                       7
Albania                          7
Portugal                         7
Uzbekistan                       7
Sri Lanka*                       7
United Arab Emirates             7
Comoros                          7
Belize                           8
Tunisia                          8
Denmark                          8
Yemen                            8
Morocco*                         9
Austria                          9
Jordan                           9
Macedonia                        9
Tajikistan                       9
French Polynesia                 9
Gambia                           9
Belgium                          9
Libya                            9
Fiji                             10
Slovakia                         10
Ukraine                          10
Egypt                            11
Bulgaria                         11
Norway                           11
Poland                           11
Serbia and Montenegro            11
Eritrea                          12
Georgia*                         12
Finland*                         12
Switzerland*                     12
Hungary*                         12
United Kingdom*                  12
Mongolia                         13
Spain                            13
Somalia*                         13
Oman                             13
Madagascar                       13
Malawi                           14
Equatorial Guinea                14
Mali                             14
Azerbaijan                       14
Japan                            15
Syria*                           15
Romania*                         15
Sweden*                          15
Netherlands*                     15
Greece                           16
Brunei                           17
Algeria                          18
Micronesia                       18
East Timor                       19
Zimbabwe                         19
Niger                            21
Singapore                        21
Cambodia                         21
Iraq*                            21
Guinea-Bissau                    21
Taiwan                           22
Bhutan                           24
Sierra Leone                     24
South Africa                     24
Germany                          28
Namibia                          28
Botswana                         28
France                           29
Liberia                          30
Israel                           33
Italy                            33
Guinea                           34
Turkey*                          34
Senegal                          36
Bangladesh                       39
New Caledonia                    39
Togo                             39
Angola*                          41
Gabon                            41
Zambia                           41
Mozambique                       43
Uganda                           43
Afghanistan                      47
Guatemala                        54
Benin                            54
Kenya                            61
Congo                            62
Burkina Faso                     68
Central African Republic         69
Solomon Islands                  70
Thailand*                        74
Iran*                            77
Cote D'Ivoire                    78
Ghana                            79
Laos                             82
Ethiopia*                        84
Canada*                          85
Russia*                          101
Vietnam                          102
Myanmar*                         108
Vanuatu                          109
Nepal                            126
Tanzania                         128
Chad                             132
Sudan*                           134
Malaysia                         140
United States*                   162
Philippines*                     171
Pakistan*                        171
Democratic Republic of Congo     214
Australia                        227
China*                           235
Cameroon*                        279
Mexico                           291
India*                           415
Nigeria                          510
Indonesia*                       737
Papua New Guinea*                820

*Starred states have a separatist problem, but most are not about language. Most date back to the very formation of an often-illegitimate state.

Canada definitely has a conflict that is rooted in language, but it is also rooted in differential histories as English and French colonies. The Quebec nightmare is always brought up by state fetishists, ethnic nationalists and other racists and nationalists who hate minorities as the inevitable result of any situation whereby a state has more than one language within its borders.

This post is designed to give the lie to this view.

Cyprus’ problem has to do with two nations, Greeks and Turks, who hate each other. The history for this lies in centuries of conflict between Christianity and Islam, culminating in the genocide of 350,000 Greeks in Turkey from 1916-1923.

Morocco’s conflict has nothing to do with language. Spanish Sahara was a Spanish colony in Africa. After the Spanish left in the early 1950’s, Morocco invaded the country and colonized it, claiming in some irredentist way that the land had always been a part of Morocco. The residents beg to differ and say that they are a separate state.

An idiotic conflict ensued in which Morocco the colonizer has been elevated to one of the most sanctioned nations of all by the UN. Yes, Israel is not the only one; there are other international scofflaws out there. In this conflict, as might be expected, US imperialism has supported Moroccan colonialism.

This Moroccan colonialism has now become settler-colonialism, as colonialism often does. You average Moroccan goes livid if you mention their colony. He hates Israel, but Morocco is nothing but an Arab Muslim Israel. If men had a dollar for every drop of hypocrisy, we would be a world of millionaires.

There are numerous separatist conflicts in Somalia. As Somalians have refused to perform their adult responsibilities and form a state, numerous parts of this exercise in anarchism in praxis (Why are the anarchists not cheering this on?) are walking away from the burning house. Who could blame them?

These splits seem to have little to do with language. One, Somaliland, was a former British colony and has a different culture than the rest of Somalia. Somaliland is now de facto independent, as Somalia, being a glorious exercise in anarchism, of course lacks an army to enforce its borders, or to do anything.

Jubaland has also split, but this has nothing to do with language. Instead, this may be rooted in a 36-year period in which it was a British colony. Soon after this period, they had their own postage stamps as an Italian colony.

There is at least one serious separatist conflict in Ethiopia in the Ogaden region, which is mostly populated by ethnic Somalis. Apparently this region used to be part of Somaliland, and Ethiopia probably has little claim to the region. This conflict has little do with language and more to do with conflicts rooted in colonialism and the illegitimate borders of states.

There is also a conflict in the Oromo region of Ethiopia that is not going very far lately. These people have been fighting colonialism since Ethiopia was a colony and since then have been fighting against independent Ethiopia, something they never went along with. Language has a role here, but the colonization of a people by various imperial states plays a larger one.

There was a war in Southern Sudan that has now ended with the possibility that the area may secede.

There is a genocidal conflict in Darfur that the world is ignoring because it involves Arabs killing Blacks as they have always done in this part of the world, and the world only gets upset when Jews kill Muslims, not when Muslims kill Muslims.

This conflict has to do with the Sudanese Arabs treating the Darfurians with utter contempt – they regard them as slaves, as they have always been to these racist Arabs.

The conflict in Southern Sudan involved a region in rebellion in which many languages were spoken. The South Sudanese are also niggers to the racist Arabs, plus they are Christian and animist infidels to be converted by the sword by Sudanese Arab Muslims. Every time a non-Muslim area has tried to split off from or acted uppity with a Muslim state they were part of, the Muslims have responded with a jihad against and genocide of the infidels.

This conflict has nothing to do with language; instead it is a war of Arab Muslim religious fanatics against Christian and animist infidels.

There is a separatist movement in the South Cameroons in the nation of Cameroon in Africa. This conflict is rooted in colonialism. During the colonial era, South Cameroons was a de facto separate state. Many different languages are spoken here, as is the case in Cameroon itself. They may have a separate culture too, but this is just another case of separatism rooted in colonialism. The movement seems to be unarmed.

There is a separatist conflict in Angola in a region called Cabinda, which was always a separate Portuguese colony from Angola.

As this area holds 60% of Angola’s oil, it’s doubtful that Angola will let it go, although almost all of Angola’s oil wealth is being stolen anyway by US transnationals and a tiny elite while 90% of the country starves, has no medicine and lives unemployed amid shacks along former roads now barely passable.

The Cabindans do claim to have a separate culture, but language does not seem to be playing much role here – instead, oil and colonialism are.

Syria does have a Kurdish separatist movement, as does Iran, Iraq, and Turkey – every state that has a significant number of Kurds. This conflict goes back to the post-World War 1 breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds, with thousands of years of history as a people, nominally independent for much of that time, were denied a state and sold out.

The new fake state called Turkey carved up part of Kurdistan, another part was donated to the British colony in Iraq and another to the French colony in Syria, as the Allies carved up the remains of the Empire like hungry guests at a feast.

This conflict is more about colonialism and extreme discrimination than language, though the Kurds do speak their own tongue. There is also a Kurdish separatist conflict in Iran, but I don’t know much about the history of the Iranian Kurds.

There is also an Assyrian separatist movement in Iraq and possibly in Syria. The movement is unarmed. The Assyrians have been horribly persecuted by Arab nationalist racists in the region, in part because they are Christians. They have been targeted by Islamo-Nazis in Iraq during this Iraq War with a ferocity that can only be described as genocidal.

The Kurds have long persecuted the Assyrians in Iraqi Kurdistan. There have been regular homicides of Assyrians in the north, up around the Mosul region. This is just related to the general way that Muslims treat Christian minorities in many Muslim states – they persecute them and even kill them. There is also a lot of land theft going on.

While the Kurdish struggle is worthwhile, it is becoming infected with the usual nationalist evil that afflicts all ethnic nationalism. This results in everyone who is not a Kurdish Sunni Muslim being subjected to varying degrees of persecution, disenfranchisement and discrimination. It’s a nasty part of the world.

In Syria, the Assyrians live up near the Turkish and Iraqi borders. Arab nationalist racists have been stealing their land for decades now and relocating the Assyrians to model villages, where they languish in poverty. Assad’s regime is not so secular and progressive as one might suspect.

There is a separatist conflict in Bougainville in New Guinea. I am sure that many different tongues are spoken on that island, as there are 800 different tongues spoken in Papua New Guinea. The conflict is rooted in the fact that Bougainville is rich in copper, but almost all of this wealth is stolen by Papua New Guinea and US multinationals, so the Bougainville people see little of it. Language has little or nothing to do with it.

There are separatist movements in the Ahwaz and Balochistan regions of Iran, along with the aforementioned Kurdish movement. It is true that different languages are spoken in these regions, but that has little to do with the conflict.

Arabic is spoken in Khuzestan, the land of the Iranian Arabs. This land has been part of Persia for around 2,000 years as the former land of Elam. The Arabs complain that they are treated poorly by the Persians, and that they get little revenue to their region even though they are sitting on a vast puddle of oil and natural gas.

Iran should not be expected to part with this land, as it is the source of much of their oil and gas wealth. Many or most Iranians speak Arabic anyway, so there is not much of a language issue. Further, Arab culture is promoted by the Islamist regime even at the expense of Iranian culture, much to the chagrin of Iranian nationalists.

The Ahwaz have been and are being exploited by viciously racist Arab nationalists in Iraq, and also by US imperialism, and most particularly lately, British imperialism, as the British never seem to have given up the colonial habit. This conflict is not about language at all. Most Ahwaz don’t even want to separate anyway; they just want to be treated like humans by the Iranians.

Many of Iran’s 8% Sunni population lives in Balochistan. The region has maybe 2% of Iran’s population and is utterly neglected by Iran. Sunnis are treated with extreme racist contempt by the Shia Supremacists who run Iran. This conflict has to do with the fight between the Shia and Sunni wings of Islam and little or nothing to do with language.

There is a separatist movement in Iran to split off Iranian Azerbaijan and merge it with Azerbaijan proper. This movement probably has little to do with language and more to do with just irredentism. The movement is not going to go very far because most Iranian Azeris do not support it.

Iranian Azeris actually form a ruling class in Iran and occupy most of the positions of power in the government. They also control a lot of the business sector and seem to have a higher income than other Iranians. This movement has been co-opted by pan-Turkish fascists for opportunistic reasons, but it’s not really going anywhere. The CIA is now cynically trying to stir it up with little success. The movement is peaceful.

There is a Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, but language has little to do with it. These fiercely independent people sit on top of a very rich land which is ruthlessly exploited by Punjabis from the north. They get little or no return from this natural gas wealth. Further, this region never really consented to being included in the Pakistani state that was carved willy-nilly out of India in 1947.

It is true that there are regions in the Caucasus that are rebelling against Russia. Given the brutal and bloody history of Russian imperial colonization of this region and the near-continuous rebellious state of the Muslims resident there, one wants to say they are rebelling against Imperial Russia.

Chechnya is the worst case, but Ingushetia is not much better, and things are bad in Dagestan too. There is also fighting in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. These non-Chechen regions are getting increasingly radicalized as consequence of the Chechen War. There has also been a deliberate strategy on the part of the Chechens to expand the conflict over to the other parts of the Caucasus.

Past rebellions were often pan-Caucasian also. Although very different languages are spoken in these areas, different languages are still spoken all across Russia. Language has little to do with these conflicts, as they have more to do with Russian imperialism and colonization of these lands and the near 200-year violent resistance of these fierce Muslim mountain tribes to being colonized by Slavic infidels.

There is not much separatism in the rest of Russia.

Tuva reserves the right to split away, but this is rooted in their prior history as an independent state within the USSR (Tell me how that works?) for two decades until 1944, when Stalin reconquered it as a result of the conflict with the Nazis. The Tuvans accepted peacefully.

Yes, the Tuvans speak a different tongue, but so do all of the Siberian nations, and most of those are still with Russia. Language has little to do with the Tuvan matter.

There is also separatism in the Bashkir Republic and Adygea in Russia. These have not really gone anywhere. Only 21% of the residents of
Adygea speak Circassian, and they see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. This conflict may have something to do with language. The Adygean conflict is also peripherally related the pan-Caucasian struggle above.

In the Bashkir Republic, the problem is more one of a different religion – Islam, as most Bashkirs are Muslim. It is not known to what degree language has played in the struggle, but it may be a factor. The Bashkirs also see themselves as overrun by Russian-speaking immigrants. It is dubious that the Bashkirs will be able to split off, as the result will be a separate nation surrounded on all sides by Russia.

The Adygean, Tuvan and Bashkir struggles are all peaceful.

The conflict in Georgia is complex. A province called Abkhazia has split off and formed their own de facto state, which has been supported with extreme cynicism by up and coming imperialist Russia, the same clown state that just threatened to go to war to defend the territorial integrity of their genocidal Serbian buddies. South Ossetia has also split off and wants to join Russia.

Both of these reasonable acts prompted horrible and insane wars as Georgia sought to preserve its territorial integrity, though it has scarcely been a state since 1990, and neither territory ever consented to being part of Georgia.

The Ossetians and Abkhazians do speak separate languages, and I am not certain why they want to break away, but I do not think that language has much to do with it. All parties to these conflicts are majority Orthodox Christians.

Myanmar is a hotbed of nations in rebellion against the state. Burma was carved out of British East India in 1947. Part of Burma had actually been part of British India itself, while the rest was a separate colony called Burma. No sooner was the ink dry on the declaration of independence than most of these nations in rebellion announced that they were not part of the deal.

Bloody rebellions have gone on ever since, and language has little or nothing to do with any of them. They are situated instead on the illegitimacy of not only the borders of the Burmese state, but of the state itself.

Thailand does have a separatist movement, but it is Islamic. They had a separate state down there until the early 1800’s when they were apparently conquered by Thais. I believe they do speak a different language down there, but it is not much different from Thai, and I don’t think language has anything to do with this conflict.

There is a conflict in the Philippines that is much like the one in Thailand. Muslims in Mindanao have never accepted Christian rule from Manila and are in open arms against the state. Yes, they speak different languages down in Mindanao, but they also speak Tagalog, the language of the land.

This just a war of Muslims seceding because they refuse to be ruled by infidels. Besides, this region has a long history of independence, de facto and otherwise, from the state. The Moro insurgency has little to nothing to do with language.

There are separatist conflicts in Indonesia. The one in Aceh seems to have petered out. Aceh never agreed to join the fake state of Indonesia that was carved out of the Dutch East Indies when the Dutch left in 1949.

West Papua is a colony of Indonesia. It was invaded by Indonesia with the full support of US imperialism in 1965. The Indonesians then commenced to murder 100,000 Papuans over the next 40 years. There are many languages spoken in West Papua, but that has nothing to do with the conflict. West Papuans are a racially distinct people divided into vast numbers of tribes, each with a separate culture.

They have no connection racially or culturally with the rest of Indonesia and do not wish to be part of the state. They were not a part of the state when it was declared in 1949 and were only incorporated after an Indonesian invasion of their land in 1965. Subsequently, Indonesia has planted lots of settler-colonists in West Papua.

There is also a conflict in the South Moluccas , but it has more to do with religion than anything else, since there is a large number of Christians in this area. The South Moluccans were always reluctant to become a part of the new fake Indonesian state that emerged after independence anyway, and I believe there was some fighting for a while there. The South Moluccan struggle has generally been peaceful ever since.

Indonesia is the Israel of Southeast Asia, a settler-colonial state. The only difference is that the Indonesians are vastly more murderous and cruel than the Israelis.

There are conflicts in Tibet and East Turkestan in China. In the case of Tibet, this is a colony of China that China has no jurisdiction over. The East Turkestan fight is another case of Muslims rebelling against infidel rule. Yes, different languages are spoken here, but this is the case all over China.

Language is involved in the East Turkestan conflict in that Chinese have seriously repressed the Uighur language, but I don’t think it plays much role in Tibet.

There is also a separatist movement in Inner Mongolia in China. I do not think that language has much to do with this, and I believe that China’s claim to Inner Mongolia may be somewhat dubious. This movement is unarmed and not very organized.

There are conflicts all over India, but they don’t have much to do with language.

The Kashmir conflict is not about language but instead is rooted in the nature of the partition of India after the British left in 1947. 90% of Kashmiris wanted to go to Pakistan, but the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu, and he demanded to stay in India.

The UN quickly ruled that Kashmir had to be granted a vote in its future, but this vote was never allowed by India. As such, India is another world-leading rogue and scofflaw state on a par with Israel and Indonesia. Now the Kashmir mess has been complicated by the larger conflict between India and Pakistan, and until that is all sorted out, there will be no resolution to this mess.

Obviously India has no right whatsoever to rule this area, and the Kashmir cause ought to be taken up by all progressives the same way that the Palestinian one is.

There are many conflicts in the northeast, where most of the people are Asians who are racially, often religiously and certainly culturally distinct from the rest of Indians.

None of these regions agreed to join India when India, the biggest fake state that has ever existed, was carved out of 5,000 separate princely states in 1947. Each of these states had the right to decide its own future to be a part of India or not. As it turned out, India just annexed the vast majority of them and quickly invaded the few that said no.

“Bharat India”, as Indian nationalist fools call it, as a state, is one of the silliest concepts around. India has no jurisdiction over any of those parts of India in separatist rebellion, if you ask me. Language has little to do with these conflicts.

Over 800 languages are spoken in India anyway, each state has its own language, and most regions are not in rebellion over this. Multilingualism with English and Hindi to cement it together has worked just fine in most of India.

Sri Lanka’s conflict does involve language, but more importantly it involves centuries of extreme discrimination by ruling Buddhist Sinhalese against minority Hindu Tamils. Don’t treat your minorities like crap, and maybe they will not take up arms against you.

The rebellion in the Basque country of Spain and France is about language, as is Catalonian nationalism.

IRA Irish nationalism and the Scottish and Welsh independence movements have nothing to do with language, as most of these languages are not in good shape anyway.

The Corsicans are in rebellion against France, and language may play a role. There is an independence movement in Brittany in France also, and language seems to play a role here, or at least the desire to revive the language, which seems to be dying.

There is a possibility that Belgium may split into Flanders and Wallonia, and language does play a huge role in this conflict. One group speaks French and the other Dutch.

There is a movement in Scania, a part of Sweden, to split away from Sweden. Language seems to have nothing to do with it.

There is a Hungarian separatist movement, or actually, a national reunification or pan-Hungarian movement, in Romania. It isn’t going anywhere, and it unlikely to succeed. Hungarians in Romania have not been treated well and are a large segment of the population. This fact probably drives the separatism more than language.

There are many other small conflicts in Europe that I chose not to go into due to limitations on time and the fact that I am getting tired of writing this post! Perhaps I can deal with them at a later time. Language definitely plays a role in almost all of these conflicts. None of them are violent though.

To say that there are separatists in French Polynesia is not correct. This is an anti-colonial movement that deserves the support of anti-colonial activists the world over. The entire world, evidenced by the UN itself, has rejected colonialism. Only France, the UK and the US retain colonies. That right there is notable, as all three are clearly imperialist countries. In this modern age, the value of retaining colonies is dubious.

These days, colonizers pour more money into colonies than they get out of them. France probably keeps Polynesia due to colonial pride and also as a place to test nuclear weapons and maintain military bases. As the era of French imperialism on a grand scale has clearly passed, France needs to renounce its fantasies of being a glorious imperial power along with its anachronistic colonies.

Yes, there is a Mapuche separatist movement in Chile, but it is not going anywhere soon, or ever.

It has little to do with language. The Mapudungan language is not even in very good shape, and the leaders of this movement are a bunch of morons. Microsoft recently unveiled a Mapudungan language version of Microsoft Windows. You would think that the Mapuche would be ecstatic. Not so! They were furious. Why? Oh, I forget. Some Identity Politics madness.

This movement has everything to do with the history of Chile. Like Argentina and Uruguay, Chile was one of the Spanish colonies that was settled en masse late. For centuries, a small colonial bastion battled the brave Mapuche warriors, but were held at bay by this skilled and militaristic tribe.

Finally, in the late 1800’s, a fanatical and genocidal war was waged on the Mapuche in one of those wonderful “national reunification” missions so popular in the 1800’s (recall Italy’s wars of national reunification around this same time). By the 1870’s, the Mapuche were defeated and suffered a devastating loss of life.

Yet all those centuries of only a few Spanish colonists and lots of Indians had made their mark, and at least 70% of Chileans are mestizos, though they are mostly White (about 80% White on average). The Mapuche subsequently made a comeback and today number about 9% of the population.

Because they held out so long and so many of them survived, they are one of the most militant Amerindian groups in the Americas. They are an interesting people, light-skinned and attractive, though a left-wing Chilean I knew used to chortle about how hideously ugly they were.

Hawaiian separatism is another movement that has a lot to do with colonialism and imperialism and little to do with language. The Hawaiian language, despite some notable recent successes, is not in very good shape. The Hawaiian independence movement offers nothing to non-Hawaiians (I guess only native Hawaiians get to be citizens!) and is doomed to fail.

Hawaiians are about 22% of the population, and they are the only ones that support the independence movement. No one else supports it. It’s not going anywhere. The movers and shakers on the island (Non-Hawaiians for the most part!) all think it’s ridiculous.

There are separatists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, but I doubt that language has much to do with it. Like the myriad other separatist struggles in the NE of India, these people are ethnically Asians and as such are not the same ethnicity as the Caucasians who make up the vast majority of the population of this wreck of a state.

This is another conflict that is rooted in a newly independent fake state. The Chittagong Hill Tracts were incorporated into Bangladesh after its independence from Pakistan in 1971. As a fake new state, the peoples of Bangladesh had a right to be consulted on whether or not they wished to be a part of it. The CHT peoples immediately said that they wanted no part of this new state.

At partition, the population was 98.5% Asian. They were Buddhists, Hindus and animists. Since then, the fascist Bangladesh state has sent Bengali Muslim settler-colonists to the region. The conflict is shot through with racism and religious bigotry, as Muslim Bengalis have rampaged through the region, killing people randomly and destroying stuff as they see fit. Language does not seem to have much to do with this conflict.

I don’t know much about the separatist struggle of the Moi in Vietnam, but I think it is more a movement for autonomy than anything else. The Moi are Montagnards and have probably suffered discrimination at the hands of the state along with the rest of the Montagnards.

Zanzibar separatism in Tanzania seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with language, but has a lot more to do with geography. Zanzibar is a nice island off the coast of Tanzania which probably wants nothing to do with the mess of a Tanzanian state.

The conflict also has a lot to do with race. Most residents of Zanzibar are either Arabs or descendants of unions between Arabs and Africans. In particular, they deny that they are Black Africans. I bet that is the root of the conflict right there.

There were some Talysh separatists in Azerbaijan a while back, but the movement seems to be over. I am not sure what was driving them, but language doesn’t seem to have been a big part of it. Just another case of new members of a fake new state refusing to go along for the ride.

There were some Gagauz separatists in Moldova a while back, but the movement appears to have died down. Language does seem to have played a role here, as the Gagauz speak a Turkic tongue totally unrelated to the Romance-speaking Moldovans.

Realistically, it’s just another case of a fake new state emerging and some members of the new state saying they don’t want to be a part of it, and the leaders of the fake new state suddenly invoking inviolability of borders in a state with no history!

In summary, as we saw above, once we get into Europe, language does play a greater role in separatist conflict, but most of these European conflicts are not violent. In the rest of the world, language plays little to no role in the vast majority of separatist conflicts.

The paranoid and frankly fascist notion voiced by rightwing nationalists the world over that any linguistic diversity in the world within states must be crushed as it will inevitably lead to separatism at best or armed separatism at worst is not supported by the facts.

10 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Aceh, Adygea, Africa, African, Americas, Amerindians, Applied, Arab Nationalism, Arab Racism, Arabs, Asia, Asian, Asians, Assyrians, Azerbaijan, Azeris, Bangladesh, Bangladeshis, Basques, Belgium, Blacks, Britain, Buddhism, Cameroon, Canada, Caucasus, Central Africa, Chechens, Chechnya, Chile, Chileans, China, Christianity, Circassians, Colonialism, Culture, East Africa, East Indians, Ethiopia, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, European, Europeans, Fascism, France, Georgia, Hinduism, Hispanics, History, Hungary, Immigration, Imperialism, India, Indonesia, Inner Mongolia, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Kashmir, Kurds, Linguistics, Mestizos, Middle East, Mixed Race, Morocco, Multilingualism, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, Near Easterners, New Guinea, North Africa, North America, Pacific, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesia, Quebec, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, Serbians, Settler-Colonialism, Shiism, Siberia, Sociolinguistics, Somalia, Somaliland, South America, South Asia, South Asians, South Ossetia, Southern Sudan, Spain, Spaniards, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sunnism, Sweden, Syria, Tanzania, Turkey, USA, USSR, Vietnam, War, West Africa, West Papua, Whites, Zanzibar

A Concise History of the Recent Russia-Georgia Conflict

Excellent comment from a commenter about the recent Russia-Georgia conflict.

Russia had peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia as part of the agreement with Georgia from the 1990′s after the South Ossetian had won their de facto independence. The present government of Georgia disavowed that earlier agreement.

When the Georgians and South Ossetians got into an artillery fight, the Georgians sent in their army. As part of that attack, they targeted the Russian peacekeepers, so the Russians sent in their army to defend their peacekeepers.

The Russians advanced into Georgia for two reasons, to knock out artillery that the Georgians were using to bombard South Ossetia and to separate the South Ossetians along with their allies the Abkhazian armies which had advanced into Georgia from the Georgians. Once that was accomplished after a couple of days, the Russians retreated back to their former positions.

However, the Russians then took the step of recognizing the South Ossetia and their allies, the Abkhazians, and so now Russia has upgraded the Russian forces in these places from peacekeepers to combat troops, so they now have a couple of infantry regiments along with some artillery and AA weapons stationed there.

Sums it up quite well, I think. It is true that Russia plays geopolitics as far as secession is concerned, recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia and not their own Chechnya nor their allies’ Kosovo. But the USSR did let all of those republics go in the first place, one of the most progressive acts of recognition of self-determination that the world has ever seen.

Georgia has staked out a place since independence as hostile to Russia, for whatever reasons. For that reason, Russia supported the secessionists in Georgia. If Georgia would not have been hostile, then Russia probably would not have done that.

As someone who supports self-determination, I am happy that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are having their rights recognized. I believe that South Ossetia wants to join North Ossetia as “Ossetia” and become a part of Russia like North Ossetia is. Abkhazia, I believe, wants to become an independent country.

A commenter noted that Russia is trying to control that part of the world in order to control Europe. But the USSR controlled that part of the world for 74 years, and they never controlled Europe. I think that Russia just wants friends in that part of the world.

It is the US and some East Europeans who are treating Russia as a hostile nation, for no apparent reason, as Russia means us no harm and is not an enemy state; if fact, it wishes to be an ally. We along with our East European friends are surrounding Russia with bases and stationing defensive missiles in Poland. Both of those are hostile acts directed at Russia.

US imperialism is paranoid. It sees enemies where they do not exist and wishes to dominate as much of the globe as possible for unknown reasons, possibly as a form of modern mercantilist warfare to increase the profit share of US corporations and the wealth of America vis a vis the rest of the world. As the rest of the world is impoverished, the wealth of US imperialism is increased. US imperialism relies on the principle of vassal states of the US along with tributaries or supply lines to control the trade of the vassals and the US.

Russia does not have a hostile, beggar thy neighbor type imperialist project going on. Why this is I am not so sure, but possibly it is a residual holdover effect from the USSR. Russia seeks allies, and you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours relationships.

They have their own self-interest only in that they do not wish to be screwed by the machinations of US imperialism, which is trying to screw them out of markets and regional influence, in addition to threatening them with surrounding them with military bases and hostile states. Russia seeks co-existence, not domination.

I assume that the US’ hostility to Russia dates back to Soviet days. Even though the USSR fell and Russia entered the capitalist sphere, we still regard them as a hostile country due to the past.

But then US imperialism is very aggressive anyway. The super-imperialists around the neoconservatives, Rumsfeld and Cheney even said that Europe not an ally but a hostile competitor (“Old Europe”). They have written papers on the need to screw Europe out of various markets and whatnot. These papers treat Old Europe as an enemy region.

I suppose that an imperialist capitalist country can have no allies. The stage of US imperialism was set in the Truman Administration when George Kennan said that the US controls of 24% of the world’s economy, and it’s the duty of the security state to see that that gross maldistribution is not lessened even one percentage point.

If the world gets fairer and we don’t get such a huge slice of the pie anymore, the rest of the world gets richer and we get relatively poorer. It’s a fight over slices of pie. We get rich by keeping others poor. As others increase their share of the pie and get richer, we lose and get poorer. So US imperialism is dedicated to keeping the rest of the world poorer vis a vis the US in order to preserve our often ill-obtained wealth.

16 Comments

Filed under Abkhazia, Conservatism, Eurasia, Europe, Georgia, History, Imperialism, Modern, Near East, Neoconservatism, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia, South Ossetia, US, US Politics, USSR, War

Why Did Russia Fight a War in Georgia Recently?

A new commenter writes:

The reason the US has military bases to surround Russia is to make sure it doesn’t grow powerful enough to pose a threat to the US. Remember the Russian-Georgian war of 2008? It was no coincidence the Russians sent in forces to overtake Georgia, which would provide Russia with a strategic position and a strategic buffer in the Caucasus.

Thanks for your comment.

Russia did not send in forces to overtake Georgia. It’s not true. I do not agree that the US is doing this to make sure that Russia does not get too powerful to pose a threat to the US. Since when is Russia going to pose a threat to the US? I don’t buy it. As soon as the USSR broke up, we started surrounding the new Russia, just like that. And they were our friends.

 

Russia does not like Georgia because it is pro-US. They have been working with the US to extend NATO and surround Russia. They’re hostile to Russia, bottom line, and pro-NATO and pro-US. So Russia sees them as a threat. Russia wants friends on its borders, not enemies. South Ossetia has broken away from Georgia. Georgia will not accept this and has been threatening them since they declared independence. Georgia finally attacked South Ossetia to bring it back into the fold. Russia went in to help the South Ossetians to preserve their right to self-determination.

7 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, Georgia, Near East, Regional, Russia, South Ossetia, USSR, War