|
|
Post by aca on Sept 22, 2006 20:19:17 GMT 3
I wander what was the background of that article?  If Nazarbayev has something on his mind, then may I suggest that they make for him a copy of Bilge-kagan's crown. It would be the most appropriate one, wouldn't it? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Sept 22, 2006 21:28:38 GMT 3
Tribes only divided us when we joined it was under a great ruler who conquered the other tribes(waging) or when we were under attadk by outsiders
|
|
|
|
Post by Bor Chono on Dec 8, 2006 12:24:34 GMT 3
Mongolian Communist & Democratic parties ofthen use Artists(=Musicions) during vote. I guess most artists are for democracy. However I think many keep middle, cuz parties pay money.  In this pic : famouse Mongolian Rock band HARANGA(=well...not good word! means "Alert" & "Cry") is playing for Democratic party. I guess most artist say we are not for politics we are for vote.(well...I`m for the person only) |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 11, 2008 11:30:48 GMT 3
U mean Democracy? Well it seems like it is going well In Mongolia. Also Corruption.  LOL! 500% agreed, the way you express your opinion sometimes is both entertaining and factual heh Ne ways on topic Steppes operated on 3 words: 1) militaristic 2) meritocratic 3) classism 1) Militaristic - everyone knows in democratic societies the military and civilian law are kept apart. However, do note that those governed by military law are generally more disciplined, intelligent and wise then those governed by civilian law. Also is closer to nature - where the worthy rule and the weak follow. 2) Meritocratic - you don't have much meritocracy in supposedly democratic nations as you may think. We are the inventors of meritocracy, the world still can't emulate us despite many, many attempts. Our people were all warriors at heart, and as a militaristic society those who are worthy to lead are chosen or promoted and succeed those who led. Our leaders became leaders based on merit, not based on running around stamping as many posters promoting your propaganda as best you can (democracy - pathetic). 3) Classism - those who are strong lead, and those who are weak follow. Simple law of nature, perfected by just letting things be and not follow such an illusion of individual 'equality'. You let the morons lead the nation you'll destroy yourselves. You have to make sure those who lead are those that those who deserve to rule. This is classism sure, but it is MERITOCRATIC classism we upheld. I believe this is the system we should continue to use even in the 21st century cause heck - I live in a democratic country (Australia), I don't believe it at all. Idiots are put in the lead, like John Howard wiping America's ass (Although Americans did help the Hazaras), or Enkhbayar of Mongolia leading a corrupt government. Screw democracy, adopt our centuries old meritocracy. Doesn't mean we'll be leaving in the past, but we will be evolving ancient meritocracy to modern meritocracy which has many benefits as described above. |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 11, 2008 14:02:36 GMT 3
Wise and so true words indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 12, 2008 0:22:09 GMT 3
LOL! 500% agreed, the way you express your opinion sometimes is both entertaining and factual heh Ne ways on topic Steppes operated on 3 words: 1) militaristic 2) meritocratic 3) classism 1) Militaristic - everyone knows in democratic societies the military and civilian law are kept apart. However, do note that those governed by military law are generally more disciplined, intelligent and wise then those governed by civilian law. Also is closer to nature - where the worthy rule and the weak follow. 2) Meritocratic - you don't have much meritocracy in supposedly democratic nations as you may think. We are the inventors of meritocracy, the world still can't emulate us despite many, many attempts. Our people were all warriors at heart, and as a militaristic society those who are worthy to lead are chosen or promoted and succeed those who led. Our leaders became leaders based on merit, not based on running around stamping as many posters promoting your propaganda as best you can (democracy - pathetic). 3) Classism - those who are strong lead, and those who are weak follow.[/u] Simple law of nature, perfected by just letting things be and not follow such an illusion of individual 'equality'. You let the morons lead the nation you'll destroy yourselves. You have to make sure those who lead are those that those who deserve to rule. This is classism sure, but it is MERITOCRATIC classism we upheld. I believe this is the system we should continue to use even in the 21st century cause heck - I live in a democratic country (Australia), I don't believe it at all. Idiots are put in the lead, like John Howard wiping America's ass (Although Americans did help the Hazaras), or Enkhbayar of Mongolia leading a corrupt government. Screw democracy, adopt our centuries old meritocracy. Doesn't mean we'll be leaving in the past, but we will be evolving ancient meritocracy to modern meritocracy which has many benefits as described above.[/quote] this is interesting, what you describe is more or less Facism, yet in the other thread you condemned Nazis... read particularly the part i highlighted, it is the core of nazist thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 12, 2008 2:10:11 GMT 3
Wrong - you misunderstand me entirely.
Nazist thinking has no meritocracy, the followers are exterminated with no chance to even prove themselves to be promoted into leadership. All for the wrong reasons even. Nazism is racialist as well, Meritocracy is not. Classism has been in all cultures since the dawn of time, but our way is the meritocratic way.
The general I was named after - is one example, and became one of the most famous generals in history. This is steppe meritocracy, it is not nazism. Those who are leaders lead, those who are followers follow. And even those who are 'conquered', became the conqueror in the grand goal for human unity.
It is not Nazism, do NOT confuse our way with Nazism. Nazism screwed more then a few things up. It even screwed up the word "Aryan", it screwed up the meaning of what you underlined in my quote. I say again - do NOT confuse our way with Nazism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 13, 2008 0:07:27 GMT 3
Nazis also somewhat practiced meritocracy but not very well. contrary to Soviets generals were never purged if they were unsucessfull and some foreign generals also served directly in the German armed forces, ex-Soviet general Vlasov for example and ex-Romanian general Phleps in the Waffen SS. Manstein for example was of Polish extraction (his real surename was Lewinski), Guderians ancestors were Armenians and Admiral Canaris from the passive military ressistance was of Greek origin. however most generals were from the prussian aristocracy and only few (like Rommel) were not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 13, 2008 7:15:33 GMT 3
Really? Well was there ever a Jewish general? Heh
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 13, 2008 22:46:55 GMT 3
Nazis also somewhat practiced meritocracy but not very well. contrary to Soviets generals were never purged if they were unsucessfull and some foreign generals also served directly in the German armed forces, ex-Soviet general Vlasov for example and ex-Romanian general Phleps in the Waffen SS. Manstein for example was of Polish extraction (his real surename was Lewinski), Guderians ancestors were Armenians and Admiral Canaris from the passive military ressistance was of Greek origin. however most generals were from the prussian aristocracy and only few (like Rommel) were not. Wow, I didn't know these  |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 14, 2008 1:20:19 GMT 3
Really? Well was there ever a Jewish general? Heh Frederick the Great had a Jewish general and i heard Liman von Sanders was supposedly Jewish. |
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 14, 2008 1:26:03 GMT 3
Yes but that was before the Nazi era of Germany yes? Interesting though
|
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jun 16, 2008 1:01:47 GMT 3
Was von Sanders Jewish?
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 16, 2008 23:49:38 GMT 3
i'm not sure but it seems so.
|
|
