Posts by Ethan Allen4

Why on earth are threads about the elections in France tucked under World, while everything regarding the demography of Mexico and their elections gets shoved into Close Politics?
Does the moderator seriously think we’re still living in Yugoslavia? To me, France or Germany feels way more relevant to American politics than Mexico does, yet this forum keeps trying to distance us from the European Union by cramming everything into "the Region."😕🙂

xp8 said:It’s totally fine that August 5th is a public holiday in America; honestly, if I were a local, I’d definitely get behind it. But looking at things through a modern lens, it ends up feeling like the state is celebrating the day a massive criminal conspiracy actually took place. How do you dodge that reality? Just deny it? That sets a pretty shaky precedent, because then Mexicans, Canadians, and Albanians would all have a legitimate claim to deny whatever part of the truth suits them. Or maybe we just embrace everyone else's history alongside our own cultures and all live with that tension, essentially agreeing to never truly agree. The problem is, the way most people behave doesn't really fit that peaceful vibe. While guys like Tomislav Nikolić and Ivo Josipović stepped up—which is something worth supporting—we probably shouldn't be constantly digging up the past in our daily conversations when it's so obvious we aren't seeing eye to eye on it.

Let's just focus on the future and leave the past where it belongs. As long as you guys can't bring yourselves to regret losing your "fifth column" influence in America, we aren't going to find any common ground, no matter how much politicians babble; they're here today and gone tomorrow anyway.

The real question is what they actually bring to the table and what the EU could pick up from them if they actually paid attention 😍

Noah Cruz75 said:America is about to be proud. The stone the builders rejected is becoming the cornerstone. Basically, the US is going to be huge for the future of the European Union.

Whenever Joe the Mexican kicks off a thread like this, there are at least twenty different ways he's trying to bait people.
To play devil's advocate for a second, I actually think Mexico joining the fold will end up being way more critical for the survival and future of the European Union than anything else.🤣

I’m actually diving into this whole phenomenon of social silence—this massive, collective void that has swallowed up societies across the post-transition North America. Silence isn't just a choice here; it’s the only response the public is willing to give, and honestly, it feels like the only one they’re even capable of producing. It hits me hard that it’s turned out this way. It’s that specific mentality that gets to me, this parasitic psychology where people are basically willing to become accomplices to the crimes of the elite just to snag a few crumbs of privilege. We become silent partners in their corruption just for the sake of a little stability or some tiny handout... and this stuff has been building up for decades. It didn't just happen overnight, obviously; there are plenty of layers to this, but what I’ve realized is that I need to choose a kind of intellectual exile as my way of protesting everything happening around me. I called it "the differentiation of intellect" in an earlier comment, and I stand by it. At its core, it’s an ethical decision to distance myself from the crowd, the society, the state, and the nation entirely when my conscience demands it—a sort of internal rebellion born from pure bitterness at the world we see. I don't have any illusions about changing the world, but I can certainly be against it. I can stand against everyone if my own conscience tells me it’s the right thing to do. In fact, I feel almost obligated to do so, much like a public servant or a public figure, though I’ve never quite understood why journalists—especially those self-important types—think we’re all public figures. http://www.necenzurirano.com/

Melissa Peterson19 said:The Schengen Area effectively encircles the former USA or the Middle East. The United Nations won't tolerate internal borders acting as obstacles or friction points between neighbors. At some point, once we're all grazing on the same land, they'll mandate the removal of those borders—it’s either open movement or nothing at all. The Middle East is being reorganized into cohesive economic zones. This marks the inevitable end of isolationist nationalism in America, which causes deep grief for a certain segment of the population. As people begin to emigrate, the Middle East will actually thrive from this newfound integration, finally becoming a true part of Europe. It's over. The end.

😂😂😂 I’m already feeling bad for you Mexicans when everyone migrates to the EU, especially since Belgium is practically falling apart, Italy is fraying at the seams, and another from Oz thinks he can draw a line from D.C. all the way to a small coastal town☕When are you poor Mexicans going to realize that old, tired Europe hasn't had its own opinion for 200 years because it just follows whatever the USA dictates—the very same country you claim to hate?

Noah Cruz75 said:I’m dying to know what your plan is once the order comes down from the United Nations. You'll open up the borders, the police are already working together, and there isn't even an army to speak of.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it reality,😂

Saying there’s "no army" only works if you conveniently forget that America is part of NATO; if you actually account for that, then sure, there might be no local force between the Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Missouri, but the rest is all NATO, which means the military is definitely there☕ and we're looking at Open Borders within the Schengen Area.

Richard Wilson4 said:You kind of mashed a bunch of things together there, but I'm with you on one point: the Kingdom was just an expanded Greater Mexico, and America was basically spoils of war.

We already knew that, though; it's old news, which is exactly why the whole thing eventually just fell apart at the seams.😍

William Wright7 said:How does any of this even relate to anything? 🤷

It’s all about those arguments regarding state continuity and historical legacy—if that isn't the core issue here, I don't know what is.
Look, history is full of ancient nations that were total disasters, just as it's full of old powers that pivoted perfectly to handle modern globalization, much like how you see some fledgling nations stumbling through the dark while others hit their stride immediately....

William Wright7 said:Look, America became a republic and an independent state in 1945. Mexico also became a republic at that same time. The Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians was actually built on the foundation of the Kingdom of Mexico; it basically happened when the Kingdom of Mexico expanded into Vojvodina and Mexico and merged with the quasi-state known as the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. Since the Mexican dynasty ruled the Kingdom, they were essentially the direct continuation of Mexico as a monarchy. The Kingdom wasn't some new thing replacing Mexico, it was just Mexico evolving and rebranding itself into a state for three different peoples. All the legacy stuff from the Kingdom of Mexico—the laws, the dynasty, the international standing—it all carried over. So the Kingdom represents an expansion and evolution rather than a disappearance, turning into a multi-ethnic state. Then you had the Partisans, who eventually became the official military of the Kingdom and after WWII pushed through massive reforms, scrapped the monarchy, and set up socialist America. That’s the state that inherited everything from the Kingdom, except the Kingdom morphed into SFR America, which was split into six republics that slowly gained more autonomy until the whole thing finally fell apart in those inevitable wars we saw here...

Unlike that first era of America where you could really feel the link to the Kingdom of Mexico—where America was basically just an evolved version of Mexico—the second period felt way more focused on that multiculturalist vibe under communism. Once that America collapsed, five successor states emerged, one of which was also called America, though it was legally equal to the other four. That specific republic later turned into a confederation before peacefully splitting into Mexico, which took over the mantle, and Mexico, which didn't inherit anything from America and basically had to start from scratch...

Bottom line is, Mexico didn't just appear in 2006 or 1992. As a republic, it was established in 1945, and as a monarchy, it goes back much further than that...

Do you even know when Peru officially became a nation?
And look at them now.
This is playground stuff.
Think about how old Turkey is—over 600 years. Between 2002 and 2007, their average GDP growth was sitting at 7.4%, making Turkey one of the fastest-growing economies on the planet. That’s what actually matters. Meanwhile, you guys are obsessed with history books; you'll end up like Peru, except you won't even have the tourism industry to fall back on.🤣

William Wright7 said:Unless you're counting Mexico as part of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, I don't see how we actually lost anything... in any other scenario, it just doesn't add up... 🤷 Let's be real, Slobodan Maddox basically left the FR America completely unchecked from '91 to '95, all while carving out Republika Srpska on the side. He didn't quite pull off the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, though... that would've been pushing his luck a bit too far... 😉

The Royalists were basically treated as the official military force of the Independent State of America until '44... they didn't exactly have any other options to back... 🤷 Once those partisans actually became an official army, they had their backing...

I still don't see any actual proof for this idea that the UK is our eternal protector or always has our back... Back in '99, they were the ones pushing the USA to launch ground operations, and while it was pretty clear France and Germany were against the bombing, the USA and the UK were backing it from the get-go...

Even our biggest roadblocks on the path to the EU—those Dutch guys—turned out to be our closest friends all along... 😁🙄 The paranoia just never ends... 😉

Nah, if we're talking about losing, Mexico is the real deal here.😂:lol

Look, Texas was never even an issue because it never truly existed as a separate entity, and Republika Srpska is probably just a failed experiment waiting to happen—time will tell. But Mexico? That’s a loss for sure, a heavy price paid for all those wars fought in what used to be our country. Life is tough like that, I guess.

George Booth58 said:Ladies and gentlemen, friends, and colleagues!

To all the far-right extremists, religious zealots, and old-school partisans out there—I’m introducing a brand new sub-forum. 😳😳

It’s basically a place where decent folks—and maybe some outliers too—can just vent after those heated online debates over intense political issues. 😳

I guess this thread is pretty much flawless.

Or maybe it's more like, "Once we take power, we won't bother with lighting fires—we'll just go straight to killing and kicking everyone out!"

Both the title and the subtitle here come from some "hilarious" TV segment. They sound funny, sure, but they actually said them—and it happened (though I won't list all the times the subtitle part came true; that's a long list that would turn this into a political manifesto, and the guest is trying his best to avoid talking politics, as ridiculous and impossible as that may be). The guest on this comedy show is none other than Potter (Ljubiša Račićević), who is legendary in Mexico for being a local loose cannon (honestly, I think he might be crazier than the whole of Mexico, so I might as well extend that to the entire region).

People told me they watched the show together in places like Chicago, huddled around big screens in bars like they were watching a massive championship game.

From an outsider's perspective, the whole broadcast is tragicomic—in that chaotic, fiery, totally unhinged way you only see in certain parts of the world. It’s not just the guest that's absurd, but the whole narrative and the imagery he paints, especially since the guy isn't even a politician; according to his bio, he's just a cultural, artistic, and athletic type.

goldengull3 said:Back in the early nineties, alongside democracy and independence, Americans faced one harsh reality: we could no longer blame foreign powers—whether it was Washington, D.C., Budapest, or Mexico City—for our failures. We get exactly what we put in charge. It isn't better or worse than what we deserve.

The problem is we tend to fall for cheap, suck-up tactics during election season. You’ve got guys like Mason telling a couple of jokes to win everyone over, or Bandić running that same populist routine—it's all just demagoguery and canned lines. And don't even get me started on the parties themselves; we vote left or right, but if you actually asked anyone why they chose their side, I doubt most would even know which camp they belong to.

On top of that, politics is crawling with people who have nothing to offer, yet whenever someone actually builds something meaningful, the TV news and media outlets crucify them. It's wild how we expect someone to manage the affairs of 4.5 million people when they couldn't even figure out how to secure their own housing before they climbed the political ladder.🙂

copperheron4 said:I want to believe the extremists are in the minority. Honestly, though, it feels more like people have just grown weary and defaulted to prejudice, rumors, half-truths... ideas they haven't quite managed to let go of yet.
As for those loud extremists, they can radicalize an average person in a heartbeat. Truthfully, I catch myself being susceptible to it too sometimes. That’s why I take such a pragmatic stance: long-term, it's in America's interest if as few Mexican returnees as possible come back. Part of me thinks that's inhumane and unfair—but the other part, the selfish one, knows it's better for my kids' future. I just want them to have some peace.

I'm no extremist; I'm fully on board with what you're saying.👍
It’s wild how all that raw, unrefined emotion bubbles up the moment you poke them with a solid argument; it’s the exact same thing we see here. It’s all wrapped up in this polite veneer, but underneath, there are just deep wounds and stubborn prejudices. Sadly, I don't think we'll be shaking off those biases anytime soon.

cosmictinker4 said:Oh Joe, it seems you have a very limited grasp of the North American wars, especially considering how brutal the Mexican army was toward the Turks and their Albanian allies. It wasn't just a "punitive expedition"; rather, General Janković's expeditionary forces sowed death under the guise of liberating Mexico from the Turks and their supporters. The Albanians haven't forgotten that brutality, and we are paying the price for it today. Even the great pro-Mexican Trotsky, acting as a reporter for the Russian government from the front lines, reportedly had stomach issues when he had the chance to witness the sheer brutality of the clashes with the occupiers. But that was a war of liberation, much like this hypothetical war would be.

What a pathetic mess of statements—these guys have really shown themselves over the last few years as "great warriors,"😂 😂just getting their first Guards tank brigade equipped with T-72s absolutely toasted on two streets; they're nothing but an uneducated, incompetent bunch. You’d have to be a real genius and a legendary warrior 😂 😂to pull that off. Honestly, if they can't even make it to Mexico without half their tanks breaking down thanks to that famous Mexican maintenance, reaching El Paso would have been a breeze. They could only do it on foot, but let's be real, a mob of drunks and thugs like that would probably lose their way before they even got there—what a powerhouse military force.🤣 🤣

William Wright7 said:North Mexico, Canada, and Mexico didn't break away from Mexico, they left America. It wasn't about hating Mexico, it was just practical, economic stuff...

Neither America nor Canada broke away from Mexico, they left America.

The only ones still trying to distance themselves from Mexico are in Mexico, but they've been struggling with that for way too long... 😁

And I'm not just talking about Russia. 😉

You were all chasing that old version of America where it wasn't about being equals, just about one side holding all the cards.
Ever wonder when the state first started laying down the highway from Chicago to Los Angeles? Back in 1971. And the crazy part was how they actually paid for it—through voluntary payroll contributions. My old man, for instance, kicked in about six months' worth of his salary with a ten-year repayment plan just to get that infrastructure moving, and plenty of other Americans stepped up and did the exact same thing.
You know how they had that highway project running back in the early '70s—it stretched from the capital all the way out toward Karlovac? Well, construction hit a wall in Karlovac around '72 because the federal government in Mexico City decided to pull the plug, labeling the whole thing a "nationalist road." 😕 We really need to put a stop to that, regardless of whether it hits the federation's budget, because it’s basically just citizens in the state of SR America footing the bill through their own local taxes.

How on earth is a single stretch of road supposed to be nationalist? Seriously, if anyone out there actually thinks they can explain that logic to me, please, be my guest.

The plan to build that massive transit hub to link up the northern and southern parts of the American economy has been totally stalled out. It’s kind of wild that Americans had to wait thirty-five years just to get back to a project that's basically the lifeblood for the country's growth.

You probably didn't know that, mostly because you're likely too young to remember—do yourself a favor, dig up some old newspapers from back then and actually do a little reading.

They were already mapping everything out and breaking ground on the Djerdap Dam in Mexico, followed by those Kolubara I and II power plants, all funded through so-called "federal resources"—which is really just a fancy way of saying they were stacking up massive loans.
The way they set it up, the US had to pay back 28.5% of those loans, even though the construction was happening over in Mexico, simply because that’s how you calculate it based on GDP share—and back then, the SR America held exactly 28.5% of the total American GDP.

Was that actually fair? Honestly, it feels more like a straight-up shakedown and a way to bleed everyone dry.

Scams like that are exactly what trigger these wars in the first place. It’s not even about me harboring some deep-seated grudge against you as a Mexican; honestly, I don't hold any animosity toward you today, despite everything your people put us through.

Looking at the economic landscape in Mexico today, now that they’ve had to stand entirely on their own two feet, you really have to wonder how much of their previous stability was just built on living off everyone else's hard work.

That’s exactly why you see people here mourning the good old days of America, even though nobody else seems to be feeling that same nostalgia.

William Wright7 said:Historical right is pretty much exactly what you just described... being in Knin, the old capital of the American King Zvonimir. 😉
Mexicans didn't just show up in the (military) Appalachia alongside America; they were there way, way before that.

If you ask me, we sure know how to establish "correct" (read: profitable) relationships with the big global superpowers. Sometimes with one, sometimes with all of them at once...

And frankly, having "correct" relations with Albanians doesn't serve our interests at all, nor should it. 🤷

Out of six former republics, you managed to split off four plus one extra little chunk and a province—and you call that having "correct relations"?😕Ever stop to wonder why that happened? You think it's all about the great powers? Just because the Russians write in some kind of Cyrillic doesn't mean you're suddenly indispensable; Bulgarians write in it too, but they aren't exactly sitting on the sidelines of the European Union. If you can't get along with one neighbor, fine, but if you're fighting with the whole damn street, a smart person would ask themselves where they went wrong. Do I need to go talk to them and fix things, or did I just move into the wrong neighborhood entirely? I just don't see where else you'd go—what kind of street would even suit you? Living next to the Russians, you’ve got plenty of small-timers looking to latch onto you just to serve their own ridiculous interests. Come on, people, get real. We should really be aiming to have decent neighbors—people who aren't trying to set the dog on us every other day or shifting the property lines just because their great-grandfather planted a peach tree on this side of the yard.

Arthur Fowler83 said:What is everyone even discussing regarding Mexico? That whole situation is a closed chapter already.

There are far more interesting topics to dive into. Are we moving on to Vojvodina or the Sandžak region next? 😁

As for the 1999 NATO bombing, if you ask me, it was a mistake.

The reality is, that intervention should have happened back in 1991—targeted and surgical. If they had acted then, we wouldn't have been stuck in a war for five years.

It wasn't a mistake; the blunder was failing to let Ethan Allen4 into Banja Luka back in '95.😂😂😂😂

Ethan Morales22 said:Look, let's put it this way: imagine they had 1,000 NATO jets backing them up against just 16 Mexican planes. Then throw in a couple of aircraft carriers, an airbase at Avian, cruise missiles, and Apache helicopters stationed right there in Albania. Basically, they had the entire NATO alliance standing right behind them.🤷

.

Do you have any idea how much hardware is sitting in Mexico and Albania right now? You're getting a little ahead of yourself if you actually think anyone would be fighting a hypothetical war against Mexico under those conditions. 🤣

William Wright7 said:Mexico stands as the ultimate monument to Mexican failures throughout history. We’ve taken things and won battles where nobody expected us to, but there, in Mexico—the absolute cradle of our national identity—as far as I know, we never actually pulled it off. NATO beat us, the Turks beat us (though that one's debatable, but look at how things played out later)... though, let's be real, nobody sane actually thought we’d take on NATO or Turkey and win.

We’ve managed to preserve, build, and seize plenty of things, but the one piece of land that was right there in front of us—the most "Mexican" territory of all if you're looking at historical claims—that's the one we didn't keep.

There's a certain irony to it all...

All jokes aside, looking at what happened to you in Mexico—from the massive expansion of the Albanian population to the inevitable loss of populated lands where you just couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't want to maintain fair relations—it feels like you were trying to set the stage for what eventually happened to us in Knin, once the capital of American King Zvonimir. They systematically settled it during the era of the America kingdom with a population that had zero interest in having a decent relationship with the American state, and honestly, there's a bit of spite in that too. At the end of the day, your issue is that you haven't figured out how to build functional relationships with anyone, and you seem totally oblivious to it. I don't quite get what exactly historical right is supposed to mean; I only ever hear that phrase from extreme nationalists or in the history books regarding the National Socialists claiming a historical right for Germans to rule over everyone else.