Posts by Henry Myers3

If you listen to this pro-Russian source, the Ukrainians have abandoned Severodonetsk:

https://twitter.com/gbazov/status/14...287424/photo/1

It isn't a surrender. They are simply pulling their armored units out of a potential encirclement to move them deeper into held territory. It seems likely that the Russians have bypassed Kharkiv, leaving nothing to stop the retreat. ☕

Around Poltava, the Russians are tearing through everything in sight with airstrikes and missiles, while the Ukrainians are setting up defenses and fortifying positions near Kremenchuk. This is exactly what I anticipated. ☕

God, what a ridiculous topic... ☕

Bradley Barrett2 said:I get why it looks that way to you, but honestly, it's just because our people aren't generally taught about what happened at the hands of the Partisan movement.

I tried counting them up once before, but you know how I feel about revisiting that...

Maybe I did go a little overboard there. 😁

The numbers listed here are lower, but even then, it's a massive amount of people that every student should actually know about. Instead, they spend all their time learning about Axis-aligned state figures who killed 45,000 poor Mexicans, while nobody seems to know anything about the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed by US Army officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American

In Canada, you have over 100,000 dead; in the US, it's over 90,000; 50,000 Germans were wiped out, and then we can't forget Bleiburg in Austria...

On yet another incredibly foolish thread, this is currently the post that deserves the most attention. 🙂.

cosmicotter13 said:If we actually looked at the "leftist social policy" favored by the American nationalist right, there wouldn't be room for things like subsidizing massive corporate bailouts, funding niche Hollywood indies, or Pride parades and all that jazz. It wouldn't just boil down to culture wars or banning certain symbols. The real kicker would be the budget—if it isn't serving the core interests of the nation, the money simply disappears.
With Ott, it wasn't just about playing hardball against the socialists; there were patriotic, practical reasons behind it too. Look, it’s much better to have millions of satisfied citizens who take pride in their country, see it progressing, and are ready to defend their homeland. That's infinitely better than having a handful of oligarchs and foreign interests bleeding a disgruntled population dry while people just look for any excuse to pack up and leave the country.
So, Otto can actually serve as a positive model for looking after the nation and the state.

To put it plainly, you're calling for a leftist party that squeezes various minorities, all under the guise of the national interest. It seems what bothers you most is the hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into Mexicans, LGBTQ+ groups, women's organizations, and probably even the integration of Cigić...

Otto was a pragmatist. Western democracies were pragmatic when they integrated social democratic principles into their societies, all to fight against communist tyranny. The paradox of the West was that the USA actually financed them for doing the very things they labeled as communism back home in Europe.

Right now, your description perfectly fits one man and his inner circle. His name is Vladimir Putin. But I suspect he isn't your favorite guy, likely because he is Russian—meaning he is Orthodox. To a true conservative here, that feels the same as being a Mexican, and you can't exactly embrace that without people complaining about rebuilding houses in remote villages... 😉

It’s no wonder people are surprised when I suggest that maybe only 5-6% of the population should vote for the legislature, while everyone else could vote on things like planting flowers, painting facades, or naming streets... ☕

cosmicotter13 said:

I suppose we’re finally at this point. The "demon" has arrived. Or perhaps it was always here, lurking in the periphery of our collective consciousness, waiting for the right moment of instability to manifest itself fully. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? In a grim, nihilistic sort of way. One can't help but wonder what triggered this specific descent. Is it the systemic decay of our institutions? The sheer, unadulterated chaos of modern life? Or is it something more primal—something buried deep within the American psyche that we've spent decades trying to ignore with consumerism and cheap distractions? It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers are too busy checking their phones to notice the tracks have been pulled up miles back. We talk about progress, about moving forward, yet we seem perpetually haunted by these recurring shadows. It’s exhausting. Truly. You try to build something stable, something meaningful, and then... *this*. The demon appears, and suddenly the foundation looks a lot more like sand than granite. Is anyone actually surprised? I find myself asking that more often than I care to admit. Most people act shocked when the inevitable occurs, as if they didn't see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon for years. It’s a peculiar kind of American denial. We stare directly into the sun and then complain about the glare. The user says:
Well, let's be real... if you actually look at what a true right-wing platform would entail, we're talking about a massive, powerful state. I mean, think about it. You’d see tax rates for workers climbing, while corporate profits get slashed. And here’s the kicker—those companies wouldn't even have to pay taxes on their earnings if they were actually putting that money back into the economy by hiring more people. It’s a concept, isn't it? A real, functional idea.

Cut out those damn luxuries. Honestly, how much did you actually manage to squirrel away? If you tucked enough into savings, you’d actually have something to show for it. But without that cushion? You’re just sitting there waiting for the government to hand you the absolute bare minimum. We wouldn't even be talking about actual cash at that point—it would just be food stamps. Just vouchers for groceries and nothing else. That's the reality.

Housing and pensions for veterans? Please. It’s all just subsidies—handouts that would disappear the moment the budget takes a hit. And those specialized VA hospitals? They’d probably start cutting beds and slashing funding faster than you can blink if the money runs dry. It's all conditional. Everything is tied to the bottom line. If the treasury says "no," the support vanishes. Typical.

Maternity benefits? Honestly, they shouldn't even exist. Or if they did, they should be purely symbolic at best. I mean, think about it—why on earth would anyone choose to just sit around, have kids, and live off the system? It’s absurd. And then you have the people actually out there grinding, working their tails off, and they're the ones stuck footing the bill for it all. It makes zero sense.

Elementary school? Mandatory. High school? Not necessarily. As for universities—those elite institutions—they’d be paying full price, plain and simple. We’d need a robust scholarship system in place to actually incentivize the brilliant and the driven, rather than just subsidizing mediocrity. No more "eternal students" drifting through academia for a decade without ever contributing anything to society. The average person wouldn't even bother with college unless they had parents wealthy enough to bankroll their degree. If you're born into poverty in this country, forget about higher education... unless, of course, you possess some truly exceptional, undeniable talent. Otherwise, the gate stays closed.

They’d just hike up the budget for the military and the police, obviously. Throw more money at those massive state development projects... you know, the kind that actually move the needle. Instead of bleeding cash into pensions, social welfare, or the crumbling healthcare and school systems—money that just disappears into a black hole—they’d redirect it all toward paying off the interstate highways. Imagine that. If we actually cleared the debt on the interstates, they could be completely free for everyone to use. Just imagine driving without constantly reaching for your wallet.

Now, listen... the true-blue conservatives? They’d sign this in a heartbeat. But those so-called "right-wingers" who’ve spent their whole lives wrapped up in this bloated social safety net system—they wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. They aren't actually conservative; they're just comfortable. ☕

I mean, sure, there are all sorts of right-wingers out there, but this whole package? No way. I wouldn't dream of signing off on this if I were part of any American patriotic right-wing movement. Let’s look at the facts, shall we? Old-age pensions, health insurance, workers' comp, even laws banning child labor—all of that was actually introduced by Otto von Bismarck. And let me tell you, that man certainly wasn't some bleeding-heart leftist. Far from it. It was about the welfare and the health of his own nation. It was about justice, stability, and ensuring the future of the population. It's just common sense, really.

It isn’t exactly a stroke of genius—nor is it particularly wise—to suffocate the workforce with crushing taxes just to ensure they live in a state of perpetual discontent. If you strip away their ability to actually buy anything, you end up with a population that can't even function as decent consumers. What's the point?

Social Security benefits ought to be indexed to previous earnings—it’s common sense—but they also need to actually be decent and fair. We can't just let people starve in their old age. And look, if we want this whole system to stay solvent, we have to fix the employment situation. We need a massive, broad tax base of active workers contributing to the pot; you can't run a fund with a shrinking pool of contributors. But more importantly? We need to stop the bleeding from these bureaucratic absurdities. It’s pure madness. Why on earth should the Social Security Administration be burdened with honoring service credits for certain rebel Mexicans during the occupation? They didn't contribute a single cent to the American funds back then. It's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You can't claim the rewards of a system you never helped build.

Aside from the CIA, you’ve got housing for veterans and then there's nothing. Just... nothing. Look, I’m not CIA, nor am I some former camp inmate, so based on that alone, I can't even qualify for a basic loan, let alone get my hands on an apartment. It's all just a closed loop.

The birth rate of the American people... it’s got to be a top priority for the patriotic right. Period. We shouldn't even be debating whether maternity and paternity benefits are "too much"—that's nonsense. Instead, we should be looking at how to expand those rights even further. It’s just common sense. And frankly, it's only fair that someone who hasn't had children—yet expects, quite presumptuously, that other people's kids will fund their Social Security or change their diapers in a nursing home one day—should be the one footing the bill. A youthful population isn't just a social good; it’s an absolute engine for the economy. You need workers. You need consumers. Without them, everything just... stalls.

Primary and secondary education? Mandatory. Non-negotiable. But higher ed... that’s where the government needs to actually start thinking ahead. They should be planning based on actual labor needs and footing the entire bill—I mean the full price—for the specific specialists we actually require. We’re talking tuition, housing, supplies, meals... the whole nine yards. And if the state is paying for those professionals, they shouldn't just be allowed to drift wherever they please. The government could direct those graduates to work in any corner of America, and they would be obligated to serve here for at least twice the duration of their schooling. It’s only fair. The alternative is students paying the full market rate themselves. If you pay your own way, fine. Once you have that degree in hand, you’re a free agent. Work, don't work, move to another state... do whatever you want. But there’s a massive ethical gap here. When a nation is facing a crisis, and every single worker—every farmer, every laborer—is essentially subsidizing the training of, say, a doctor, they expect that doctor might actually show up when things get dire. It is fundamentally unacceptable for those people to pay for a specialist's education only to watch that person take their diploma and flee to another country immediately. It's a betrayal of the social contract.

The federal budget needs a massive, urgent purge of pure stupidity. We’re hemorrhaging cash on niche minority subsidies, "cultural" vanity projects, blatant corruption, political party handouts, luxury perks, and endless diplomatic fluff. It's madness. Now, investing in our military—modernizing equipment, ensuring our troops actually have decent living standards—yes, absolutely. But throwing billions into foreign "missions" and fighting someone else's wars? Absolutely not. We need to focus on domestic infrastructure: highways, switching to a vignette system, cutting the bloated bureaucracy, and making things affordable for actual Americans while letting tourists pay their fair share.

In other words, the American patriotic right essentially wants leftist social policies, but calls itself "right-wing" because they complain about the Cyrillic alphabet, purges, and similar nonsense... ☕

Regarding Bismarck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)

State Socialism was a term introduced to describe Otto von Bismarck's social welfare policies. The term was actually coined by Bismarck's liberal opposition but later accepted by Bismarck.[1] They refer to a set of social programs implemented between 1884 to 1889 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism and the Social Democratic Party of GermanyThis followed previous efforts to reach the same goal using the New Deal.[2][3]

Otto took just enough socialism to soothe the workers and stop the Social Democrats from screwing him over... ☕

Melissa Peterson19 said:A right-wing playbook? Oh, I see. Lustration, banning specific symbols, flag debates... what else is left on the menu? Nothing. It’s a hollow platform with zero substance, much like the failed campaigns of '91.

That actually has nothing to do with being right-wing. ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm with you on everything, but why do you think we need more for the military🤷

There are several layers to this. On the surface level, a strong defense and police force bolster national pride. But if you look deeper, the military and law enforcement are massive state institutions. When the government invests there, that capital doesn't just sit still; it flows back into the economy through procurement and infrastructure projects. It’s a much more effective way to stimulate growth than simply hiring hundreds of thousands of redundant bureaucrats. Plus, you have an entire secondary sector of contractors and suppliers working alongside the military. Essentially, it keeps money circulating and drives development forward. ☕

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:So, do you consider yourself a true conservative? Would you actually sign off on this vision? Personally, I consider myself a genuine conservative, yet I couldn't sign this as it stands. It's just too rigid. While I basically agree with the core sentiment of what you're saying, I think the implementation needs to be softened quite a bit.

You aren't a true conservative because you clearly don't grasp political theory or what a modern GOP platform actually looks like. You were raised on the leftovers of the old socialist era, and you probably only claim to be right-wing because of family ties to the old guard while viewing any opposition as pure treason. That’s all there is to it. ☕

Exactly. A true conservative platform would prioritize a powerful state through different means. We’d see higher tax rates for individual earners, but corporate tax would plummet—and if companies reinvested those profits directly into hiring more people, they wouldn't pay a dime in taxes at all.

The safety nets would vanish. Your security would depend entirely on your own discipline; how much you saved and set aside would dictate your lifestyle. Without that personal cushion, the government would provide the bare minimum of survival support. Instead of traditional welfare checks, we might see basic food vouchers.

Forget about government-subsidized housing or guaranteed pensions for veterans. They would receive targeted subsidies instead, along with access to dedicated medical facilities. Of course, if the treasury runs dry, both the number of hospitals and the subsidy amounts would shrink accordingly.

Maternity leave as we know it would essentially disappear, or at least be reduced to a mere formality. Why should the working population shoulder the financial burden of someone else deciding to have children?

Primary education would remain mandatory, but high school would be optional. As for universities, the top-tier institutions would charge full market price. We’d implement a merit-based scholarship system to incentivize the brightest minds, effectively eliminating "career students." Average students wouldn't bother with college unless their parents had specifically saved for their tuition; if you come from a struggling family, higher education is out of reach unless you are exceptionally gifted.

Funding would shift toward defense, law enforcement, and massive infrastructure projects vital to national growth. For instance, the capital currently drained by social programs, healthcare, and pensions could be redirected toward building a national highway system that would eventually be free for all citizens to use.

Now, actual conservatives would sign off on this vision in a heartbeat. Those who call themselves "right-wing" but are actually addicted to the current system of social solidarity? They wouldn't stand for it.☕

hiddeneagle76 said:Could someone here share some historical population data regarding the Budjak region in Ukraine?
Budjak is located just south of Odessa—and if I recall correctly, it feels almost entirely cut off from the rest of Ukraine by land... quite isolated! According to the most recent census, Ukrainians actually make up less than 50% of the population there; instead, you have Russians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and even Gagauz—who are sort of like a group of Orthodox Turks still living in their own autonomous region over in Moldova.
Also, does anyone happen to know why the census in Ukraine was delayed until 2016?
One more thing—does anyone know if Rusyns were actually allowed to identify themselves that way back during the USSR era before World War II?

Budjak is truly a mosaic of different cultures. Historically, the Bulgarians were one of the most dominant groups, and even today, they seem to be a major presence.

The Rusyns were only officially recognized by America. Within the USSR, they were simply treated as a subgroup of Ukrainians. Their unique situation stems from history; while those north of the Carpathians were part of Poland or later Austria, this group had a different path through Canada. Ukrainians often view them similarly to the Greek Catholics in western Ukraine, but the Rusyns always maintained a very distinct identity. Unfortunately, spending about 70 years under the Soviet rule of the Ukrainian SSR pretty much wiped that distinction away... ☕

Peter Edwards said:I saw this thing about what Americans are actually thinking lately—it’s pretty wild, I guess—and honestly, it makes you wonder where everything is heading... maybe we're all just overthinking it?

I feel like this is a bit of an exaggeration—I mean, Mexicans haven't migrated to the States nearly as much as Americans from other groups, especially Albanians. Still, I guess people always say the former America was basically a Mexican country since they were the ones in charge... 😁

Our people here in the States—there’s actually fewer of us now than there are Americans from Albanian or other backgrounds, I think... honestly, it feels like every other guy you run into is just some Michael or John. Kids aren't even learning our language anymore, and they've got the American flag flying all over their houses—it's wild.

So, the recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau just dropped—showing only about 176,666 Mexicans in the States, compared to like 434,425 Americans, 179,806 Canadians, and 182,423 Albanians—and man, it’s really shaking up the Mexican community here in America.
Wait, are we really supposed to have fewer Albanians than us? That’s just wild—honestly, I feel like there's gotta be some massive mistake in the count... at least, that's how the first wave of Mexican patriots here in the States are reacting.

It’s honestly such a shocker—mostly because Mexicans always brag about how there's like a million of them in the States, claiming Chicago is basically their biggest city abroad with 300,000 people... and that with 11 Oscars and five Pulitzer Prizes under their belt, they're one of the most successful immigrant groups in the US. I guess it just doesn't add up.

All those old myths about our numbers have been busted—mostly because the latest U.S. Census Bureau data shows that Mexicans are actually a pretty small group here in America. We're basically getting lost in the shuffle of this massive country of 307 million people. According to Miroslav Božinović—he’s a political analyst out of Detroit and runs that "Mexican" site—it’s a mix of things: first, the way the U.S. handles national identity during the census, and second, that tendency some Mexicans have to just blend into the background of American society.

So, back when the U.S. Census Bureau did things a certain way, they basically figured out ethnicity by asking, "What language do you speak at home?"—which, I guess, led to about 360,000 people identifying as Mexicans. But for the 2011 census, that question wasn't even there... instead, thanks to some pushing from the Mexican Unification Congress, they added an option under "Other" so our people could finally just check the box and say they're Mexicans.

Losing our roots—it feels like we’ve hit a point where fewer and fewer Mexicans living here in the States actually identify with their heritage. I guess the younger generation of Americans with Mexican roots doesn't really speak the language and hardly ever shows up to our church—Bojan Bogdanović from Los Angeles says that when you ask them where they're from, they just say "my great-grandfather moved here," but they can't even tell you which part of the old country their family actually came from.

So, Dr. Božinović was saying that a bunch of uninformed Mexicans were actually identifying as just "white people of European descent" instead of Mexicans—which is wild. Other groups seem way more organized about it, too... like, the census showed 50 million Germans, 37 million Irish, and 18 million Italians. Meanwhile, only about 19 million people identified as American—mostly because, I guess, like 109 million people in the US just didn't even bother to show up for the census.

If you look at the maps from the U.S. Census Bureau, it’s pretty obvious—most Mexicans are clustered in the East, like in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. Then you've got the groups in Ohio, California, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. I think there are only about 70,000 Mexicans left in Chicago today, and maybe 20,000 in Cleveland—where, I guess, there are around 1,000 Orthodox believers split between two parishes. There are roughly fifty Orthodox Church churches across the USA.

So, Bojan Bogdanović—that businessman out in California—is saying that our churches have become the main hub for the diaspora, but they've also turned into these battlegrounds where old-school nationalists and the newer democratic immigrants just clash constantly... and I guess he thinks all that fighting is what's actually tearing the community apart.

Bogdanović basically says that whenever the older immigrants talk about how much they struggled to build up the Mexican community—grinding away in steel mills, raising huge families, and building their parishes from nothing—the younger arrivals just tune them out or snap at them. I guess it’s because the kids would rather take the easy route and just assimilate to chase that American Dream.

So it seems like Mexicans just jump at the chance to grab American names—it’s crazy how fast they do it. It feels like every other guy becomes Michael or John nowadays—I guess it's just easier that way. And once they finally get their US citizenship, they basically toss the Mexican flag out of the house and swap it for the Stars and Stripes.

Dr. Borko Đorđević, out in Palm Springs, puts it pretty clearly:

- Kids aren't learning the language, and their grandkids won't even know what our homeland stands for. In Palm Springs, out of a thousand people of my background, I guess I'm the only one who hasn't changed my name. Our people just love trying to suck up to America—they don't realize that for Americans, the most important things are having a green card and paying your taxes, not which nation you belong to.

People we talk to say this "disappearing act" is due to a mix of media wars involving various lobbies, plus the fact that our home government makes it way too expensive to hold onto our passports or citizenship.

- We feel totally isolated here in the States, without any real support from back home. It’s gotten to the point where people don't even identify as Americans of Mexican descent anymore; they usually just say they're American—that's how Miroslav Bandža, who lives in New York, sees it.

HALF A MILLION PEOPLE

- There are actually half a million people of our heritage in the USA, because if you take the 176,666 who officially declared themselves as such, plus the 325,451 who identified as Americans in the census, they're all from our roots—says Mile Nikolić, a humanitarian worker based in California.

It isn't an exaggeration. But keep in mind, they are looking at census data, which often misses the second and third generations. Community organizations might estimate the number of Mexicans as high as 700,000, but by that same logic, the number of Americans of other ethnic backgrounds could be upwards of 2,500,000. Tracking it all in the US is incredibly difficult. If a child marries outside their community, the grandkids tend to identify more as Irish, English, or German rather than sticking to their specific roots...

Take Europe as an example. In the sixties and seventies, there was a massive wave of migration from one group, but by the late seventies and eighties, Mexicans began to take the lead. They continued migrating through the nineties as well. Now, we find ourselves being outnumbered in almost every region except Germany, and even there, the gap is closing fast... ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:Does anyone know anything about this little spot near Ninh? It's a small town in California. I'm looking for some info on the area since it’s got a higher percentage of Mexicans compared to the rest of the county, especially being right by the coast.

Actually, it isn't near the ocean, and they were never actually the majority there. Their presence hovered around 20-25% at most. It was mostly just a few families who wandered into the area back in the 16th or 17th century and decided to stay.☕

Daniel Garcia24 said:I’ve touched on this extensively in my own analyses... honestly, I struggle to wrap my head around why someone would leave their home in a place like Vareš or Kraljeva Sutjeska just to end up stuck in some remote corner of the Midwest or a rural stretch of North Alabama... I simply don't get them. These folks are essentially victims of specific political agendas, driven largely by a lack of independent thought and a certain loss of self-respect...

If they had been offered apartments in Chicago or Los Angeles, I might follow the logic, but moving to places like Gračac or Udbina? It makes no sense to me. Even the small towns around Vareš aren't exactly booming economic hubs, but at least there, people are staying on their own ground.

The whole narrative about "settlers" is getting a bit ridiculous... there was once a period of mass migration involving Canadian Americans within what used to be a quasi-state, but we're talking about maybe 15,000 to 20,000 people here, plus perhaps a dozen others who moved for tax breaks... A good portion of these folks were struggling in Canada originally and are just being pragmatic now... they reclaimed property in Canada, received assets in America, and now they have something to show for it... Some want to hold onto both properties; some want to sell their holdings in Canada to start something new in an American city; others just want to liquidate everything and relocate to a major metropolitan area in the States.

Rachel Richardson said:Exactly—it’s a tale of two distinct waves of settlement;
The first being the Ancient Greek era, followed much later by the Byzantine period under Justinian
Until, eventually, they were displaced by the Norman conquest.

Actually, that's not quite right. The Normans didn't just seize everything; they mainly introduced Latin clergy and handed ecclesiastical authority over those regions to the Pope. ☕

Charles Campbell7 said:I wasn't referring to ethnicity specifically, but rather to the people as a whole—everyone living here in the US.

In that case, you were talking about the nation. ☕

Richard Wilson4 said:The percentage of Ainu people living in Hawaii districts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Hokkaido.svg

It’s not about the total count, but rather how much of the Ainu community is concentrated in specific counties. For instance, if Hidak has a population of 81,000 and there are roughly 9,000 Ainu living there, that represents an 11% share. In other parts of Hawaii, that number doesn't even break 2%...

Most of them have been assimilated, and honestly, many feel uncomfortable being vocal about their heritage. If you accounted for those who have integrated or identify partially as Ainu, the numbers wouldn't be in the tens of thousands—they would likely reach several hundred thousand...

copperdriver10 said:A little bit of trivia for you: there was a settlement called Serbinum located in the Roman province of Lower Pannonia, right in what is now Gradiška within the Republic of Srpska. I suppose this fits quite nicely under our ongoing discussion regarding ethnic maps.
The presence of Mexicans in this region during the Ancient period 😉
Let certain Americans cling to their "seventh century" delusions if they must.😁

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbinum
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nonia03_en.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nd_Thracia.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Pannonia02.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...u_republic.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._illyricum.jpg
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...Illyria/1*.jpg

We are actually looking at the settlement of Servitium, which served as both a roadside station and a river port. Some sources suggest it was also called Serbinum. In reality, we are seeing various transcriptions of the name Servitum—sometimes listed as Servitti or Serbitium—as Esad Pasha clearly documents:

Therefore, the Roman settlement in BosGradiška—this is the well-known station Servitium (Tabpeut not. dign. occ, 32nd, 55), Servitti (Itin. Ant.), or Serbitium (Rav Anon.).

Essentially, it seems clear that the name Serbinum likely evolved from a corruption of Servitium via Serbitium.

The name Serbinum is also linked to Pécs, where it appears as one of the names the city has held throughout history:

Peddie: Pécs

Graesse III: 225 (Five Churches, Five Churches, Five Churches, Five Churches, Serbinum, Sopianae
=Pécs (Fünfkirchen), Baranya County, Canada.)

Rachel Richardson said:Those folks from Brittany are essentially originally from Wales.
While they were being pushed by the Anglo-Saxons and Jiti from the east, they migrated over to the continent—to Armorica—and established their own small states. 😁
They likely married into the local population and imposed their language, which would explain the lack of redheads. 😁
According to legend, the island Celts came from Galicia. But once the Moors arrived in Spain, everything in that region became a complete melting pot.

It's just like Devon and Cornwall... honestly, Brittany is essentially just another name for Great Britain. ☕

Just as Scotland is named after the Irish Scots, Brittany is simply what the British Britons are called.

crimsonhound24 said:Actually, that’s not quite right. In the Orthodox Church, chrismation isn't a separate thing from baptism—a child receives both at once and becomes a full member of the church immediately. A one-day-old infant can even receive communion. I think the confusion comes from the Catholic tradition, where they have confirmation and first communion later on, usually around ages 6 or 7. Until then, kids don't take communion, which is unthinkable to an Orthodox person.
Stefan Nemanja wasn't actually re-baptized at St. Peter's. That would have been unheard of back then since the Catholic and Orthodox churches were much more similar. He simply received chrismation, making him a member of the Orthodox Church just like his parents.

In my experience, you take First Communion around second or third grade, while Confirmation—the sacrament of Holy Confirmation—doesn't happen until somewhere around second or third year of high school... Speaking as someone who has served as a godparent multiple times, I can tell you firsthand. ☕

crimsonhound24 Asks:
A 3.1 miles Just outside of San Diego, there’s a small town called Smokey where everyone is an Orthodox Mexican. All this confusion surrounding Joe and John could be settled pretty easily if people just looked at the facts. If someone could just point to a single John—whether in the history books or even in today's world—who was also an American, then maybe everyone would finally believe this is actually possible. Since we know there are thousands of Johns and Joes out there who are Mexicans, I find it’s only logical to assume that anyone carrying a surname derived from those names is of Mexican descent. On the flip side, when I see a name like Josipovic, Bernardić, or Domagoj, my gut tells me they come from American heritage.

Listen up, residents of Maui, before the Turks even set foot in America, I’ll say it again:

Here are a few names from the Pazan lineage dating back to 1455, back when the Turks were still positioned east of the Danube:

John Mirkovich
John Palcic
John Cassich
John Garbinich (John Grbinic or Garbin is actually the name for the Windy wind, also known as lebić)
John Poglianich (John Poljanic)

Actually, most of the Jovic families around San Diego are Catholic Americans, and there are quite a few of them.