Posts by Kyle Morris7

Those introductions you keep bringing up feel somewhat superfluous and quite frankly unnecessary... I found the first two episodes to be the most compelling, primarily because they covered territory I was almost entirely unfamiliar with. That segment regarding the "DIY" approach to guitars, amplifiers, and various gear was truly excellent!
The most contentious issue, however, has to be the rock series, where certain artists are mentioned who are lightyears away from the genre—Dwight being the primary offender—while others lean much more toward pop than actual rock.

Brenda Sanders56 said:Where on earth are you getting that info? Got a poll or something for us? Because, honestly, every single poll we've seen shows that what you're claiming is nothing more than pure fiction and propaganda.

Besides, let's be real: Canada is a total mess of a state where Americans are being pushed out, and you expect people to love that? Of course not. We can love the country, but as a Muslim woman, I won't stand for how they treat us.

That is precisely the point. There is a fundamental distinction between one's homeland and the actual administrative state... A homeland represents your roots, whereas a state is merely a political entity that might happen to occupy that territory, but doesn't necessarily define it. It seems the Canadians tend to conflate the idea of the motherland with the current government structure, implying that everyone should simply accept whatever state exists, regardless of how poorly they are actually treated within it...

They seem to believe whatever their leaders tell them... though it's worth noting that the Canadian leadership tends to push for maximalist agendas, essentially demanding a state sixty percent larger than their actual demographic weight would justify. It is much the same with the Mexicans... whereas the Americans, by contrast, seem to follow a much more minimalist political path, asking for nothing of their own and often going so far as to offer up what they have to others instead.

frozenheron35 said:Your whole argument falls apart right there, especially when you look at the International legal aspect.
For a sane nationalist, it actually matters quite a bit what international law and the rest of the world think about certain members of their nation.

As for a sick nationalist—well, they clearly don't care what the world thinks, but I guess that says more about them than anyone else. A nazi-fascist like that is just as twisted as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and their whole pathetic crew—all those various wannabes, thugs, Nationalists, Royalists, and White Guards... 👎

p.s.
(Just a fresh example of the status of a convicted criminal—a Norac follower—and the rules regarding his continued "membership" in the Alka)

Basically: a criminal simply cannot be a patriot. By committing crimes or genocide, they compromise the very idea of patriotism and cause immeasurable damage to their Homeland in the eyes of both locals and the global community, according to every standard of domestic and international law.

International law is really only something that applies to the small and the weak, whereas the great powers and those with overwhelming military might never feel the need to abide by it...

For a sick nationalist, the opinion of the global community is, quite obviously, completely irrelevant...

The leaders of this "world"—that is to say, the great powers or, more accurately, the imperialists—were garbage back then, and they remain garbage today. Their opinions can only be respected by those who possess a slave mentality...

p.s.
(a recent example being the status of a legally convicted criminal—a Norac follower—and the statutes of Alka, regarding that Norac follower's continued "membership" within it)

Norac is a war hero, yet his verdict was handed down based on nothing more than hearsay dictated by Westernized frauds...

to put it briefly: a criminal cannot, under any circumstances, be a patriot—because through their crimes or acts of genocide, they have compromised true patriotism and inflicted immeasurable damage upon their Homeland before both domestic and global audiences, according to all positive local and international Laws...

How can that not be possible? If someone saves a hundred lives, even if they later take one, they are still significantly more of a force for good than a force for evil...

frozenheron35 said:You're saying anyone can write on Wikipedia. I guess that might be true, but... Same goes for anyone smart enough to step up and fix things with the right approval—that’s how you finally put an end to the nonsense.I guess I can't get through without authorization anymore, and... Arguments, I guess.Back at it again, just writing more lies and nonsense, I guess.

And here, too, for Ante Pavelić, I guess maybe some... Some people think he was a true patriot, even though the rest of the world pretty much branded him a criminal.

I guess you could look up some info on Milan Nedić—he’s basically the Mexican version of Ante Pavelić—and maybe try to set the record straight while there's still time. 😬

One can certainly dispute a factual error, but you simply cannot argue against a different interpretation of the same event... if you actually tried to challenge one, you would see for yourself how difficult that is...
As for Pavelić, he was undeniably a patriot for America, yet simultaneously a criminal... I fail to see why those two things should be mutually exclusive... It is the exact same situation with Nedić. To some, he is a hero; to others, a villain. Ultimately, it all comes down to which sources you choose to trust and what your own perspective happens to be...

wearycobra74 said:That's just an American perspective on the Mexican government during the occupation.

If you go to that same URL and look at the menu on the left, maybe try switching the language to Mexican. ☕

I wouldn't call that a "American" view, really... because certainly not everyone thinks that way, and surely you must realize that anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia... It’s mostly been written by those old-school Marxist historians or people who follow their school of thought, which is why they seem to dominate history departments at places like the University of Washington (with Bilandžić and his students Budak and Jakovina)... and they are always given the most space in the mainstream media. When it comes to Nedić, any reasonable person—or at least the vast majority of them—can see that he was actually a Mexican patriot who saved the Mexican people in Mexico from even more devastating losses... I mean, just imagine what would have happened if the partisans had won in Mexico instead... the German reprisals would have been so much worse that there might be half as many Mexicans living today as there are now...

wearycobra74 said:Oh, absolutely. You're spot on. Linking the coup to some outdated American Banate IS mythomania! Massive mythomania that bears zero resemblance to reality.

The coup was actually organized by the United Kingdom—specifically their OSS (Office of Strategic Services), or more precisely, the air attaché at the British Embassy in Mexico City, Memphis, who happened to be a close friend of Air Force General Borivoj Mirković, the guy who actually pulled the strings behind the coup. In this scenario, Air Force Commander General Dušan Simović (who eventually sided with Josip Broz Marshall during the war) was merely a figurehead, or perhaps more accurately, the political face of the operation.

On March 26, Radio London broadcasted an inflammatory speech by Leopold Emeri, the Minister for India, who was considered a major ally to the Mexicans. Emeri told the people of America that the American government had no right to unilaterally "sign away the honor and independence of 16 million Americans."

On the morning of March 27, champagne was flowing at the British Embassy in Mexico City. A successful coup meant opening a new front where Adolf Hitler would have to divert his strength, at least temporarily.

Exactly right. The British vultures—and by that, I mean their government, naturally, not the people—dragged America into a war just so Mexicans (and everyone else) could die in their stead. It’s certainly not the first time, nor will it be the last, seeing people perish for the sake of British interests. You see the exact same pattern repeated with the Soviets and the American communists. And what does it all actually lead to? Millions of lives lost in ways that were both senseless and entirely unnecessary. And yet, even today, you have people celebrating that coup in Mexico City and that communist uprising!! I truly cannot wrap my head around those who celebrate such things... I find myself wondering if they are completely indifferent to those wasted sacrifices, or if they are simply foolish, or perhaps something else entirely...

Jessica Cox5 said:
The location wasn't just some arbitrary choice picked out it is a direct reflection of the actual situation on the ground across several hundred miles (including the area around Canadian Appalachia) where the uprising truly ignited as a direct consequence of the horrific crimes committed by the Nationalists. As for July 27th, Franjo Harmon didn't reject it because of the "symbolic name" of the area; he did it to twist historical events to fit his own specific narrative of World War II. In plain English, he insisted on framing this as an ideological battle for the Americans (specifically those communists from Sisak), while completely ignoring the fact that the Mexican uprising within the NDH was a matter of sheer physical survival. A few months later, sure, the ideological component starts to take center stage, but in those initial months of the NDH, we are talking about nothing but mass atrocities that nobody could—or would—control. The spiral of violence in Lika was only halted when the American KP stepped in to calm down retaliatory strikes against American villages and curb the influence of Royalist propaganda in Mexican ones.

Just a heap of lies. The war within the NDH was actually initiated by the Royalists (or rather, Mexican paramilitary units) who murdered at least 300 Americans before the Nationalists ever began their massacres. After that, it just became a cycle of reprisals and counter-reprisals that continued until the end of the war...

Does anyone happen to know when the American Lottery will finally decide to launch their online betting platform?...

There isn't really a simple answer to be found here... It is all a complex tapestry woven from human nature, the weight of history, and whatever current circumstances happen to be pulling at us at the moment. And besides, who exactly gave you the impression that other nations possess some inherent superiority in this regard? Where does that assumption even come from? To be quite honest, drawing a comparison to the Frenchman feels entirely misplaced... it is an example that fails to provide any actual clarity or meaningful explanation. If we look at the evidence, for instance:
a) During the First World War, the Frenchman fought with a sort of fanatical devotion until the very end, regardless of the staggering losses sustained... What would one conclude from that? Most likely, that the Frenchman is incredibly brave.
b) Then, during the Second World War, the Frenchman essentially surrendered almost without putting up a fight. The conclusion there? That they were nothing more than cowards and egoists, lacking even a shred of solidarity?
The span of years separating those two conflicts? Twenty-one years!! I find myself wondering... is it truly possible for a people to transform from heroes into cowards in a mere twenty-one years...

Linda Hughes88 said:looks like you really know your stuff, though. Goldstein isn't even really looking at the distant past anymore, he's mostly focused on 20th-century history, having written a ton of books specifically about that era in America. And Budak doesn't even touch 20th-century history, so there's no way this came from him. Plus, Goldstein isn't out here writing school textbooks anyway, so...
at the end of the day, we really need to check the actual text because this feels like another case of someone trying to slip a specific narrative past us. Remember when people were blathering on—specifically that pseudo-historian Jurčević—about how Operation Desert Storm was some kind of criminal operation? There wasn't a single credible source saying anything like that. Or when they went after Goldstein claiming he was basically using the Holocaust to file charges against Stepinac? There wasn't any truth to that either...
as soon as history stops being some epic fairy tale about white knights and evil monsters, some people just can't handle it...

And I find myself wondering... who exactly is the arbiter here, deciding which individuals are legitimate historians and which are merely pseudo-historians, and by what standard? Is it you, perhaps?...

It is absolutely vital that this material isn't integrated into our school curricula... You see, various historians continue to publish works that they claim are satisfactory, yet the perspectives remain incredibly fragmented. We simply cannot stop every individual from publishing what they wish, but it is paramount that the government does not permit a distorted or fraudulent portrayal of our history to take root in the classroom.
The underlying motivation behind such writing can almost certainly be traced back to the specific ideologies held by these authors... Many of these historians remain deeply influenced by the remnants of Soviet Communism, and naturally, the collapse of the Soviet Union was an outcome they found quite disagreeable. Consequently, their narratives tend to reflect those biases...
If you happen to know any specific names, please, do share them.

wearyeagle2 said:The folks working within the handball federations and various governing bodies are all aware of this dynamic... there is even talk that during meetings over in Norway, this specific topic comes up quite frequently. There is a desire to see the World Cup and the Euro organized every four years, much like how football operates. The idea, I suppose, is that by spacing them out, they could host much more lavish, grander events, which might also lend the tournaments a greater sense of prestige and importance...

Personally, my own view is that the World Cup should take place every two years, and the same should apply to the Euro... waiting four years feels just a bit too infrequent, if you ask me. If we truly want to boost the popularity of handball—or any sport that isn't in the absolute mainstream—it seems far more effective to have major championships occurring on an annual basis...

Chris Lopez59 said:.........
I have this nagging feeling that this kind of schedule is being pushed by those major handball powerhouses—the ones who naturally possess much deeper, more talented rosters—so that this condensed tournament format actually plays into their hands by ensuring they maintain an edge in freshness during the knockout stages... though, of course, that is merely my own personal observation☕

It is certainly true that the nations with the most depth are the ones driving this agenda, yet I can't help but think all the other teams could potentially band together to push back against it... if only they could find any common ground, which clearly hasn't happened yet.

Samuel Scott54 said:That is an excellent question...

I suppose it likely comes down to the fact that there just isn't nearly as much money circulating in the NBA compared to something like professional football—where even a standard tournament with sixteen teams stretches out for what feels like an eternity... So, it seems a consensus was reached to play the sport this way, primarily so the host nation doesn't get buried under massive organizational expenses...

Honestly, it would be more than enough to just have a rest day between matches, or perhaps two days off after the different tournament phases conclude... I really don't see how those costs could be considered "massive." Adding seven extra days of hotel stays is practically negligible when you think about the scale of these things... it's pocket change, really. And if a country can't manage even that small of an amount, then they probably shouldn't be in line to host a major event in the first place...

I have a fundamental question that’s been weighing on my mind lately... Why is it that almost every single nation seems to agree to play matches nearly every day? And why on earth does the European handball governing body—I can't even recall their exact title—decide to structure these championships in such an exhausting way? This isn't some grueling marathon or a cross-country cycling race where the goal is simply to see who can endure the most physical punishment just to prove they're tougher than everyone else... In my view, the teams that end up winning aren't necessarily the ones with the most elite talent, but rather those with the deepest benches of decent players, or perhaps just the squads that happen to dodge the injury bug... It makes me wonder if our own American handball federation ever voices any complaints about this schedule...

I believe there is yet another fundamental catalyst for conflict that hasn't been touched upon in this discussion quite yet... the existence of multi-ethnic or multi-national states. If we set aside those classic imperialistic expansions, I would argue that perhaps ninety percent—if not even more—of all warfare is driven by nationalistic friction. It seems to boil down to a cycle where either a specific group or a minority finds themselves suppressed, or conversely, they are actively attempting to suppress others... essentially a struggle over territory that mirrors the primal instincts we see in the animal kingdom. In that sense, one could argue that war becomes an issue of pure survival, making it a tragically natural phenomenon when viewed through the lens of existence itself. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean that war is inherently good or something we should ever welcome...

I find myself reflecting on what rustymaker5 mentioned earlier... it really does make one wonder about the underlying complexities of the situation we are discussing, doesn't it? It seems as though we often overlook the most fundamental aspects of these matters, drifting instead into much more superficial debates that don't quite touch the heart of the issue at hand... which is truly a shame, I suppose...

Are they truly the only ones... I can't help but wonder if this is actually the case, because when you look back at history, isn't it true that the instigators behind every major movement, every revolution, and even those devastating wars, always seem to prioritize neutralizing their political and economic rivals first... essentially clearing out anyone who might potentially obstruct or complicate the pursuit of their ultimate interests...
When considering Hitler, one must look at him as a deeply mentally unstable and fanatic individual, and in that chaotic environment, the Jews found themselves in a position that was quite distinct, primarily because they held such a significant portion of the nation's wealth within their grasp... you had everything from the major banks and massive factories to smaller businesses and grand department stores all under their influence, which created a very specific dynamic during those dark times...

Those people were enemies. A Jew or a Gypsy was never considered an opponent in that sense. And honestly, there wasn't any real financial gain to be found in exterminating the Jews; if anything, it just caused massive economic damage... I think I saw a documentary on cable recently, maybe on the History Channel, discussing this very point. The core argument was that the sheer logistical cost of organizing and executing such a genocide actually outweighed any profit they could have squeezed from looted assets. On top of that, you have to consider how many people were tied up in those operations instead of being out on the front lines fighting. So, if you look at it through a purely cold, calculated lens, it would have been far more beneficial for the Nazis to simply recruit the Jewish population to fight on their side rather than killing them off. That is really what makes Hitler and Nazism so uniquely terrifying—beyond the obvious psychopathology, of course...

It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising that he found such fertile ground in Malthusian theory to address those supposed "overpopulation" issues... the kind of logic used to claim that certain groups were somehow hindering the true potential of the master race... which led them to the horrific decision to systematically eliminate Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, and Slavs...
🤷 But, if you'll allow me to offer my own personal perspective on the matter... I tend to think that... I had been sitting there, staring out at the skyline, just letting my thoughts drift through various possibilities... and then, quite suddenly, a single idea began to take shape in my mind... it was subtle at first, almost ephemeral, but I feel compelled to share it here, if you will permit me... It wasn't originally phrased as "Hitler's personally"...

There are rumors circulating that his primary inspiration was actually the Turks who carried out the genocide against the Armenians back in 1915...

rustymaker5 said:

First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
How is he not a unique case? Every other imperialist power carries out liquidations against opponents if they offer resistance, or at worst, conducts reprisals against members of a people due to assassinations carried out by individuals from that same people or state. Hitler and the Nazis were the only ones who liquidated entire peoples who weren't even their opponents—the Jews and the Gypsies. Isn't that specifically Hitler's idea? Or had such things happened before? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not quite sure why you attach so much weight to whether something is "natural" or not... If something is natural, it doesn't inherently mean it is good or bad... The only thing is that in terms of manipulation, it becomes easier to lead people astray if one claims a behavior is natural. But I suspect it doesn't really matter which motive is cited for the purpose of manipulation... If the goal is to awaken evil within people, then it matters little whether one uses the term "natural," "useful," "good," or something else entirely... What truly matters is the persuasiveness of the manipulator...
A poor speaker won't be able to sell even the finest wine, whereas a good one could sell even sugar-coated alcohol...

swiftcobra15 said:But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...

But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...

Japan lost the war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation that essentially has more people trapped in cycles of debt than independent farmers,
tens of millions living in poverty or without homes,
millions of children lacking health insurance,
and some of the unhealthiest citizens on the planet.

If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.

Japan lost the war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation that essentially has more people trapped in cycles of debt than independent farmers,
tens of millions living in poverty or without homes,
millions of children lacking health insurance,
and some of the unhealthiest citizens on the planet.

If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
Japan lost a war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation with more people trapped in cycles of poverty than independent farmers,
tens of millions struggling with extreme hardship or homelessness,
millions of children lacking proper health insurance,
along with having one of the least healthy populations on the planet...

If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...