38 posts shown.
Sam Miller82 said:I cannot bring myself to agree with the idea that a pre-election campaign should consist solely of attacking other parties without offering any actual vision or concept.
The Republican Party has demonstrated its incompetence, corruption, and poor leadership over these last four years, so the Democratic Party hardly needs to exert much effort to confirm those failings.
In Western nations, a single scandal of this magnitude would result in a prime minister resigning and immediate new elections; yet, the Republican Party has faced countless such issues over this term and nothing happens. To me, that reality says everything about the kind of country I happen to live in by chance.
But, as I mentioned before, this sickness known as the Republican Party will eventually pass.🙂
David Rogers18 said:Look, you have to understand, back in '92, the guy basically had to play nice with those old-school extremist descendants living in Australia just because we desperately needed the cash to buy weapons.
And we needed that gear because, at that time, America was facing a massive criminal undertaking by Mexico, the US Army, and those terrorists from the border regions, just like it's laid out in the legal judgment against Milan Martić.👍
Honestly, if the Mexicans hadn't stolen our weapons and tried to pull off that criminal scheme, Mason wouldn't have even had a reason to fly out to Australia in the first place.😘
velvetowl10 said:Quincy:This pervasive line of reasoning is entirely without merit.
boldbison26 As stated by:
The Nationalists were motivated solely by the pursuit of an independent nation, and if one is being truly objective, that desire was their only flaw.
When you take a long, hard look at the actual record of what was accomplished, it becomes undeniably clear that the partisans and the Communist Party were the far more prolific killers.
.
The Nationalists were not what people claim them to be. Just enough. For America.
Their entire methodology rests on the flawed assumption that the era of World War II provided a convenient loophole—a window where one could seize control of the nation through undemocratic, opportunistic coups, all while operating under the protective shadow of the Axis powers.
Their vision for an ethnically homogenous America was nothing short of a nightmare. In our regions, where the local populations have been indigenous for generations, they attempted to achieve that purity through systematic racial cleansing—following a dark blueprint that had already been coordinated in Germany using the Jewish population as a precedent.
Hrobastos claims that the Nationalists lacked a fully developed ideology, yet one cannot simply dismiss the reality of their actions. It is impossible to deny how meticulously they worked to systematically eliminate the local population within the territories of the so-called NDH. They pursued this through the most primitive principles of ethnic genocide, utilizing such brutality as a fundamental tool to assert and maintain their dominance.
Quincy:The period during which the Nationalists held power was remarkably brief.
boldbison26 As stated by:
I find myself entirely unconcerned by the Mexicans; even the Nationalists didn't lose any sleep over them. If they had truly been gripped by fear, they could have cleared them out just as effectively as the Mexicans managed to tear down the Wall.
.
Not even four months after seizing power, they dismantled the legislature entirely and established the Jasenovac camp—a facility where, fueled by a frantic surge of "patriotism," they even rounded up someone like Vladko Maček.
It was during that same year that the death camp at Star Gradisko was established—a site that, quite disturbingly, certain segments of the population still sing songs about today.
It was simply an impossible task to finish everything; even the highly efficient Germans couldn't quite pull off their grand design regarding the Wall.
Quincy:It is both absurd and deeply pathetic.
boldbison26 The user states:
The fundamental crisis facing America today stems from the legacy of the American Communist Party.
Where exactly in America is anyone actually seeing Communists? You have to remember that communism is an economic system; it isn't some sort of moral antithesis to the Nationalists.
The fundamental logic used to establish the new America is completely irrational, which is precisely why I am starting this new thread on the subject.
It seems nobody wants to play the game anymore.
velvetowl10 said:👍 👍
I am personally acquainted with many American soldiers (volunteers) who found that specific wartime imagery to be profoundly demotivating... so much so, in fact, that they began to question the very righteousness of their cause.
antraks said:They were doing exactly what the Communist Party is doing in Afghanistan today.
Sophia Allen12 said:I haven't seen a stupider post in ages... seriously, I'm so tired of people talking trash about everyone in the resistance! Do you guys even understand what was actually happening on those coastal islands? Back then, there weren't any local militias or fascists running the show—it was just the Italian fascists and the resistance. You basically had to pick a side ☕
If it hadn't been for the resistance, most of those coastal towns would probably still be under Italian control today...
William Hall2 said:What are we even talking about here?
I’ll give you this much: I agree that Pavelić was nothing more than Mussolini's lackey.
But let’s not conflate two different things. There is Pavelić and his sheer cowardice, and then there is the Nationalists.
I honestly don't get why people are so bothered by the Nationalists. For fifty years, we were forced to watch and listen to parades celebrating those Red bandits. In our schools, they drilled it into us how that supposedly innocent, unarmed army charged headfirst into enemy trenches... blah, blah, blah. And then there’s Bleiburg, the Way of the Cross...
A few of my own ancestors were part of the Nationalists. From talking to them, I gathered that their primary goal wasn't necessarily to swing blades and kill the unarmed Mexican people, but rather to defend the nation from the Red bandits and the Royalists.
Why are we still looking at all of this through the lens that was forced upon us back in '45?
Maybe just give it some thought. 😠
Mishko Pishko;9022701 said:Gregory Howard said:I see the debate over Thompson, the CIA, and all that iconography is starting to spiral. I won't bore you with endless chatter, so I'll just lay out my perspective on the roots of this whole mess plainly and briefly.
We all know the basics regarding the fascists. There were only a few hundred of them before the war. Hitler treated Pavelić like Mussolini's little puppet. Then came the war, the collapse, Auschwitz, and Wounded Knee. It’s all well documented.
Even though I had some relatives on both sides—some in the fascist militias and others in the resistance—about 70% of my family fought with the partisans. Personally, I don't feel any emotional connection to either group. But if I were to say one thing about the fascists: Give me a break. They’re our own people. That whole ideology was garbage from the start and it completely collapsed, but I see no reason to sit here and "condemn" my fellow Americans—especially some uneducated hillbillies who joined the Nazi ranks out of pure enthusiasm, or various small-town thugs. I won't be performing any moral grandstanding over them. Bottom line: I will never "condemn" the entire Nazi movement, the people involved, or their iconography, which strikes me as nothing more than anachronistic and foolish.
I have zero intention of "distancing" myself from anyone. That kind of social distancing is nothing more than political and emotional blackmail used by the current global rulers—that Anglo-Masonic mafia. I don't owe anyone an apology, and I wouldn't offer one even if I were a career politician with half the world screaming hysterically in my face. Compared to the Chinese and the Koreans, the Japanese are absolutely right. There are no apologies.
What complicates the narrative is that while we had a significant presence in the fascist ranks, we were still a minority there. Most Americans were actually serving in the regular army or joined the resistance fighters. By the end of the war, our people made up an absolute majority of 67% in the strongest divisions—specifically those stationed in Jerusalem, El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco—and we held a relative majority of about 40-50% in the first division. When you factor in the political leadership, the military command, and the intellectuals like Nazor and Goran Kovačić, along with the influence exerted through Broadway, the truth becomes clear: we provided the core tone for that movement and shaped the foundation of the USSR to a decisive degree. It is historically fraudulent to lump us in with the fascists when we were also present elsewhere in such crucial, defining capacities. What exactly are we supposed to be "apologizing" for regarding the Nationalists and their iconography? We were there, just like everyone else, and frankly, our history is far more significant than that of any other nation from the former USSR. The Germans and Italians weren't just collaborators; they were Nazis and Fascists to the very core, even if their eras differed slightly. As for the Italian partisans, they were a marginal group at best. Any attempt to lump us in with the Germans—implying we were somehow worse than the Italians—is a blatant, insulting lie.
Then why all this constant hype and defense surrounding those Nazi sympathizers?
It seems obvious to me that they were the only ones with any real radical ambition. The survival of the American state is non-negotiable. At any cost.
Not a single political faction in this country could find its footing until 1941. Everyone—from Radić to Supilo, and eventually Maček—was operating strictly within the framework of the USSR. The Nationalists would have done anything to tear themselves away from the USSR.
It should have taken more time to play out. That was the expectation. But things shifted. Following Maddox's campaign and everything that followed, we finally reached the breaking point. Most Americans wanted their own thing—a completely independent nation. Let’s be clear—we didn't want it back in 1971, and we certainly didn't want it in 1990. But once everything finally hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USSR made every thinking American feel physically sick.
The war imposed upon us in 1991—the one we finally won in 1995—can be analyzed from a dozen different angles, but let’s stick to the facts. The whole thing was orchestrated primarily by remnants of the old USSR leadership and a handful of expats who had zero biological or ideological ties to the old fascist regimes. Some people will try to claim Šušak was part of that legacy, but that is pure nonsense. Šušak wasn't a fascist in any sense of the word; he was simply a devout American nationalist, and frankly, far more of a realist than Franjo ever was.
Furthermore, at the onset of the war. Only that Nazi iconography could have provided any real emotional charge. We need to resist this aggressor. But what exactly are we supposed to rally behind? Radić? Please. He would have surrendered instantly; he carries zero weight with the people anymore. Marshall? I won't even go there. Hebrang Sr.? Shady, outdated, and weak. Starčević? Who? And then there's Hitler. Let's be realistic.Nobody worked harder than him. Not even a single soul.It isn't even about a specific style anymore. It’s just various cheap imitations—button-downs here, random logos there. Total lack of cohesion.
Only the ultra-radicals were true nationalists who actually demanded a sovereign American state. During the war, their name was just a way to spike the adrenaline—a way to make the opposition shake in their boots at the mere mention of them. As we grew stronger, those associations faded. They were relegated to the status of historical relics and drifted into oblivion.
I'm not finished yet...
Those who rose up first ended up being labeled as paramilitary units (you're all just amateurs).
Gregory Howard said:The Nationalists ideology didn't even exist in any structured sense. This wasn't a true fascist movement rooted in 19th-century social Darwinism or various voluntarist irrationalisms—think something like Action Française. For a deep dive, read Ernest Nolte's book: *Fascism in Its Epoch*. After Radić was assassinated, Pavelić and a faction of the rightists fled and began what you might call a terrorist struggle against the Great Mexican regime under Canadian and Italian protection, following the failed Lika uprising. Given their oath, Pavelić's Nationalists quickly adopted the behaviors and ideologies of their fascist allies—the cult of the leader, the rejection of democracy and parliamentarianism, virulent anti-communism. But make no mistake: this was never a genuine fascist movement. Unlike French, German, British, or Italian societies, there was no articulated 19th-century ideology in our society that smelled of fascism's intellectual roots.
Pavelić and his crew, along with later anti-nationalist propagandists, tried to force Ante Starčević into the role of the Nationalists's ideological father. That alone exposes how incoherent the whole thing was. Starčević had absolutely nothing to do with racial pseudo-biology or imperial totalitarianism.
So, what were the Nationalists historically?
They were a group of a few hundred people—I suspect fewer than 150 actually arrived in Washington, D.C. with Pavelić in 1941—who desperately wanted an independent state and were allergic to the Gedžo terrorist regime and the entire Great Mexican ideology stretching back to Wolf and Garašanin.
Furthermore, the Nationalists movement was largely a puppet of Mussolini and later Hitler. Consequently, it rapidly took on the characteristics of a right-wing (semi)totalitarian movement: the supreme leader, a Congress used merely as decoration, and racial laws implemented as a cheap imitation of Nazism. Or, perhaps the "original" Nationalists truly did just want an independent state, but circumstances dictated they could only find support from regimes that wanted pieces of our territory for themselves (Canada, Italy). Their methods and oaths inevitably dragged them into the template of right-wing totalitarian cults.
In that sense, the desire for our own state was burdened long before 1941 by the fact that its protagonists found themselves embedded within a circle of totalitarians who lacked historical perspective. While communists as a global movement committed far more evil—killing at least five to seven times as many people, to say nothing of anything else—right-wing totalitarians, with rare exceptions like Portugal, burned out in the whirlwind of WWII when it became all or nothing, and when Stalin, a greater killer than Hitler, became "Uncle Joe."
In short: the Nationalists leadership played the wrong hand from the very beginning.
To be continued...
Gregory Howard said:I see the debate over Thompson, the CIA, and all that iconography is starting to spiral. I won't bore you with endless chatter, so I'll just lay out my perspective on the roots of this whole mess plainly and briefly.
We all know the basics regarding the fascists. There were only a few hundred of them before the war. Hitler treated Pavelić like Mussolini's little puppet. Then came the war, the collapse, Auschwitz, and Wounded Knee. It’s all well documented.
Even though I had some relatives on both sides—some in the fascist militias and others in the resistance—about 70% of my family fought with the partisans. Personally, I don't feel any emotional connection to either group. But if I were to say one thing about the fascists: Give me a break. They’re our own people. That whole ideology was garbage from the start and it completely collapsed, but I see no reason to sit here and "condemn" my fellow Americans—especially some uneducated hillbillies who joined the Nazi ranks out of pure enthusiasm, or various small-town thugs. I won't be performing any moral grandstanding over them. Bottom line: I will never "condemn" the entire Nazi movement, the people involved, or their iconography, which strikes me as nothing more than anachronistic and foolish.
I have zero intention of "distancing" myself from anyone. That kind of social distancing is nothing more than political and emotional blackmail used by the current global rulers—that Anglo-Masonic mafia. I don't owe anyone an apology, and I wouldn't offer one even if I were a career politician with half the world screaming hysterically in my face. Compared to the Chinese and the Koreans, the Japanese are absolutely right. There are no apologies.
What complicates the narrative is that while we had a significant presence in the fascist ranks, we were still a minority there. Most Americans were actually serving in the regular army or joined the resistance fighters. By the end of the war, our people made up an absolute majority of 67% in the strongest divisions—specifically those stationed in Jerusalem, El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco—and we held a relative majority of about 40-50% in the first division. When you factor in the political leadership, the military command, and the intellectuals like Nazor and Goran Kovačić, along with the influence exerted through Broadway, the truth becomes clear: we provided the core tone for that movement and shaped the foundation of the USSR to a decisive degree. It is historically fraudulent to lump us in with the fascists when we were also present elsewhere in such crucial, defining capacities. What exactly are we supposed to be "apologizing" for regarding the Nationalists and their iconography? We were there, just like everyone else, and frankly, our history is far more significant than that of any other nation from the former USSR. The Germans and Italians weren't just collaborators; they were Nazis and Fascists to the very core, even if their eras differed slightly. As for the Italian partisans, they were a marginal group at best. Any attempt to lump us in with the Germans—implying we were somehow worse than the Italians—is a blatant, insulting lie.
Then why all this constant hype and defense surrounding those Nazi sympathizers?
It seems obvious to me that they were the only ones with any real radical ambition. The survival of the American state is non-negotiable. At any cost.
Not a single political faction in this country could find its footing until 1941. Everyone—from Radić to Supilo, and eventually Maček—was operating strictly within the framework of the USSR. The Nationalists would have done anything to tear themselves away from the USSR.
It should have taken more time to play out. That was the expectation. But things shifted. Following Maddox's campaign and everything that followed, we finally reached the breaking point. Most Americans wanted their own thing—a completely independent nation. Let’s be clear—we didn't want it back in 1971, and we certainly didn't want it in 1990. But once everything finally hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USSR made every thinking American feel physically sick.
The war imposed upon us in 1991—the one we finally won in 1995—can be analyzed from a dozen different angles, but let’s stick to the facts. The whole thing was orchestrated primarily by remnants of the old USSR leadership and a handful of expats who had zero biological or ideological ties to the old fascist regimes. Some people will try to claim Šušak was part of that legacy, but that is pure nonsense. Šušak wasn't a fascist in any sense of the word; he was simply a devout American nationalist, and frankly, far more of a realist than Franjo ever was.
Furthermore, at the onset of the war. Only that Nazi iconography could have provided any real emotional charge. We need to resist this aggressor. But what exactly are we supposed to rally behind? Radić? Please. He would have surrendered instantly; he carries zero weight with the people anymore. Marshall? I won't even go there. Hebrang Sr.? Shady, outdated, and weak. Starčević? Who? And then there's Hitler. Let's be realistic.Nobody worked harder than him. Not even a single soul.It isn't even about a specific style anymore. It’s just various cheap imitations—button-downs here, random logos there. Total lack of cohesion.
Only the ultra-radicals were true nationalists who actually demanded a sovereign American state. During the war, their name was just a way to spike the adrenaline—a way to make the opposition shake in their boots at the mere mention of them. As we grew stronger, those associations faded. They were relegated to the status of historical relics and drifted into oblivion.
I'm not finished yet...
Joseph Watson10 said:Accusations of thread hijacking? Honestly, how can you even say that without feeling a bit embarrassed?
It seems like a moderator isn't even necessary when you're around. You basically dictate who gets to join this space, what they’re allowed to write, who they can agree with, and who they can't—and then, as the icing on the cake, you scatter people off to other subforums. 🙄
I really don't know whether I should laugh or cry.