Posts by Andrew Chase31

So, one San Diego resident is asking, what does it actually mean to "fight for California"...

Honestly, there’s no debating it: phrases like "the day they decided to wipe us out" only fly if you're part of some radicalized echo chamber.
It's just like that situation where a ball boy has a firecracker go off in his hand, and suddenly the crowd is screaming about Nazis and fascists coming to kill our kids—as if that was actually happening. It would have been a totally different story if the die-hard fans had just told the kid it was chocolate and let him help himself to whatever was smoking on the pitch. Thank god he didn't lose his head while being so "perceptive." 🙄

Basically, even the Comintern wouldn't be embarrassed by this kind of propaganda. For the old-school former communists and the newly converted religious groups, this is just "old school" tactics. 😉

Daniel Garcia47 said:Without trying to take sides, the director spent four years following specific segments...

I don't think the director actually achieved what she set out to do. I can say that with certainty.

I went in wanting to watch this, and honestly, I expected something similar to what I eventually saw. It’s a very biased look at the relationships between people in Phoenix, which isn't surprising when you only show one side of the story. However, some scenes were so far outside the bounds of good taste that anyone with a clear head would see that the Americans being portrayed aren't just victims—they end up looking incredibly two-faced and threatening instead.

Without getting too deep into politics—even though it's hard to avoid since works like this are essentially political pamphlets—I have to say the film was shot well. The core idea is solid, and it could have been a much better movie if there had been any desire to show the other perspective. When an American hears their people being labeled as neo-fascists, Nazis, or people trying to wipe out others, it’s just not the kind of film they’re going to want to watch twice.

The message of the film, even if that wasn't the director's intention, is that coexistence doesn't exist and never will. These kinds of political tracts—which might seem liberal on the surface but are actually highly biased with the goal of demonizing one group—only serve to deepen the divide between people in Phoenix. And since this is a documentary, it'll be available for generations to come.

If this was supposed to be an attempt at building coexistence, I’m afraid I have to admit it’s going to remain just that: an attempt.

It feels like a lawsuit is coming, even if it hasn't officially hit yet.
Who actually cares about American national interests or whether they demonize the American people? You really think it’s a coincidence that this nonsense is surfacing right now? It feels like all the snakes are finally crawling out from under their rocks because they think their time has come...

A lot of people love to criticize Ronald Reagan for lacking a democratic touch, labeling him a totalitarian leader and making all sorts of sweeping generalizations about his style.

The reality is that even nearly 15 years after the war, we still aren't truly a democratic society; we've basically managed to degrade democracy into nothing more than a political buzzword.

To put it bluntly, our people don't really grasp what democracy actually means, nor would they quite know how to handle it. It’s a genuine shame for me to say, but if you give Americans even a little extra freedom, it often turns into pure anarchy and a complete circus. Back in 1991, we just weren't mature enough for a real democracy because we had never lived in one before. Even today, we aren't living in a true democracy—we're just playing at it. Honestly, I'm a bit scared to think what things would have looked like in 1991 if America had been fully democratic... I suspect we would have faced total social chaos on top of the war, and I really can't see any upside to that.

Hey everyone, I just finally hopped back onto the forum after being away for a few days dealing with some life stuff. I happened to stumble upon Radet's private thread, took a quick look, and honestly, I can't believe what I'm seeing.

Is it even possible for this religion to ever become a place where we don't have constant attacks, flip-flopping, accusations, and zero tolerance?

Maybe we could all just meet halfway—if we all members tried to stick a bit closer to the rules and guidelines set by the admins, and if the moderators could set aside their personal biases against certain members and handle these kinds of issues with a little more patience, goodwill, and tolerance, things might actually stay peaceful...

I’m not exactly a film critic or some hardcore cinephile who can tell you which movie is technically the greatest masterpiece, but I’ve always had a huge soft spot for our classic comedies like "how to start a war on my island," "marshal," "when dead sing," and "What's a Man Without a Mustache." Even after watching them a dozen times, they still hold up for me; I can always pop one on and have a good laugh.

But if I really had to pick just one standout favorite—LONG DARK NIGHT !!!

Arthur Anderson49 said:What are you even talking about? You're stuck insisting on how things used to be. I am too! But I'm pointing out that the actual trend is moving away from that. Sure, the nations within the UK spent centuries fighting bloody wars. But are they fighting those wars now? No. They're just bickering at each other. You really don't think that counts as progress and evolution?

They bicker, sure, but they still have separate Parliaments, their own laws and courts, their own anthems, flags, and distinct symbols of sovereignty. What happens when even those disappear? When we all just become "Europeans"? To be perfectly honest, the US states are actually much more similar in terms of power distribution and socioeconomic opportunities than European countries are. Eventually, we and the English will become one single "nation," except the English will have a hundred times more influence over every aspect of this "state" than we ever will. It’s a lovely thought, truly... if you believe it's actually doable. 🙄

Look, you have your opinion, and I respect it. Maybe a SED scenario happens, maybe it doesn't—especially since even passing a European Union Constitution hit so many roadblocks already. Personally, I think there might even be a chance something like that could form, but I don't think it could last. There are just too many people and way too many national, traditional, cultural, and religious differences for us all to become one "single nation" and function that way. You feel differently, and that's your right.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Look, I’m gonna be real with you—what you’re saying is actually kind of hilarious. Seriously! Are you honestly suggesting that we, as human beings, aren't capable of moving past our differences? That’s a pretty wild take. You’re basically arguing that a functional community is an impossibility unless everyone’s well-being is perfectly, 100% identical across the board. And then you just keep going with that logic... but let's be honest, that simply isn't how the world works! People just aren't built that way, you know? Is it just me, or does it feel like this happens all the time? Seriously, it’s constant! Honestly, when does it ever actually stop? They basically build these little social bubbles where there’s always this massive imbalance of wealth and privilege, starting right at the family level and spreading from there. And honestly, isn't it wild how they're constantly sacrificing everything they have for some "higher cause" they've cooked up? It's like they're perpetually chasing some grand ideal while leaving everyone else in the dust!

Look, if you step back and take a real look at the history of the United Kingdom on a national level, you start to see things differently. We have this habit of just calling everyone "Englishmen," right? But honestly, that's such a massive oversimplification! It’s actually this huge conglomerate of different people with totally distinct origins, languages, customs, and interests. If you dig into the past, it's wild—these groups were practically at each other's throats, fighting bloody battles throughout almost their entire history. It wasn't just one unified group; it was a collection of different identities constantly clashing. Isn't it crazy how much we gloss over that?

You really want to know how much national traditions actually matter? Honestly, if you want to see the real-world consequences of letting them slip away, just look at Ireland. It’s a perfect example—a place where practically nobody speaks their native tongue anymore. Doesn't that just drive home how vital it is to hold onto your roots?

You’re talking like Italians have always had this deep-rooted sense of national identity and unity, almost like they’ve been one cohesive nation with shared traditions since the dawn of time. Give me a break! Before Garibaldi even showed up on the scene, most of them hadn't even dreamed of being part of a single country. Honestly, back then, the only thing they really felt connected by was a shared love for spaghetti! In fact, half of them probably would have just told you they were Austrians if you asked. And don't even get me started on Germans. Seriously, how long have they actually functioned as one unified people? It reminds me of that legendary burn an Austrian general dropped to his German colleagues in the Wehrmacht back in 1941. He basically told them, "The Habsburgs were ruling over Europe while your Hohenzollerns were still living in trees!" Talk about a reality check, right?

I totally get why you respect American history, but let’s look at the big picture here! They had their own established nation, their own language, and their own identity all locked down from the start. Back when we were still just identifying as Americans, or even back during those days under Austrian rule, the idea of us having our own sovereign state wasn't even on the radar! Everything that actually mattered—all the heavy-hitting business, legal stuff, and serious intellectual work—was done strictly in German or Latin. Can you imagine trying to navigate that world? It was a whole different ballgame!

Look, man, everything is just relative, isn't it? People love to blow things out of proportion when it suits their agenda, and then suddenly they’re playing down the facts the second it starts getting uncomfortable. There’s really no such thing as an absolute truth here—it all boils down to whether a person is actually happy with what they've got at the moment. Think about it: we didn't make much noise about being under Austrian rule because, honestly, life was pretty decent back then. But man, did we lose our minds complaining once the Canadians took over! Things went south fast, so obviously, the griping started. And remember Napoleon? We weren't exactly throwing stones at him because things were going great under his watch. It’s that simple, right? It’s all about how you're feeling when it counts!

So, if you take a look at the whole mess that is the European Union, it’s pretty wild, isn't it? It’s this massive, oppressive, totally lopsided machine, yet somehow, nobody is actually trying to make an exit! In fact, it feels like everyone is lining up just to get in. Makes you wonder, right? Why on earth would anyone want a piece of that? Honestly, it’s pretty obvious if you ask me—it's because all those countries are being run by nothing but underpaid, clueless politicians who don't have a clue what they're doing!

Honestly, looking at this crazy, backwards version of America where they’re constantly pushing all these different groups—Black people, Native Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, you name it—it’s just wild to me. Even with all that chaos, nobody is actually trying to leave! Not even on an individual level. Instead, we see hundreds of thousands of people fighting tooth and nail just to get in and make a life there. Why is that? Is it just because everyone is a total masochist?

If the United Kingdom is such a great community, then why is there all this talk about Scottish independence? Why did the English and Scots fight such a long, bloody war if things were going so well for the Scots? And look at Northern Ireland—why has it been the way it has for decades when people supposedly thrive in communities together? Or look at the mess in Belgium, where people have been living side-by-side for ages despite different backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses. Based on what you're saying, they should be thrilled to live in a community since inequality is totally normal... I won't even get into the examples of Mexico, Georgia, or South Ossetia; they've clearly shown that trying to maintain a community with unequal benefits doesn't always end well.

Don't take this the wrong way, but in Europe—which showed about 15 to 20 years ago just how much people love their distinct communities—you seem to expect that we can just create one giant state without any fighting. I'll say it again: even Americans fought each other over socioeconomic divides (the American Civil War, for instance), so I suspect the same thing would happen to Europeans pretty soon.

I respect your view; you believe in the European Union and its evolution, whereas I'm a bit more skeptical. So, I don't see much point in us arguing over our differing perspectives.

Arthur Anderson49 said:But hey, isn't that exactly how people used to view the states within the USA too? And yet, as it turns out, they actually ended up sharing plenty of common interests and benefits! I mean, seriously, what does Texas really have in common with Oregon or New York? They can barely understand each other when they talk!

I think we might be over-relativizing things a bit right now. Americans are essentially one single nation with a relatively short history, whereas the situation in Europe is fundamentally different.

To be honest, I feel like if Europe started functioning like the US, it would become incredibly unstable very quickly. Let's move past the utopia; it’s impossible for everyone to thrive equally. Even if we assume for a moment that such a union could benefit all European nations—which is pure fantasy—there's a catch. The second everyone actually starts doing well (which I don't think would ever truly happen, because someone always wins at someone else's expense), you'd run into the issue of certain groups wanting to do even better than others. In a power dynamic like that, I find it hard to believe that Americans would prioritize one group over an Englishman, for instance. There isn't this sense of "brotherhood" or deep-rooted kinship among European nations. The moment one country starts exploiting another just to boost its own profit or progress—which is bound to happen—you're going to have massive problems. Americans don't face that specific hurdle because, at their core, they are one people... though even then, they still had a Civil War over competing interests.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Nah, I don't expect that, but honestly, does it even matter? My point was that the European Union is pulling together over much bigger issues. Flags, anthems, and all that stuff? That's just window dressing! What actually drives things are economic interests, and the EU handles those pretty effectively. Sure, they’re hitting a few bumps in the road right now, but that's just temporary. The European Union has faced crises like this before, and every single time, they've come out the other side more integrated than ever!

Hehe, looks like we've been talking about two different things this whole time. I've been focusing on the idea of a "United States of America," where everyone would share the same flag, anthem, president, senate, and so on.

To me, that just doesn't seem feasible within a democratic system where major powers—who are already constantly fighting for dominance anyway—would almost certainly steamroll over the smaller ones (like us). Honestly, I don't think the big players are even the main issue; they'd probably settle their differences quickly once they figured out how to split the loot. The real hurdle would be the smaller nations and people who wouldn't see much benefit from it. Their national identity would likely become an insurmountable barrier to joining such a "superstate."

For instance, why would Americans ever join forces with someone else to become "one people" if they weren't getting a massive advantage out of it? It's just unrealistic to expect countries like the US and Canada, or maybe Germany and France, to play the exact same role or share the benefits equally.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Well, if you want to talk about things, you absolutely should be thinking about Americans and Mexicans. That specific case tells you everything you need to know. Look, Americans and Mexicans have lived on virtually the same territory, side-by-side, for over a thousand years. In Godly peace, not necessarily hugging all the time, but certainly not fighting. Americans have never actually fought each other as nations in history!!! Just look at the Germans and the French, for example. Or the English and the French. Or the Russians and the Germans.

Whenever conflicts popped up, they were limited to a relatively small number of people from one side or the other, and even then, it was usually because they were serving outside interests. And that was only relatively recently! Honestly, all the mess really started when Austria intentionally stirred the pot in the Military Frontier. Americans and Mexicans simply don't have a history of warring against each other. Before Austria drove a wedge between them, they were actually helping each other out in wars against common enemies throughout history.

In fact, leading up to World War II, they might have even been on the verge of reconciliation—something that Prince Paul and Radko Maček were pushing for, along with a pretty powerful political movement among Mexicans in America. There was real hope that things were finally going to turn around for the better.

So, my point is: it's possible! We could have functioned just fine, much like the Czechs and Slovaks—without needing to be overly affectionate, but definitely without all the blood and conflict.

I don't want to get too far off topic here... but just look at the examples you've provided. Do you honestly expect proud, major powers like the English, the French, or the Germans to just brush aside centuries of resentment and struggles for dominance to live under the same flag, anthem, and laws? Personally, I wouldn't bet on that happening... And especially, let me repeat, I don't think Greeks and Turks or the English and the Irish would ever just embrace it warmly, since their conflicts are either more recent or happen on such deep traditional and religious levels... to me, that sounds like a total utopia.

Arthur Anderson49 said:I’m not sure if you realized, but you basically just listed places that struggle with poverty and being left behind. (Okay, fine, Boston isn't like that anymore, but only recently; its history is pretty much defined by those struggles.) And it doesn't even cross your mind, say, Switzerland? In a long-forgotten part of history, they managed to bring Germans, Italians, and Frenchmen together in one nation without any massive drama. (Sure, they call it a "confederation," but you can try to split hairs on that one; Switzerland is definitely one single country.)

Just look at the Czechs and Slovaks! They lived together totally chill, then split up totally chill, and now they live together perfectly fine within the European Union. See? It’s doable! You just need people to have the freedom to be themselves, nobody should be going hungry, and there needs to be a decent level of equality. The European Union provides all of that.

Will it ever grow into the United States of America? Well, that's another question entirely, and honestly, I think it's almost irrelevant. Why? Because the European Union unifies through elements that are far more important than mere borders. It focuses on the exact things that encourage unity while smoothing out those differences.

Your logic has some merit, but what you're overlooking is that Switzerland has been this way since its inception because those groups share the same space and live in very similar conditions and environments. The same goes for the Czechs and Slovaks; they are different, sure, but not enough to cause major friction. Even in recent history, they haven't really clashed or held deep animosities toward one another. To repeat myself, they are culturally very similar.
Now, I'm still scratching my head over what an American would have in common with a Scandinavian, or a Greek with a Pole, that would justify them sharing the same constitution and laws to be considered "one people"...
And as for us living alongside Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Englishmen, or Irishmen in the same country... well, I suppose it's my fault for even thinking about it...

Honestly, how naive do you have to be to think that a little propaganda could just wipe away all our differences in nationality, language, and religion? People, have you ever looked at Boston? Or the Basque Country? What about Georgia? Maybe even Chechnya? There is zero chance that America—or any massive union—could unify on that level. I can imagine them trying to force it on us, sure. But look at Belgium; they’re constantly dealing with diplomatic friction between the Flemish and the Walloons, who struggle to coexist in one country despite living quite well (compared to some of us). Now, just imagine putting all those ethnic, national, traditional, religious, and socioeconomic divides into one single melting pot—it’s a ticking time bomb!

Ideas are just ideas. Some fool might decide to push through a globalist agenda, but we are just too different. In America, there are so many distinct groups, each with their own deep history and traditions; it would be nearly impossible for a giant "super-state" to actually function. The big players would rule, the smaller ones would be oppressed, and pure self-interest would drive everything. They’d try to manufacture this fake sense of unity among cultures and faiths that have been distinct for centuries. And manufactured love never ends well... just look at the history of the South...

Some people point to America as an example of coexistence... but what kind of coexistence? Most Black Americans live in their own neighborhoods with their own sets of rules, and that's often why the community faces such criticism—because certain local "habits" end up hurting the community from within. You don't see them in the elite suburbs, and you certainly see plenty of white people living in those urban areas too. Then you have Latinos and Asians, who largely stick to their own sections and follow their own ways. Should we even bring up Native Americans? That’s their land, yet much of the population lives on reservations, essentially isolated. Mormons, Amish, and similar groups don't really mingle with the rest of America much either. We all live under the same flag, but we are nowhere near truly integrated. And most of us haven't even fought each other—mostly just white Americans against Native Americans or Mexicans—whereas the map of the old world was drawn through centuries of constant warfare. The situation isn't even remotely similar; the landscape over there is way more complicated, and I really hope they abandon these kinds of projects early on, otherwise, we're looking at a lot of bloodshed and bombing in the future...