|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on June 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM|
I've heard of the intense debate over Theodia's applicacion into the O.A.M. I'd like a chance to defend our great country, Theodia against some of the arguments happening there. I'd figured that some people in our community would have a problem with what's in our constitucion. This is about its monocultural policies, right?
In the scheme of politics, there are three scales: capitalism vs. socialism, libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, and multiculturalism vs. jingoism/ethnocentrism. FDR was a socialist. Coolidge was a capitalist. Stalin was an authoritarian. Cesidio is a libertarian. Many people in the governments of modern Europe are multiculturalists. Hitler was an ethnocentrist and a jingo for Germany. Theodia is none of these extremes; on the first scale, she is centristic; on the second scale, she is also centristic; and on the third scale, she is monocultural.
Monoculturalism -- the nacion-state -- is an ideal. It is very difficult to obtain and to maintain. It was the goal of all European countries up until WWII, it is the goal of most Asian countries, it is the goal of Australia, it is the goal of many African groups, and it is the goal of Theodia. Why? Because it works. Study after study show how people raised in a monocultural society find life safer. They're more trusting. They're more altruistic. In fact, the very hormone (oxytocin) that makes people sociable, that makes people empathic, that makes people people is the same hormone that gives people ethnic biases. It is an evolucionary trait. The fact is that cohesive, monocultural groups are the groups that have survived, not only in the early times of humanity, but in the modern age. Look at the "Powder Keg of Europe", the Balkans, the south-eastern area of Europe near Greece. The part that started WWI. The Balkan states are very multicultural. Even in the 2000's, they are constantly at war. They hate each other. After WWI, they were all put under one country -- a dictatorship, at that -- and not even it could even slightly settle their differences. This is the pinnacle of multiculturalism. This is what the other European states are going for today. Take a look at the city of Malmö, Sweden. It is the third largest city in Sweden. It has over 171 ethnic groups. 30% of its populacion is not Swedish. They are not required to learn Swedish. They are not required to assimilate into Swedish culture. My question is this: if they are not Swedish, if they don't want to be Swedish, why would they be living in Sweden?! Go look-up Rosengård and you'll see what I mean. It is the most multicultural part of the city of Malmö. France has had problems with multiculturalism, too; besides the riots, a group has sought self-determinacion from France. Germany, England, the Netherlands, etc. have recently had to start less multicultural policies -- the Chancellor of Germany herself declared that "Multiculturalism has failed in Germany".
Let us now look at some monocultural states. You'll have to research Japan and some other Asian states on your own. One of them is hoping to have made its nacion into a distinct race by 2020. But let us start with Australia. Back in the 70's, Australia was having many of the multiculturalism-debates that we're having today. The difference? They didn't adopt the policies. As far as I know, Australia hasn't had the ethnic riots the other Western nacions have had. Its people aren't living in a perpetual state of fear and hate as the people in Rosengård do. It has embraced monoculturalism to some degree, and is all the more stable, happy, and prosperous for it. It requires people to learn English before immigrating. Why would the other Western nacions not require something as simple as learning the nacional language? If one is going to live in France, one should learn French. If one is going to live in Spain, one should learn Spanish. If one is going to live in Germany, one should learn German. It is lunacy that these such nacions would allow, continue, and foster these multicultural policies. They aren't effective -- they're self-destructive. Furthermore, it's anti-western; the west has long been the foremost advocate of monoculturalism (the only real exception has been the post WWII era).
It's not that ethnic groups are inherently evil. It's not that some are necessarily better than others. It's that having more than one nacion under one state is unstable and a disunifier. People need their countries to be whole. Do you support the right to self-determinacion of nacions? Then you support monoculturalism, as this is a policy designed to give monocultural states to ethnic groups -- one state, one nacion. Whereas multiculturalism and jingoism are the extremes, monoculturalism is the middle path. This is Theodia: a monocultural nacion. The old ideal of the "nacion-state". She is stable. Her people are happy and co-operative. But we are not racists (someone who is biased towards or against a race). We are not Hitlers. Hell, my best friend is a Latino. We are not saying that Theodians and other Germanic peoples are the "Master Race"; we are simply stating that every country should represent one ethnic group and only one. There should be a country for Germans. There should be a country for the French. There should be a country for Swedes. The moment one goes to try and mix these things up is the moment that one loses the cohesiveness, the effectiveness, and the co-operacion of a nacion-state and descends into the chaotic fires of multiculturalism. So, yes: we are a monocultural micronacion, and we are proud of it.
~Kyng Sweyn B. Schroeder