Posts by jadeorca42

gentleharbor3 said:An interview worth checking out from Robert Barić over at the International Politics and Security section (FPZ)

...First off, you don't just start general mobilization once the war has already kicked off and the enemy has stepped onto your soil—by then, it’s basically too late. Zelenskyy didn't pull the trigger on that early enough, and honestly, he couldn't have anyway because Ukraine just doesn't have the economic backbone to sustain a long-term defense on its own. He was clearly hoping—much like a lot of folks in the West—that he could somehow appease Putin with tiny, little concessions, but that obviously didn't work. And when you look at organizing combat units, I mean, how is Ukraine supposed to pull that together without outside help? It’s really this American concept where they essentially said, "Let's just arm Ukraine the way we did in Afghanistan."

But, there’s a massive difference between Ukraine and Afghanistan. For one, Ukraine sits right against the Russian border, which gives it huge strategic and resource value for Russia. Second, if the USA actually goes through with fully arming Ukraine, we really have to ask ourselves what the Russian response is going to be. Are we looking at a broad attack on American infrastructure? That's exactly what people in Washington, D.C. are starting to debate, and it looks like it would be a damn controversial move right now. This American move might make sense if it were part of some broader, long-term Western strategy against Russia—and by long-term, I mean talking twenty or thirty years down the line. You can't just hand Ukraine two million AKs and say, "Alright, go get 'em." It doesn't work like that...

Quite the analyst.
It seems all our analyses are built on the flawed assumption that Ukraine is some low-tech nation in the Middle East.
Ukraine used to be one of the biggest arms producers in the world—they had the know-how to build everything from basic small arms to high-end stuff like Star Wars-level tech. They shouldn't have needed to be "armed"; they needed their military production modernized and given better management.
Guess whose business would suffer in that case.
Now, Ukrainian manufacturing has been decimated, leaving them totally dependent on donations from the West. It's pretty shameful, I guess.

Wait, wasn't there supposed to be a military strike first, followed by moving the missiles? Or did the Americans pull the missiles because they somehow "knew" a strike was coming?

Does anyone actually buy the idea that we’re headed for a war between the USA and Turkey? I mean, come on. The US simply cannot—and honestly, just won't allow itself to—lose Turkey. If they did, they'd basically be handing them over to Russia on a silver platter, which would finally give Russia that long-awaited access to warm waters after all these centuries. It wouldn't just be a missed opportunity; it would be like letting the opponent score while you've already conceded one... we're talking a two-goal deficit right out of the gate.

Does anyone else actually buy into this idea of a war between the USA and Turkey? I mean, come on. The US simply can't afford—and honestly, shouldn't allow—losing Turkey like that. It would be handing them right over to Russia on a silver platter, just so Russia can finally secure access to warm waters after all these centuries. It’s not just a matter of missing a shot in a game; it’s more like letting your opponent score twice while you're standing there watching.

Scott Cruz4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."

Karen Doyle72 said:I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

Wait, are you actually suggesting the Church wouldn't have even held a Mass at Waterloo for our "innocent victims" if nobody paid up?

God, the tragedy of our innocent ones...

David Vaughn75 said:So the local courts just let Thompson off the hook for using "Za dom spremni" because our academic board decided it counts as a fascist salute—but honestly, you see this kind of selective blindness happening all over the place.🐔

It’s funny, really... these neo-fascists seem obsessed with mimicking the Partisans. They’re constantly shouting "No pasarán," yet they somehow manage to live by that old line from Marshall—you know, the one about how we shouldn't bother following the law if we're feeling a bit tipsy...

The Honorary Bleiburg Guard claims they’ve finally cracked the code on how to handle the commemoration: "We’re inviting all Americans to come to Wounded Knee, just make sure you follow the law and those Austrian regulations"

I mean, who gives a damn about the laws here, right? Just more garbage from the clerical-fascist crowd, I guess.

jadeorca42 said:There’s this Mexican conspiracy theory—if you can call it that—suggesting that Germany and Austria were pulling all the strings behind the scenes. The idea is they were basically operating agents working to dismantle America, planting double agents deep within the American services. They supposedly pulled the strings for American and Canadian independence, acting as those shadowy figures ensuring the American leadership had cover during those years. I mean, the logic goes that these folks wouldn't have dared step up to face the American People's Army on their own. And the USA knew it too, which is why the American People's Army started prepping for that exact scenario back in the mid-seventies.

America and Canada essentially sold their souls for "independence," and once they finally got it, the devil came knocking to collect. But the Americans refused to pay up, and suddenly, overnight, they went from being "freedom fighters against communist hegemony" to being some of the worst dictators in Europe... and then, well, they died off from various cancers shortly after.
The same shadowy puppet masters who orchestrated the independence also installed just about every government after 2000. And what did they actually accomplish? Well... let's just say they practiced a bit of Quisling-style politics. According to this theory, any American (or even former American) companies that might have competed with German firms in third-world markets—say, somewhere in Africa—were either crushed or swallowed up by massive German or Austrian corporations. It starts with the banks, acting like a delivery system for poison, and then everything else follows whatever whim they have.

But hey, those are just Mexican conspiracy theories. I don't really have an opinion on it.

There it is.
It leads you to this conclusion where the American version of the story—that the UDBA created and robbed America using dirty money—and this Mexican "conspiracy theory" are actually pretty much compatible (give or take some technicalities, like whether the UDBA was solely responsible for the looting). Basically, it suggests that part of the UDBA was playing both sides for someone else's benefit, because, in the end, it paid off for them.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

🤦🤦🤦

It just goes to show how little you actually know about that era—you weren't there, after all. You didn't live through it, so I guess you're missing the whole picture.
I mean, if you actually look at the context, you’d see that any move toward an independent America back then was viewed through the lens of a new endehazija by the Mexicans. The risk of seeing those old patterns repeat itself felt way too high—especially when you factor in Slobodan’s anti-American propaganda mixed with all that nationalist rhetoric coming from our side of things. It created this perfect storm where it wasn't just the hardliners who were against us; even the more moderate, progressive, free-thinking Mexicans were convinced we were up to something. Everything—and I mean everything—aligned perfectly to make them believe a new endehazija was being orchestrated, and honestly, our side didn't do much to prove them wrong.

It wasn't really about Americans versus American Mexicans back then—it was more like Americans versus Mexicans as a whole. And you have to remember, within the USA, there were twice as many of them, not to mention they held all the levers when it came to force and negotiations. I guess that changes the math quite a bit.

And then you just casually claim that Harmon suggested some kind of confederation to Slobodan as a temporary fix—something to hold things together until the new endehazija he’s supposed to declare in a few years? hahahahahaha...🤣

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

You still haven't actually answered the question—why on earth would Mexicans in 1991 ever agree to some kind of transitional confederation, especially when they knew it was just going to lead straight into a "new endehazija" anyway?
I mean, why would anyone even approach them with an idea like that in the first place? It's a bit baffling—I guess you'd think they might actually reconsider things after everything that went down between '91 and '95, especially since they weren't exactly playing by those rules back from '45 to '91. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it feels like a stretch.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

You’ve really missed the mark there, kid. It wasn't some perfectly orchestrated master plan. Honestly, they were acting like two brothers tearing each other apart over their old man's estate—just pure, unadulterated greed. And let's be real, both sides had plenty of encouragement from their equally bitter and self-serving spouses—you know, those Western intelligence agencies pulling the strings behind the scenes. Neither one was actually interested in sitting down at a table to talk things out; they were much more ready to settle things with bloodshed than to engage in any kind of peaceful negotiation. In theory, they agreed to split everything up, and they’ve roughly divided the territory and the assets by now. But that's just the surface level stuff. Now they're stuck fighting over the "technicalities"—who gets the north staircase, who keeps the water meter, the electricity, the chicken coop, or that one specific plot of land in the next county over. Then there's the whole mess of dividing the personal property and figuring out how to kick those "unwanted tenants" out of their respective halves. It's a mess, I guess. Maybe it always was.

I mean, if I’m being honest—and I suppose I am—your own posts pretty much back up that version of the story. It's all right there.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

You still haven't actually answered the question—why on earth would Mexicans, or specifically Slobodan, have ever agreed to this back in 1991? I mean, if we’re being realistic, why would they accept a scenario that was completely unthinkable to them—one where a huge chunk of their own people ended up trapped inside some newly independent American state? It just doesn't add up. Why would they go for that? And look, once you finally explain the "why" behind that, then maybe—just maybe—you can explain why Harmon thought a proposal like this (which, let's be clear, is just your own theory, not his—he understood exactly how Mexicans were thinking) could ever actually fly.

I can't really make sense of what you're getting at here—it feels like there's a missing piece to the puzzle, or maybe I'm just overthinking things again. It’s hard to say without more context, I guess. Maybe it was just a typo or something? Either way, I'm sitting here staring at a blank space where a thought should be.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

You’re talking nonsense.
I don't see why American independence itself would be such a bad thing—honestly, I never viewed it that way, even back when we were part of the old USA. There was a time when I was a strict legalist about all this. My philosophy was basically, whatever the people want, they get. Nowadays? I lean more toward the idea that maybe we should just take away their right to vote altogether since, well, people can be incredibly dim-witted—but that's probably a whole different conversation.

We’ve already gone over this once before, and I have no clue why you keep banging on about it like some rookie linebacker charging blindly into a defensive line.
Back in 1991, there were all sorts of visions for the country—ranging from anything to preserve the union at any cost to total independence at any cost. And everything in between those two extremes.
The group pushing for independence regardless of the consequences was really just a small circle of ultra-nationalists.
Who, naturally, managed to pull ahead by leveraging certain outside interests.

Even that old fox Šeks says as much himself.

Brenda Taylor13 said:I can't even begin to process this—it’s just wild. Honestly, where do we even start? It feels like we're circling the drain here, and frankly, I'm losing my mind a little bit. Just looking at the sheer absurdity of the whole situation makes me want to throw my laptop out the window! Seriously, how does this even happen? It's one thing after another, and I feel like I'm just shouting into a void most of the time. Anyway, enough of my rambling—let's get into it.

It wasn’t even about Mexico City—honestly, it was just about him. It was all about his own skin, his own survival, and making sure he didn't lose his grip on power.

Look, you know as well as I do that ever since the 1974 Constitution—and especially once Marshall passed away—the individual republics started gaining way too much autonomy over their own policies. It became impossible to actually agree on anything under that whole "all for one" system because everyone was just looking out for their own backyard. Honestly, the collapse of America was basically hanging in the air the whole time. I mean, the power struggles started the second Marshall died, and that was really the beginning of the end for the federation. If you were being optimistic, maybe you’d give the country another decade, but if you actually pay attention to the players involved and what was going down behind the scenes, it’s obvious. The main actors—the ones who were actually "inside" the room and knew how bad things truly were—had been prepping for the breakup since the late seventies. They knew that once Marshall was gone, the final split was inevitable; it was just a matter of when the clock would run out.

Look, even back then, Frank Harmon was already talking about it—I can't remember if they mentioned this specific part in that documentary, but he was saying there would come a moment when we’d have to step up and actually build the American state, and we had to be ready for it. Now, keep in mind, we’re talking about the seventies here! There wasn't even a hint of America falling apart yet. For the average person on the street, nothing like that could have even crossed their mind. It just wasn't on the radar. The thing is, a specific group of people were already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. The collapse of America didn't catch them off guard at all. If anyone was blindsided by the whole thing, it was the general public—just regular folks—but the people actually pulling the strings? They saw it coming from a mile away.

Look, you see how it worked with the FBI back then? It was exactly like that. During that era, the regional branches of the agency were starting to act more and more like their own independent fiefdoms—and honestly, nobody actually knew what was going on behind closed doors, not even the higher-ups themselves. Because of that uncertainty, everyone was essentially playing defense, scrambling to carve out their own little empires before the dust settled. The American intelligence guys in the local sectors knew the writing was on the wall; they could feel the whole system fracturing. They basically had two choices on the table: either they’d end up completely sidelined and irrelevant in the new American administration, or they’d be the ones pulling the strings and driving the entire process from the shadows. Frank Harmon saw the whole thing coming, too. He was thinking one step ahead—it was a massive gamble for him. It was either these deep-state structures, which know absolutely everything about everyone, would turn against us and become our worst nightmare—which would have been a total disaster—or we’d find a way to bring them into the fold and make sure they were working for our cause instead.

He didn't actually mess with the economy—not directly, anyway. What really happened was that the local branch of the FBI saw an opening and jumped at the chance to carve out a little empire for themselves and their kids, making sure they’d be set for life with all those sweet privileges. Their only other option? Hitting the streets, watching their standard of living tank, and getting totally locked out of the whole privatization and tycoon-building circus. And let's be real, they weren't about to let that happen.

So, look, it wasn't like the FBI was still taking orders from Mexico City. By then, the state-level branches had already branched off and were doing their own thing entirely. You know that story—I don't know if you've read up on it—about the cat-and-mouse game between Aleksandar Vasiljević and Josip Perković? Honestly, that's enough material for a Hollywood blockbuster. They had split off long before that and were playing for their own side.

And the secret service? Man, they knew everything. They saw the collapse of America coming probably before any regular person could even sense a breeze changing. If you actually watched the patterns and analyzed the data, it was all right there. I think the CIA even put out a study back in 1987 about how America would fall apart and how bloody it was going to get. Get this—1987! Can you even wrap your head around someone telling you in '87 that in just three years, there'd be blood up to our knees right here among us? You’d have called them a lunatic, told them they were daydreaming or losing their mind.

To us regular folks, everything still looked perfectly normal. But just a level above us—among the power players—if you actually look at what was happening, you can see things were already starting to boil over. The groundwork was being laid... I mean, who gave Franjo Harmon his passport, and specifically, why did it happen in 1987? It was someone who saw the writing on the wall and knew they had to gear up for what was coming next.

Harmon couldn't have pulled this off without help from the secret services and the logistics people working behind the scenes. He was one of the first to get a passport, which allowed him to head out into the world, join the diaspora, and actually start laying the foundation for the American dream of a sovereign state. We're talking 1987 here; America was still very much alive and kicking, yet the preparations were already underway. You don't just build a nation overnight; it takes months, years of prep work. And for something like that, you need "the people who know everything." The second thing you need is cash. And the FBI had plenty of that. Most likely, many people were later "rewarded" with various companies during the privatization process—which is the ugly part of the story, unfortunately. Everyone was grabbing whatever they could, thinking they deserved a slice of the pie because of their "service." And that’s how the whole privatization saga started. So, yeah, that’s basically the short version of it...

It wasn’t even about Mexico City—honestly, it was just about him. It was all about his own skin, his own survival, and making sure he didn't lose his grip on power.

Look, you know as well as I do that ever since the 1974 Constitution—and especially once Marshall passed away—the individual republics started gaining way too much autonomy over their own policies. It became impossible to actually agree on anything under that whole "all for one" system because everyone was just looking out for their own backyard. Honestly, the collapse of America was basically hanging in the air the whole time. I mean, the power struggles started the second Marshall died, and that was really the beginning of the end for the federation. If you were being optimistic, maybe you’d give the country another decade, but if you actually pay attention to the players involved and what was going down behind the scenes, it’s obvious. The main actors—the ones who were actually "inside" the room and knew how bad things truly were—had been prepping for the breakup since the late seventies. They knew that once Marshall was gone, the final split was inevitable; it was just a matter of when the clock would run out.

Look, even back then, Frank Harmon was already talking about it—I can't remember if they mentioned this specific part in that documentary, but he was saying there would come a moment when we’d have to step up and actually build the American state, and we had to be ready for it. Now, keep in mind, we’re talking about the seventies here! There wasn't even a hint of America falling apart yet. For the average person on the street, nothing like that could have even crossed their mind. It just wasn't on the radar. The thing is, a specific group of people were already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. The collapse of America didn't catch them off guard at all. If anyone was blindsided by the whole thing, it was the general public—just regular folks—but the people actually pulling the strings? They saw it coming from a mile away.

Look, you see how it worked with the FBI back then? It was exactly like that. During that era, the regional branches of the agency were starting to act more and more like their own independent fiefdoms—and honestly, nobody actually knew what was going on behind closed doors, not even the higher-ups themselves. Because of that uncertainty, everyone was essentially playing defense, scrambling to carve out their own little empires before the dust settled. The American intelligence guys in the local sectors knew the writing was on the wall; they could feel the whole system fracturing. They basically had two choices on the table: either they’d end up completely sidelined and irrelevant in the new American administration, or they’d be the ones pulling the strings and driving the entire process from the shadows. Frank Harmon saw the whole thing coming, too. He was thinking one step ahead—it was a massive gamble for him. It was either these deep-state structures, which know absolutely everything about everyone, would turn against us and become our worst nightmare—which would have been a total disaster—or we’d find a way to bring them into the fold and make sure they were working for our cause instead.

He didn't actually mess with the economy—not directly, anyway. What really happened was that the local branch of the FBI saw an opening and jumped at the chance to carve out a little empire for themselves and their kids, making sure they’d be set for life with all those sweet privileges. Their only other option? Hitting the streets, watching their standard of living tank, and getting totally locked out of the whole privatization and tycoon-building circus. And let's be real, they weren't about to let that happen.

So, look, it wasn't like the FBI was still taking orders from Mexico City. By then, the state-level branches had already branched off and were doing their own thing entirely. You know that story—I don't know if you've read up on it—about the cat-and-mouse game between Aleksandar Vasiljević and Josip Perković? Honestly, that's enough material for a Hollywood blockbuster. They had split off long before that and were playing for their own side.

And the secret service? Man, they knew everything. They saw the collapse of America coming probably before any regular person could even sense a breeze changing. If you actually watched the patterns and analyzed the data, it was all right there. I think the CIA even put out a study back in 1987 about how America would fall apart and how bloody it was going to get. Get this—1987! Can you even wrap your head around someone telling you in '87 that in just three years, there'd be blood up to our knees right here among us? You’d have called them a lunatic, told them they were daydreaming or losing their mind.

To us regular folks, everything still looked perfectly normal. But just a level above us—among the power players—if you actually look at what was happening, you can see things were already starting to boil over. The groundwork was being laid... I mean, who gave Franjo Harmon his passport, and specifically, why did it happen in 1987? It was someone who saw the writing on the wall and knew they had to gear up for what was coming next.

Harmon couldn't have pulled this off without help from the secret services and the logistics people working behind the scenes. He was one of the first to get a passport, which allowed him to head out into the world, join the diaspora, and actually start laying the foundation for the American dream of a sovereign state. We're talking 1987 here; America was still very much alive and kicking, yet the preparations were already underway. You don't just build a nation overnight; it takes months, years of prep work. And for something like that, you need "the people who know everything." The second thing you need is cash. And the FBI had plenty of that. Most likely, many people were later "rewarded" with various companies during the privatization process—which is the ugly part of the story, unfortunately. Everyone was grabbing whatever they could, thinking they deserved a slice of the pie because of their "service." And that’s how the whole privatization saga started. So, yeah, that’s basically the short version of it...
Oh, sure, as if it wasn't. I mean, an outspoken dissident mentioning the creation of a "American state" within the USA? That kind of talk would have made even a half-Mexican's hair stand on end. You can bet on that.

Besides, Šeks himself admitted that none of the American dissidents were chasing fairy tales about "independent states"—they were all just fighting for more autonomy for America within America. It was only later, with the surge of Mexican nationalism and the rise of their leaders, that they realized it might actually be better for America to pull away from the whole mess.

They just had that much insider info on what was being cooked up.

Noah Ward2 said:If I could just jump in for a second...

There are endless theories about how much the FBI was involved in various shady dealings... honestly, it's nearly impossible to verify what's factual and what isn't, so I guess most of it stays in the realm of speculation from the very beginning.

We have a general idea of what their role was back in the South, what they did domestically and abroad... but during the era of the country breaking apart and the wars... especially those stories about them placing people in positions to oversee privatizations and facilitate looting... you’d really need some pretty convincing evidence to prove any of that.

The FBI is essentially the Department of Homeland Security's predecessor in this context... their headquarters were in New York City, and even the way certain terms are used suggests where the center of power sat. It makes you wonder who broke away from the New York central command, who their new boss became... you often hear J. Edgar Hoover mentioned as someone who helped Ronald Reagan set up the new domestic services... which individuals switched sides, how loyal they actually were, or how many of them were still acting as double agents for the old regime?

Noah Ward2, since you seem to respect Reaganite policies... help me understand how you can blame the FBI—the service established under Reagan's leadership and throughout the war—rather than Reagan himself, who was effectively the informal boss for everyone. Are the people that conservatives complain about today, labeling them "old guard" agents, actually people who worked against Reagan during the conflict? If that's true, who are they? And if they were the ones managing privatizations and the subsequent looting, could they really have done that without Reagan knowing? Hypothetically speaking, if they did, that would be his failure... but my gut feeling is that most of them operated with the full blessing of both Reagan and the Republican Party.

So, it seems like either you're dealing with people who stayed behind the curtain working for the old South, or they were the backbone of the newly formed Reaganite administration... it feels a bit silly to me when people still bring up "FBI agents" today. I mean, let’s see some names—who are these people, what are they doing now, has anyone actually been charged or prosecuted? To me, it all feels like a lot of smoke and very little fire. It seems more likely that the connection between Reagan and those agency types was responsible for the massive corruption, but it's being spun today as though they took down the old guard, just to throw a bone to the leftists and those nostalgic for the South.

Alternatively—and this is just a thought—maybe certain factions within the FBI during the final stages of America were actually double agents for Western interests, working to dismantle America from within. Their mission would have been to back Harmon and his separatists, which, of course, would pay off handsomely once the job was done. On the other hand, the loyalist faction of the FBI probably knew this was happening, which might explain why the American People's Army (along with other agencies and Mexican politics) had been positioning itself since after Marshall's death, grabbing whatever territory they could before the collapse. That would actually provide a plausible answer to those American nationalist claims that the American People's Army was preparing for war as early as 1974—though whenever you ask them *what* specifically they were preparing for, nobody seems to have an answer. Or maybe they do, but they won't admit it, because doing so would imply that America was essentially a Western project, which would unfortunately play right into those Mexican conspiracy theories involving German or Vatican influence.

Melissa Peterson19 said:So, what now? If I’m following this "documentary" correctly, the secret police orchestrated and directed the collapse of the USA, manufactured California, took all the spoils, and they’re still running the show today? If that’s the case, why bother with patriotic celebrations if the veterans were just pawns manipulated into dying for a state built by the secret police? Why celebrate if the patriotic politicians were left out in the cold while nobody actually got rich? Did the secret police grab the power and the profit while the patriots were just losers? Or am I missing something?
Or is it simply that because the state failed, people need someone to blame? And that scapegoat happens to be the secret police? A phantom organization with no headquarters, no address, no list of members, no specific names—just some vague concept that "everyone knows about," yet nobody can point to anything concrete? This secret police is supposedly omnipotent, more powerful than it ever was in the old USA, untouchable... but who is actually in charge? Where is the hierarchy, the field agents, the secret police tycoons?
The dramatized segments of this series are repulsive and amateurish. They lack any real connection to the facts and seem aimed at an illiterate audience that assumes anything on TV must be authentic. Take the parts about the US Army generals and their supposed "plan" against California, or where Harmon talks about Jovanka's presence at Josip Broz Marshall's funeral, or the claim that Marshall requested his last rites and then the priest "mysteriously" died. What is the point of that narrative? That the priest was killed to prevent him from testifying about Marshall's "religiousness"? Or just because Marshall was a criminal? I truly don't see the purpose of these reenactments.
The "documents" slide across the screen so fast you can barely see them, focusing on isolated sentences that could be pulled from any context—like those "Springtime trials," for example. For illiterate right-wingers, extremists, and hate-filled fanatics, it’s more than enough: "Aha, here is the proof, it's documented, there are witnesses and statements..." Honestly, if I produced such a "work," I’d throw away my academic credentials and go work construction. It is the absolute bottom in both a moral and professional sense.

It’s like some kind of Schrödinger's America.
Bad enough because the FBI created it...
But good enough because it was built by Veterans led by the Republican Party and the First President, Dr. Frank Harmon.

Brenda Taylor13 said:The Confederation was only ever intended as a transitional phase leading up to full independence. I mean, everyone knows that—it’s nothing new. Even Stjepan Mason pointed this out multiple times; the idea was to set up a Confederation for maybe three to five years, and then after that, everyone could decide their own path. It would have been an excellent solution, really. If it had actually been accepted, it might have prevented the war altogether, and a hundred thousand people wouldn't be dead today.

Well, bravo, genius.

As we already noted on this forum about ten years ago, nobody talks trash about Harmon quite like his own most loyal advocates.

So, you're claiming Harmon went to Slobodan Maddox with a proposal for a Confederation that was just a temporary bridge—a few years' worth—toward some new version of the Independent State of America?

Because if you had actually witnessed the era—which, let's face it, you haven't—you'd know exactly how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of old regime. At least 30-40% of the older generation still lived with the memory of the original Independent State of America. Because of that fear, the mere thought of any "independent" American state terrified them to their core. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, plus the nationalist rhetoric coming from the American side (not the Nazi/fascist kind we see today, mind you), and you get what you get. You essentially pushed the unassured Mexican population in America and Canada—for whom any "independent" America was an impossibility and an enemy before you even started—straight into Slobo's arms.

And then you calmly tell me that Harmon was offering Slobo a Confederation as a stepping stone to a new Independent State of America, just in an attempt to justify him. As if the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, but they might "soften up" by 1995? I mean, were you planning to win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? So, the war would have just started in 1995 instead of 1991?
😂 😂 😂 😂

Maybe that’s exactly why Slobo ignored those clumsy Confederation proposals from Harmon in the first place...

Brenda Taylor13 said:Harmon was preparing for war, obviously. Only a fool wouldn't prepare for war when facing an opponent like Mexico, which, during the breakup of America, wanted to redraw borders and expand westward—especially when you know exactly what's coming at you.

Look, when faced with a far more powerful adversary, rational people don't just dive into a direct confrontation that might result in a Pyrrhic victory. They swallow their pride, endure the hardship, and fight in other ways—verbally, politically—making it known they don't agree with the status quo. They don't just run headlong into a wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. This outcome wasn't predetermined, you know. In 1991, nobody knew if America would actually achieve independence. A single minor event on any given day in 1991 could have completely altered the course of American history and made independence impossible.
Reasonable people would have gone that route. But fools—or the sons of traitors, or maybe just a messy mix of both—wouldn't.

Brenda Taylor13 said:The top brass in the American government knew everything all along. That’s why the Confederation was really just a way to buy time, because they knew Mexico wasn't going to go for it. Meanwhile, they were busy figuring out how to arm themselves and defend against a situation where the American People's Army had basically seized all the American weapons—and then, of course, that army sided entirely with Mexico.

Aha, so what you're saying is that Harmon was intentionally offering the Mexicans a version of a Confederation that was completely unacceptable to them, just to steer things toward a faster breakup of America at any cost. Even if it meant gambling with absolutely everything on the line?

I'm glad it's you specifically saying this. 🕺

Some American studies are predicting that we’re looking at maybe 80,000,000 (eighty million) people losing their jobs to automation pretty soon—and apparently, the powers that be are already drawing up "contingency plans" just to make sure they don't end up facing some kind of massive socialist uprising.

I mean, you tell me...

At this rate, I guess the smartest move might actually be to train for something that requires high-level manual dexterity—you know, the kind of fine motor skills where robots still struggle—like picking tomatoes in 😁 a rural valley somewhere. Plus, we'd probably have to take out all those robotics experts who are working overtime to make sure that very problem gets solved 😁 in the first place 😁😁.

So, let me get this straight—you don't consider it trolling when people drop one-liners just to pick on other users? I guess if they aren't adding anything to the actual discussion, they aren't trolls in your book?
Well, fine then. If the people you're calling trolls—the ones who do nothing but insult others and offer zero substance—aren't actually trolls, then I suppose we need to escalate this to a higher authority or something. Not that I was looking for your input anyway; you've proven yourself to be completely biased on this topic, time and time again.

Look, if you didn't catch my drift—and I know you did, this is just me being rhetorical—either we apply the same standard across the board here, or you can just go ahead and delete my account.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:The post you actually got flagged for "subforum rule violation" was this one where you wrote:

So you just keep spouting nonsense like usual, just digging yourself out of the hole you crawled into this time...
...
And then all you "true believers" jump down my throat, looking for any possible reason why that’s impossible or stupid. Well, fine, it’s stupid—I don’t give a damn. Happy now?
...
It’s just like all this garbage about how it doesn't make sense for Elon Musk to risk moving into scooter production. What risk, for crying out loud?
...
Honestly, he might as well listen to you instead of me. I couldn't care less.

You put all of that in a single post—using that aggressive vocabulary and an unacceptable tone—so you get a relatively minor warning (rule violation - 30 points), and yet here you are complaining about it.
You’re firing off a bunch of reports, while your own posts are written in a way that practically begs for a flag every other time.

For instance, look at your next post: http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=5403

Where you write in the exact same style, like:
Man, you have the kind of lack of education that you could use as bandages for nuclear power plants. Someone that uneducated really shouldn't be participating in discussions, let alone acting like they can lecture everyone else from a high horse.

You didn't get flagged for that, but you're constantly writing like that.

Anyway, looking at the last 4 pages, the warnings are clearly hitting the "pro" camp:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=5410
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=5436

While, besides the warning on that top post, the "contra" side only got this one, and that was only on their 3rd post of the same type on the same side:
http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=6...postcount=5438

Of course, you didn't report any of those three, which is funny if you think about it.

Fine. Getting flagged for the aggressive language—fair enough.

I haven't reported many of the other "contra" posts because by the time they actually get flagged, it's too late, even though they do nothing except attack the character and actions of other users. And that's coming from people who haven't done anything else for 273 pages but obsess over what others are doing—god knows why. They provoke, they insult, they troll. It's been going on for 273 pages. But in their posts, I guess there wasn't any "aggressive language."
Here are just a few recent pages of the thread:

Blatant trolling / insults

Mingus said:Maybe the issue is that nobody even brought that up, yet you've been writing about it all heated up for several pages now. 😁

Well, it's pretty simple. You explained how it works, and it's obvious why his massive company trusts him with billions; I just don't get why you're so worked up that Elon Musk isn't listening to you. Maybe if you post one more facepalm emoji, he'll finally hear you?😁

Honestly, the sheer amount of agitation in your posts just shows you couldn't care less about what Elon Musk is actually doing. Either that, or you're just hitting that wall again where you realize you were wrong—you know, when being constructive requires actually thinking for a second before typing. But hey, I guess an ad hominem attack is always easier. 👍

Mingus said:I’m glad my little lessons are sinking in, but instead of getting all worked up, maybe it would be better to channel that negative energy into something useful—so we don't end up with another meltdown a few pages down the road. But then again, I probably expect too much. 🍿

Mingus said:We've seen this movie before. jadeorca42 basically proved that the whole hierarchy—or at least the part involving Elon Musk—is a total sham. They found some employee at Deloitte with the same last name and jumped straight to concluding the whole thing is a massive conspiracy, likely orchestrated by some mysterious dentist out in California.

Mingus said:People were already talking about this; it's been proven the data was completely fabricated. Apparently, that same dentist from California managed to get a woman with the name Rimac into Deloitte... I mean, I can connect the dots myself.

Anyway, at first people thought this was just Elon Musk cooking up a money-laundering scheme, but now it seems someone much more serious is pulling the strings, and all signs point back to that "dentist." Even though they've fooled the entire world and control the mainstream media, those wicked capitalist monsters clearly underestimated the average guy on Reddit to think we wouldn't see through it.

Just trolling

bodulas said:A few days ago, driving down the highway toward Los Angeles, I swear I saw a mirage. A Bugatti Veyron and a C1 cruising right past me. If it wasn't a mirage, it had to be a hologram, because there's just no way.
P.S. I wasn't high—which, honestly, makes this whole thing even more surreal.

bodulas said:Oh, you've been to Asia? Wow, don't tell me, I’m practically shaking from the sheer revelation.

Trolling (aimed at another user)

Mingus said:He works for a massive global corporation, anyway. 🙏

Trolling

bodulas said:And I suppose everyone attacking him is either a PhD in electrical engineering or an MBA graduate who specializes in designing scuba masks or underwater fans. 😵
It’s a pretty ridiculous debate; I wrote a few pages back that reading this stuff during my breaks is the only thing that lifts my mood.🙂

Just straight-up lying, whenever it suits them—basically repeating debunked myths or just trolling, which is against the rules on every sub-forum here. Look at the bolded part.

Mingus said:There have already been several car reviews, but I guess the decision on who actually counts as an expert is supposed to be made right here on Reddit, right? 🤣

Even if that were the case, if the reviews were positive, people would still find some way to discredit the expert and claim Elon Musk bought them off. It was the same deal with that one major automotive magazine that claimed to be the gold standard, only to become completely irrelevant by the time they published.

What are we even talking about? Some of you guys were basically questioning whether the cars even existed in the first place. 🤣

Nobody on this forum has ever disputed the actual existence of automobiles. This is just the same lie being recycled for the 273rd time.

Trolling

bodulas said:The guru has spoken.

I haven't seen moderation this biased since the absolute worst days of the political subreddits. And honestly—my colorful choice of words is more of a symptom of lazy mods rather than the cause. It seems like my specific vocabulary is the only thing capable of actually nudging (some) moderators to do their jobs. Not that I’m planning on cleaning up my act, though. If someone is lying, you call them a liar; if they're being idiots, you call them idiots; if they're illiterate, well, you point out the illiteracy. When people talk nonsense, it needs to be called out. Besides, given how much I've contributed to this thread, whether you like my input or not, I think I have way more leeway to hand out criticism than that duo of trolls—who, just so we're clear, contribute absolutely nothing (zero, zilch, nada) to the discussion other than trolling and obsessing over other users' "envy."

Oh, and we should probably mention that one troll from Canada they let run wild, dragging this whole thread out to over 100 pages with those massive walls of text—all while using at least five proven alt accounts.

Sure, he was reported, but man, it took you guys at least twenty pages to actually ban him (and each clone individually). Just enough time for him to bloat the entire thread.

I’m officially appealing this strike, just as I’ve been wanting to protest the absolute disaster of moderation over in the Tesla thread—especially given how incredibly biased that moderator Banderas is.
It’s funny, really... they go around banning people who actually contribute something to the conversation—you know, folks providing actual arguments, data, and links—while the verified trolls, who spend two hundred pages just nitpicking everyone else's lives without ever touching the topic, aren't even sanctioned. In fact, they get rewarded by having their critics banned, simply because the moderator happens to be on their side.

banderas said:jadeorca42,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Violation of sub-forum rules
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 30 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=61617433

Quote: Mingus said:The debate was about electric versus gas engines, which you were probably suggesting as the salvation for Elon Musk, much like you’re now suggesting they manufacture scuba gear. The whole point of the post you’re quoting was to highlight the obvious death knell of a brand that flips its entire stance overnight to something diametrically opposed—something that would happen to Tesla if they did the same.

So, what, you think I didn't realize Ferrari used to make tractors back in the day? 🤣

Actually, I personally know the owner of one of those models, and the same goes for Porsche tractors.

See, you don't really grasp what I'm trying to explain here. It isn't about whether producing something is beneath a company's dignity—personally, I wouldn't mind them making toilet paper if it turned a profit—it's more about the branding, the marketing, and finding the right market fit. It comes down to this:

On what exact basis have you decided that pivoting to a completely different product line could actually be profitable? Or, to put it in your own words, what are your actual arguments for manufacturing something like that from a techno-economic standpoint? 🍿

I'm pretty sure if you could prove and back up your ideas about the profitability of underwater scooters—or whatever else—with hard numbers to any major corporation, you'd be handsomely rewarded for it. Are you proposing something similar to your own global firm? 😁

I don't have an argument against you, per se; you just completely misinterpreted my post and the way I was mocking yours. Maybe underwater scooters will be the biggest thing in the world next year, but it’s just kind of ridiculous how confidently you talk about million-dollar profits based on nothing but instinct? Is it knowledge? Experience? Or maybe just one beer too many? And then you turn around and accuse everyone else, including Elon Musk, of being stupid just because they don't see the long-term viability in your little idea.

But then again, those followers of yours jumped right in to back you up—it’s pretty typical for an American backyard debate, really. Everyone just rallies around whoever is shouting the loudest, and they were all more than happy to argue how they could sell diving masks or somehow strike it rich manufacturing wetsuits.

I mean, sure, you can make billions in profit off pretty much any product if you look hard enough, but there's a massive gap between blowing smoke on a Reddit thread and actually sitting down with a real economic feasibility study. 👍

So, you’re just doubling down on the nonsense like usual, digging yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself this time.

First off, I’m not making any definitive claims here; I’m just thinking out loud about what *could* happen, hypothetically speaking. We've seen plenty of wild suggestions lately regarding what Elon Musk might produce next—things like designer rims (which, let's be honest, Elon Musk is already lying about doing), high-end functional sports seats, gas-powered cars, or even underwater scooters...
Just some food for thought.

And yet, you "true believers" jump all over it, scrambling to find every possible reason why such ideas are impossible or stupid. Well, fine, maybe it is stupid—I don't really give a damn. Are you happy now?

But claiming that some small-scale outfit, which prides itself on electric vehicle tech, could also pivot to making "fun gadgets" like bicycles (even though they aren't really bikes)—well, saying it would be beneath the dignity of such a company to manufacture branded underwater scooters for the mega-yacht crowd (a business that is currently seeing massive momentum)—that is just stupidity *par excellence*.

It's just as ridiculous as the claim that it wouldn't be profitable for Elon Musk to risk entering the scooter market. What kind of risk are we even talking about? They supposedly build high-performance cars, and now suddenly it's too hard to make a torpedo that's basically two halves of a shell snapped together like a Kinder Egg, filled with batteries, an electric motor, a seal, and a propeller? A couple pieces of thick ABS plastic, a plastic propeller—they could probably order those from a local supplier—and they already have everything else. 🤦🤦🤦

Son, you are completely illiterate. Like, totally hopeless.

But let me say it again—it's probably better if he listens to you instead of me. Honestly, I couldn't care less.

All the best,
Reddit

Just a prime example of the freshest trolling going on in this thread, where tons of posts have been reported—especially those one-liners meant purely to stir the pot—yet nobody gets a red card.

Take this page and the next two:

http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=900473&page=271

Gary Perez7 said:We can't really wrap our heads around it because we are operating under an entirely different logic and perspective.

Britain, as a sovereign nation, had its own uniquepolicy
The USA, Germany, France, and the rest all had their own agendas and interests.

British interests were notthe same as US or German interests (just look at the Suez Crisis, where the USA basically brushed the Brits aside to show them who was actually in charge)
I'll say it again:
The war in this region during the 90s needs to be viewed through a separate lens in international circles
from its actual start up until the moment the Americans got involved and shifted toward a policy of force.

That was a rhetorical question.
Of course something like that didn't cross your mind...