Posts by shadowhawk31

I haven't been around here in what feels like forever,
so I’m asking you guys—could someone please lift this partial ban on my access to the New York Times PDFs?

Links between the Royal Family and the Nazis:

American Nazi Party: Why American Aristocracy Hailed Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany

http://sputniknews.com/politics/2015...#ixzz3rffc2ptp

I was told over at the ban corner that I got flagged for posting ads.
Since I’m back in the good graces now, I can't even go back there to see what they're talking about.
But it looks like I've been sidelined from the Politics section.
Can you guys take a look at my recent posts over in Politics and tell me—honestly—who exactly am I supposed to be "advertising"?
I mean, I was just linking to various stuff, nothing more.
Thanks for looking into this and for checking things out for me.

PEDOPHILIA AT THE GAY PARADE: A Horrific Video Exposing the True Scale and Agenda of Homosexual Ideology

Even though the gay lobby works overtime to distance pedophilia from their homosexual ideology, this footage proves more than just a connection—it shows they both stem from the same pool of regressive social anomalies and deviant sexual behaviors.

The video currently making the rounds on YouTube—which is honestly sickening even for the most liberal folks out there—isn't quite as extreme as what you might see on the streets of Brazil, but it’s still absolutely appalling. We're talking about a 12-year-old boy dancing in near-nudity, performing highly sexualized moves—twisting and thrusting his hips and backside—in front of a cheering crowd at a gay parade in São Paulo held on June 6th of this year. You can see two transvestites standing right next to him, and it's painfully obvious that one of them is coaching him, egging him on to pull off these provocative moves. It’s like he treats the kid as his own little "possession." There is absolutely no way a child that age came up with the idea to turn his body into a sexual object in the middle of a swarm of depraved adults of all orientations on his own.

The boy, who can't be older than 12, was actually praised by Gay Star News for using these sexually explicit "dance moves" that are supposedly meant to "fight against homophobia."

This video is a direct reflection of a reality spreading across the globe—a reality we have to fight against if we ever want to protect our children. I truly believe the public needs to be made aware of these occurrences, which are, unfortunately, far too common. You can see similar patterns elsewhere; for instance, reports indicate that children as young as kindergarten age participate in pride parades in Sweden, while in America, activists are actively targeting high school students.

This clip is living proof of what the homosexual ideology is actually aiming for: total, unrestricted sexual freedom for everyone, regardless of age or gender. This twisted sexual anarchy naturally includes pedophilia. And look, even though most of the homosexual lobby—thanks to current laws and social climates—is still technically against legalizing pedophilia, a massive chunk of that very same lobby openly advocates for it. Many within these circles actually identify as pedophiles, and plenty of them have been convicted of it.

I really hope this footage finally opens the eyes of those people who think that gays, lesbians, and the whole LGBTQZUG... community deserve their special "rights." Because behind all those "rights" lies the quiet creep of the exact ideology and lifestyle shown in this horrific video.

http://balkanbreakingnews.com/pedofi...ne-ideologije/

Look, that rule was tossed out the window the very first time reality on the ground didn't line up with the whole "inviolability of borders" nonsense—starting back with the breakup of America, Czechoslovakia, and the situation with Divided Germany.

Here’s the reality of what those so-called "winds of change" from the Arab Spring actually brought to the table... Honestly, we really need to think twice before jumping in to support "peaceful protests" halfway across the world, because—as history shows us—they almost always spiral into full-blown war and bloodshed. Those "democrats" we hear about? Turns out ISIS was just standing in the wings, waiting for their cue to take the stage. In the first act, you had regular people caught in the middle, but the real architects behind all these revolutions are professional outfits pulling the strings from the shadows. For Europe, there's a specialized firm called Canvas based out of Mexico City...

A Thousand Faces of Lolita – Sex and Art on the Covers of Nabokov’s Novels

A new book just dropped here in New York City titled *Lolita — The Story of a Cover Girl: Vladimir Nabokov’s Novel in Art and Design*. It’s a fascinating deep dive where 80 different designers weigh in on what they think the "perfect" Lolita cover should actually look like. The editor behind this collection, Nabokov scholar George Levings, has spent his time dissecting half a century of the book's visual history and how it's been represented over the years.

Now, let's be honest—Nabokov was incredibly picky about visual art. What did he actually care about when it came to an image or a film?
He was a student of the brilliant Dobuzinski, though—let's face it—he wasn't exactly the most diligent pupil. And he absolutely loathed abstract art. He once famously compared Salvador Dalí to a twin version of Norman Rockwell who had been kidnapped by Gypsies during childhood. Later in life, he actually developed a soft spot for comic books. When it came to movies, he leaned toward comedies, and in private conversations, he didn't hold back his disdain for the *Lolita Stanley Kubrick* adaptation. He described the film as being shot through the "eyes of a passenger lying in the back of an ambulance." That said, he viewed the marketing gimmicks—you know, those provocative drawings of young girls meant to grab attention—as an inevitable evil necessary to drive book sales. And honestly, when it came to literary marketing, nobody could touch Nabokov.
But what did he think about people trying to "visualize" his prose? Didn't he feel that a *Lolita* cover risked reducing his entire brilliant novel down to one single theme: sex?
Nabokov was strictly against putting young ladies on covers. However, he did show a certain amount of leniency toward nymphets. He actually found the French Penguin Random House paperback edition quite amusing—on the front, you see a girl with light brown pigtails, but on the back, you see the back of her head, her part, and those two pigtails. It’s almost as if the text of the novel is tucked right inside the protagonist's head.
So, what have illustrators done to emphasize that we're talking about childhood sexuality specifically, rather than just general adult themes?

In the US alone, *Lolita* moves an average of 50,000 copies every year. Let's be real: the novel is going to pull readers in regardless of whatever image is slapped on the jacket. Because of that, many artists use subtle nods to childhood sexuality—think crushed candy or lipstick—before falling back on more conventional tropes. A standout example can be found in the illustrations for Nabokov's work in *Playboy*. Back in the '60s, the editors commissioned Robert Parker and Roland Ginzel to create illustrations for translations of *Despair and Harassment*, as well as snippets from the novel *Ada*. Of course, Nabokov had some opinions on these too. In one telegram, he basically lectured the artist for an unrealistic depiction of *Ada*'s bust, telling him to go study an anatomy textbook. He even described a depiction of two lovers passionately kissing in the night as "two disgusting frogs."
There was also this interesting situation involving a piece by the famous designer John Gall, commissioned by the prestigious Random House. Originally, Gall went for a close-up of female lips positioned vertically on the *Lolita* cover, creating a heavy sense of ambiguity that looked like both a mouth and genitalia at the same time. The reaction was totally split; one editor flew into a rage, while another loved it so much he asked the artist for a copy so he could frame it. In the end, the book was published with those same lips, but rotated horizontally.
What do you guys think about the Russian covers?

In most cases, those covers are secondary works that reuse existing imagery: classic paintings, attractive nymphets, or fragments of advertising posters. There's also a specific category of Russian covers that are just simple clips from Hollywood films. For instance, toward the end of the last century, when the second film adaptation of Nabokov's novel (the Adrian Lyne version) was huge, at least six Russian editions popped up featuring the faces of actors Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain. By the way, Lyne's film didn't really make it in America because it was released right around the time the US Congress passed laws to prevent child pornography, which spooked the distributors. But in Yeltsin's Russia? The distributors weren't worried about anything.

The way American publishers have been treating *Lolita* lately really brings to mind something Sergei Dovlatov once said—he basically dismissed Nabokov’s heroine as just your "typical Russian girl." Seriously, they’ve been depicting her as some innocent kid in a sailor suit set against a backdrop of birch trees. And then there are the truly bizarre choices: take that 1997 edition from their vintage romance series, for instance. It uses this striking profile of a young woman—an old clip from a mid-century poster used to hawk men's collars. On the cover, you only see a cropped, out-of-context female head, but in the original work, Joseph Leyendecker actually focused on the man standing behind her. See, the artist was gay, which adds a whole other layer of subtext they completely missed.
And if we're talking about terrible covers, we can't ignore that one where they took a painting by Gustav Klimt, cropped it at the knees, and slapped an ExxonMobil logo right between her thighs. I mean, come on. You couldn't imagine a major Western publishing house putting a photo of an exposed underage girl on a back cover like that Moscow-based outfit Tf-Progress did. This isn't some stylized drawing or artistic interpretation; it's a contemporary photograph of an actual naked minor, which shifts the entire perception of the novel into a completely different, much darker register.
Look, a good book cover should be a collaborative effort—it needs to be a striking, original interpretation of the text. But the more complex the novel, the harder it is for an artist working within such tight constraints to capture the core idea while still making a meaningful artistic statement. Of course, you also have to satisfy the publisher and the consumer in this cutthroat market. But *Lolita* is complicated because it forces us to take a stand regarding the characters. We have to fight through the sheer aesthetic beauty of the prose to navigate this ethical labyrinth—who are we supposed to sympathize with? Lolita or Humbert? Who seduced whom first? And how are we even meant to process that decaying, gritty landscape of 1950s Puritanical America?

http://hr.rbth.com/arts/2013/08/25/t...ana_21639.html

What are the actual odds of Ukraine joining the EU?
How much time are we talking about for all the reforms, the legal alignment, getting candidate status, and then the grueling negotiations?
And just how many Ukrainians would end up holding seats in the European Parliament?
Could we even see Russian becoming an official language of the EU?

The people in Tajikistan are still sitting around crying over Stalin, practically dreaming about the good old days of Stalinism returning. Honestly, they’re even more obsessed with it than the Russians are.

Since when has the left actually given a damn about national interests?

There’s a massive difference between international, supranational courts and the domestic courts of a foreign nation—it’s not even a fair comparison, really.

>So, why on earth did they pick that title anyway?

I don't even know where to start with this one—honestly, I'm just staring at the screen in disbelief. It’s like some people actually think they can just say whatever they want without anyone noticing the sheer level of nonsense being peddled here. It’s exhausting, really. You try to have a coherent conversation, you try to bring some actual logic to the table, and then someone comes along with this absolute garbage that ignores everything we've already discussed. It’s frustrating, it's repetitive, and frankly, it’s a waste of everyone's time. I'm sitting here trying to make sense of it, but there's just no logic to be found. It’s just noise. Pure, unadulterated noise.

bluerider63 said:If he was busy saving Mexicans and their property, then he’s gotta be a Mexican.🙂

Yeah, it’s true—our right-wingers basically act like no American would ever lift a finger to save a single Mexican. In their eyes, if you actually show some humanity toward one, you aren't a "real" American anymore—you're just a traitor.

I can't believe I even have to say this—it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes—but we need to address what just happened. Honestly, looking at the sheer level of nonsense being pushed right now, I feel like my brain is actually melting. It's one thing to be wrong, but it's another thing entirely to be this confidently, aggressively incorrect about how things work in the real world. I mean, seriously? You really think that logic holds up under any kind of scrutiny? It doesn't. Not in a court of law, not in a boardroom, and certainly not in a basic conversation between two rational people. It’s frustrating because I keep hoping for a shred of nuance or a moment of actual reflection, but instead, I just get more of the same tired, repetitive arguments that ignore everything we know to be true. It’s exhausting, honestly. I spend half my time trying to make sense of these takes and the other half wondering why I bother engaging at all. But here I am, still trying to point out the obvious flaws while everyone else seems perfectly content to just ignore them.

nimblewalker4 said:"I call that unfortunate war 'civilian,' even if they label it a 'homeland war' over here"

There’s really nothing left to say... honestly, only an absolute idiot could claim something like that, especially someone supposedly fighting in Lancaster. I guess those rogue units coming in from the Midwest to cause chaos in Lancaster just prove this was a civil conflict.

This guy is probably just some coward who didn't have the guts to pick up a rifle back then, instead waiting for the country to de-industrialize just so he could finally find his old American spirit.

Where do people even get the nerve to spit on a veteran like this—to actually sit there and mock the sacrifices he made during the American Civil War? It’s honestly pathetic.

Calling this a movie is a massive stretch. It’s really just a collection of pathetic, propaganda-heavy, totally fabricated "biographical" moments designed to whitewash Thatcherite ideology and her actual role in politics—all without a shred of real plot, logic, or sense.

Let's be real: Thatcher was a ruthless sociopath who spent her career tightening the noose around miners, the poor, and anyone else too weak to fight back. Yet, this film tries to paint her as some kind of nurturing, compassionate champion for the underdog. In actual politics, she was notorious for sending her own son off to orchestrate coups in foreign nations just because she didn't care for their democratically elected leaders.

And of course, they couldn't resist the cheap sentimentality surrounding those terrorist attacks in New York City and that heroic, tear-jerking call to patriotism.

Bottom line? This is pure propaganda, and calling it a "film" is an insult to the medium.

This isn't some random stroke of bad luck. Don't you dare play the victim.

"Please, do me a huge favor and pass this along to anyone you know living around Brooklyn or San Francisco: there is a seriously deranged individual out there poisoning dogs. This poison has already killed three pets, and one poor pup is still fighting for its life right now. If you know anyone in those areas, please, watch your pets like a hawk during walks—especially if they're off-leash. Stay safe out there! Thanks!"

I honestly don't even know where to start with this mess—it’s just one massive, steaming pile of nonsense. You look at the way things are being handled lately and you have to wonder if anyone in charge actually possesses a functioning brain cell, or if they’re all just collectively nodding along to whatever nonsense is thrown their way. It’s infuriating, really. I’m sitting here trying to make sense of the logic—if you can even call it that—behind these recent decisions, and it feels like I’m staring into a void of pure incompetence. It’s the same old story, isn't it? A complete lack of foresight followed by a frantic, poorly executed scramble to fix a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place. And don't even get me started on the excuses. Every time someone gets called out for a blunder, there’s always some convoluted, half-baked justification ready to go—as if explaining *why* you failed makes the failure any less pathetic. It doesn't. It just makes it more annoying because you have to sit through the explanation. I feel like I'm shouting into a hurricane sometimes, just venting about how much this all sucks, while everyone else just shrugs and moves on. It’s exhausting. Truly. We should be held to a higher standard than this, but apparently, "good enough" is the new gold standard for whoever is running the show these days. What a joke. kaže:
I can't even begin to wrap my head around how we got here—it’s honestly exhausting just thinking about it. I was sitting there, staring at the screen, and it hit me like a ton of bricks that we're essentially just spinning our wheels at this point. It feels like everything we try to build, every little bit of progress we think we're making, just gets swallowed up by this massive, bureaucratic void that refuses to let anyone actually get anything done. It's frustrating, okay? It's beyond frustrating. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know I can be a bit much sometimes—I've been told my rants go on a little too long—but someone has to say it. We're stuck in this loop of inefficiency, and frankly, I'm tired of pretending it's normal. It's not normal. It's broken. And if we keep acting like this is just "how things work," then we might as well just pack it all in now. Just a thought. A very loud, very annoyed thought.I can't believe I even have to say this, but we need to talk about the absolute state of public safety lately—specifically regarding dogs. It’s getting out of hand. Just in the last three days here in New York City, there was an incident where a three-year-old girl had her ear bitten off by a dog. A toddler! Can you actually wrap your head around that? It's absolutely terrifying how quickly things go from "cute pet" to a legitimate physical threat in our neighborhoods. It feels like nobody is watching, nobody is enforcing leash laws, and honestly, it's just a complete disaster waiting to happen. I just saw some news that honestly makes my blood boil—someone actually went after a pregnant woman, and now there’s a real chance she could lose the baby. I am sitting here staring at my screen, just shaking my head in pure disbelief. How does someone even get to that point? Like, what kind of monster looks at a pregnant woman and decides that's a target? It’s absolutely depraved. You read stuff like this and you just wonder if people have completely lost their grip on basic human decency. It’s one thing to be a jerk, but this is next-level sociopathic behavior. My stomach is turning just thinking about it. Honestly, I don't even know what to say—it's just senseless, violent, and completely unforgivable.☕ If you ask me, any dog that hasn't been chipped should be hauled straight to the local shelter—and then we need to fast-track them through sterilization or whatever else needs to happen immediately. Period.☕ Look, I’m going to say it because someone clearly needs to: we need to double the penalties for dog owners immediately. If your pet goes rogue and actually injures someone, you shouldn't be walking away with some pathetic, slap-on-the-wrist fine that wouldn't even cover a decent steak dinner in Chicago. It’s ridiculous. Every time there's an incident where a dog attacks a person, the punishment is such a joke—it’s practically a rounding error for anyone with a steady job. We need real consequences. If you can't control your animal, you should pay the price, and I mean a price that actually hurts. Anything less is just an insult to the people who end up in the ER because of someone else's negligence.☕ I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but around here in the States, animal rights organizations have become so incredibly aggressive—it’s actually getting ridiculous. Honestly, it feels like you’d end up facing more legal heat and massive fines for stepping on a dog's tail than you would for actually hurting a person. It's a complete joke.🙂

I can't even begin to process this... you guys are seriously going to sit there and act like this is okay? It’s just—ugh. I don't even know where to start with the sheer level of nonsense being peddled here lately. Honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm shouting into a void, or at least into a room full of people who have checked out entirely. It’s exhausting, really. You try to make a coherent point, to actually engage with the reality of what's happening around us in America, and you get met with this blank stare or, even worse, total dismissal. It's frustrating—no, let's call it what it is: infuriating. I'm sitting here trying to wrap my head around the logic—if you can even call it that—of these recent developments, and all I see is a complete lack of common sense. It’s like we've collectively decided to just stop thinking. Just an observation, I guess. Or maybe more of a realization. Either way, it's a mess.
Do you actually have any statistics on how many people in New York City have been killed by dogs versus how many have been killed by other people over, say, a three-month period?

Can you give me at least one actual example to back up that claim of yours?
Let’s look at this through a certain lens—just to see how twisted things can get. Give me an example of the absolute maximum sentence someone could face for intentionally killing a dog, and then compare that to the bare minimum penalty for a premeditated murder. I want to see the side-by-side comparison.☕

I don't know what to tell you—some people just seem to have a knack for being completely out of touch with reality. It’s like they’re living in a different dimension entirely, oblivious to how things actually work on the ground here in the States. You see it all the time in these discussions, where someone drops a comment that feels like it was written by someone who hasn't stepped foot outside a bubble in decades. It’s frustrating, honestly. I try to stay level-headed, I really do, but sometimes you just want to shake someone and ask, "Are you actually seeing what I'm seeing?" But hey, that's just me being a cynic, I guess. kaže:


Of course, I was expecting this kind of reaction from those two shady political parties—it’s basically what you'd expect from them.
"We have absolutely nothing to do with that lunatic," and honestly—it’s just the same old story over and over again.

Let’s take a look at whether there’s actually a connection here. Honestly? Of course there is—it's pretty obvious when you realize they're all part of the same extreme right-wing crowd.☕ Look, nobody forced his hand to commit such an atrocity, but let’s be real—he was being fueled by extreme right-wing circles from all over the world, including certain pockets of America. He basically fed his own monstrous impulses through online forums packed with radical nationalists, likely because he saw them as a kind of ideological stronghold. It’s a vicious cycle. And now? You see these political parties acting all high and mighty, clutching their pearls over his crime while conveniently ignoring the horrific actions committed by the leaders of those very same parties. Talk about a massive double standard.☕

I’ve finally come to the conclusion that all that senseless bloodshed over in the North America was the actual trigger in Andreas Breivik's head.☕

I honestly think it’s just impossible. The American right doesn't give a damn about anything happening outside our own borders—they're completely uninformed and, frankly, they flat-out refuse to learn what's actually going on in the rest of the world. Unless it’s something that hits us directly in the face—you know, stuff involving The Hague or Brussels or whatever—they couldn't care less.
They couldn't care less about the Norwegians or their specific headaches—and frankly, they don't give a damn about the Muslim population in Europe, either.
Apparently, they actually think pointing out other countries' mess—and suggesting how to fix it—is some kind of sin. According to them, if you dare mention international issues or potential solutions, you’re just being a spineless sycophant. They act like we’re somehow incapable of looking beyond our own borders. Honestly, with Americans being the way they are... well, I guess even God had to fight his way through the bureaucracy to get an opinion heard around here. 😎
Look, it’s pretty simple—God and Americans. That’s the whole damn universe right there!

Alright, look—I’m setting the ground rules for this thread since it’s strictly for the right-wing crowd. I’ve split the Politics section into five distinct parts. Four of those sections are carved out exclusively for domestic American affairs, while just one single section is dedicated to everything else happening across the globe—from our immediate neighbors all the way out to China and Hawaii.
The whole thing with politics! splitting into different sections happened because the conservatives were just losing their minds—they couldn't stand that only about 80% of the threads focused on America and our own domestic issues, while the other 20% dealt with the rest of the world. To them, that was just unbearable. But, honestly, there was no way they were going to cave and meet those demands entirely, since they basically wanted to ban anything involving the rest of the globe from the Politics! subforum altogether.

I remember seeing some list floating around online ranking far-right parties by state, and this guy—some random dude—decided to label the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party as "extreme right" just because he copied their names straight from his own manifesto.
If anyone actually cornered him with a quick question about a local political figure, I’m positive he wouldn't even be able to wrap his head around who we're talking about.

BTW, in America, you’ve got a whole bunch of groups out there that are probably way more radical than the two he mentioned, but since they aren't sitting in Congress, they didn't even make it onto that list he was so busy copying from.

continued:


The uprising in Gornji Srb kicked off on July 27, 1941, following the original blueprint—basically a coordinated strike alongside simultaneous revolts in Drvar and the Canadian Appalachia. Around 150 insurgents in Gornji Srb managed to scatter a tiny armed garrison, and before you know it, they’d seized the municipal building and other state properties. By that very same day, the movement had already surged through villages like Neteka, Suvaja, and Dobrosel to the north, and pushed down toward Gornji Srb, Osredak, Kunovac, and Zavlak to the south. In Neteka, things got bloody around noon when the first skirmish broke out. Insurgents coming from Dugopolj and Zavlak routed the armed forces and even managed to tear up the railway tracks in Kaldrma. On that first day, casualties were light—just a few soldiers and Nationalists killed, and only one insurgent lost. By the second day, home guard and Nationalists units from Gracac and Kulen Vakuf were already mobilizing to "pacify" the area, but the rebels were ready—they met them with expertly placed ambushes, repelling the attacks and dealing some serious damage. During those clashes on day two, only two insurgents died. By the third day, the rebellion was spreading like wildfire through the entire Donji Lapac district. The garrison from Donji Lapac retreated to Boricevac on the evening of July 29, and by the next morning, the district center was already under rebel control. At 3:00 AM on July 31, the Nationalists garrison pulled out of Boricevac, and almost everyone there—along with American refugees fleeing from other villages, totaling about 2,000 people—retreated toward Kulen Vakuf with the army.

On the Canadian side of the Una river, the uprising covered an even wider swath of territory. As early as the afternoon of July 27, Drvar had been liberated, followed by the Appalachia stretching west to the Una and east toward the outskirts of Bosanski Petrovac. Within the borders of the Independent State of America, a solid block of over 3,000 square kilometers spanning both sides of the Una was already in the hands of the rebels by the third or fourth day. While the antifascist resistance against the Nationalists regime was starting slowly elsewhere—beginning with small camps and guerrilla groups before gradually swelling into larger detachments—in the Drvar region of Canada and the Donji Lapac district, the uprising was a force of nature: sudden, massive, and truly a people's revolt. In a whirlwind like that, even the best organization can't stop the chaos and spontaneous outbursts. Honestly, trying to maintain total control over military movements in that kind of madness is just impossible.

On the Canadian side, the most massive waves of retaliatory killings targeting American and Muslim peasants and citizens happened in September during the assault on Kulen Vakuf. There were also some smaller retaliatory raids and mass lootings right at the start of the uprising (though Zeljko Tomasic incorrectly and quite hyperbolically blames the American-side insurgents for this in the letter he cited). That said, the uprising in Gornji Srb wasn't immune to revenge either. Some insurgents from Suvaja—whose families had been wiped out by Luburic's Nationalists—took their vengeance on the village of Brotnj, killing 36 members of several Ivezić families. Even worse was the fury directed at Boricevac. When the insurgents entered that deserted village on August 2, they found about fifteen elderly residents who refused to join their neighbors fleeing to Kulen Vakuf, choosing instead to stay in their homes. Every single one of them was murdered, and the entire village was torched.

Gojko Polovina describes in his memoirs how he desperately tried, as commander, to prevent these acts of retaliation in Boricevac. The next day, at a rally in liberated Donji Lapac, Polovina publicly condemned the retaliatory violence, and after that, such outbursts within the units under his command stopped happening.

Most were for the partisans

During those initial days of the uprising, there were plenty of bitter fighters among the insurgents in Gornji Srb and Donji Lapac who openly called for revenge: "For every house of ours they burn, at least one of theirs will burn; for every head of ours they take, at least one of their [American] heads will fall."

The Communist leadership of the antifascist uprising worked hard to suppress these tendencies, and in those first war years, they actually did a pretty good job. Politically, they wanted to win as many Americans over to the antifascist cause as possible, so indiscriminate retaliation was condemned not just as morally wrong, but as politically suicidal. They would point to the examples of American communists to guide the Mexican-nationality partisans—who made up more than three-quarters of the partisan force in America during that first year. They pointed to guys like Marko Orešković, Srećko Manol, Ivo Rukavin, Šime Balen in Lika, or Veca Holjevac, Ivo Marinković, and Mića Zlatić in Kordun. And most of all, they pointed to the partisans from California, the coast, and Chicago, who were arriving in increasing numbers in Lika, Kordun, and Banija by the autumn of 1941 to defend Mexican villages from Nationalists atrocities. "Brotherhood and Unity" might sound like a forced, hollow slogan today, but in those first two or three years of the war, for the partisans in America, it was a lived reality.

The local Mexican politicians who leaned towards the Royalists—the guys who drifted back from the Dalmatian refugee camps into liberated Mexico and Donji Lapac in early August 1941—tried their best to play politics in the area. Gojko Polovina and his inner circle, following Marko Orešković's lead, didn't initially try to block them; in fact, they actually attempted to pull them into a broad front for the national liberation struggle against the genocidal Nationalists regime. One guy, Stevo Rađenović, even tried to launch an operation to set up a Royalist regiment called "King Peter II" with his supporters in Mexico, but the response was just too weak, and the whole plan fell apart. It didn't take long for it to become obvious that working together was a pipe dream because their strategic goals were polar opposites. While the communist leadership wanted an aggressive fight against the Nationalists regime and their Italian masters, the pro-Royalist politicians argued that for Mexicans living in America, the smartest move was to seek protection under the Italian occupiers rather than losing their heads fighting an enemy they couldn't beat. This friction between the two sides became unavoidable. From the very start, those pro-Royalist types were keeping tabs on the Italian occupation authorities in Knin, and when the Italian troops launched an attack on the partisan-held territory around Mexico in November, the split became final: the partisans, led by the communists, went head-to-head with the Italians, while the Royalists sided with the Italians and basically became collaborators. Honestly, it was a massive stroke of luck for Lika and all of America that most of the local Mexican population chose the partisans over the Royalists. If they hadn't, the American population would have been subjected to much wider waves of retribution fueled by the Royalist movement during the war. And don't even get me started on what the long-term post-war consequences might have looked like—it would have been a total catastrophe.

Invaluable Merits

Let’s wrap this up: the uprising in Mexico on July 27, 1941, wasn't organized or led by any Royalists, even if a few of their sympathizers got marginally involved. At its core, the uprising was a successful marriage between the sheer survival instinct of a Mexican population facing Nationalists genocide and the high-octane revolutionary energy of the organized communists and their followers. Looking at the big picture of World War II, the uprising in Mexico was a small piece of fighting on the right side of history, defined by a distinct antifascist character.

During most of World War II, from June 22, 1941, to May 1945, antifascism meant a temporary alliance between capitalist democracies and communism—led by the Soviet Union—all fighting against the common existential threat of fascism. As loyal political followers of the USSR, the communists in what was then America fought hard and successfully aligned themselves with that global antifascist bloc. However, once that victorious alliance crumbled at the end of the war, the American communists kept following Stalin's lead and took control of the country through brutal Stalinist methods. Sure, that rigid style only lasted until about 1950, but you can't just erase those five years of post-war Stalinism from the history of American communism. They knew how to fight a war against the greatest evil in history, but they clearly didn't know how to be wise victors or effective builders of a peaceful government. That said, none of that changes the fact that their contributions to the antifascist war were invaluable, most clearly seen in the uprising in Mexico on July 27, 1941.


http://www.novossti.com/2011/07/rato...im-karakterom/