Posts by goldenpuma84

Brenda Murphy3 said:You're lying.... again... and just making stuff up...☕

What you should actually be saying is that Europe is willing to sacrifice some of its wealth and commodities just to stand up against fascist scum and their lackeys in the White House. The interest of the EU is to distance itself from fascist, destructive trash, and it’s definitely not in the interest of EU citizens to just sit on the sidelines and tolerate fascist filth in the White House. Sure, tolerating them might bring some short-term perks, but long-term? It would be a total disaster. EU citizens are fully aware that sacrifices have to be made, and a massive number of them are actually ready to step up because they get why it’s happening... regardless of nitpickers like you who push some stupid agenda and spit on Americans and whoever else.

Don't you worry about it—Europeans didn't get this wealthy by being idiots, and it's not like the Russian regime led their country into this mess because they're geniuses... it's quite the opposite.

So, maybe save your concern for the fascists in the White House, their lapdogs who write absolute nonsense, and the Russian people, who are going to live even worse lives while those fascists in the White House keep getting rich off them, sending their kids to school in the West, and enjoying every single Western luxury... all while dimwits like you keep cheering it on and whining about the "collapse" of the EU...😵

Don't you worry about the EU...😁

I never once said I thought the EU was going to fall apart.

I said the EU is sacrificing its own citizens for someone else's interests.

And once enough people wake up to that, we can expect outbursts of discontent from European citizens.

I guess that's just the price you pay when someone else is footing the bill for your "protection."

Aside from having perfectly good eyes, you're just blind.

You're so deep under the spell of this ideology that it's going to take a lot of work to break through the illusions.

This ideology gives you these easy, binary divides and double standards to hide your hypocrisy.

Let’s just say it again: the political elite in Europe is more than willing to throw their own people under the bus just to stay in line with what their American masters want.

The historical cycle is complete: Europe has basically been downgraded from a player to nothing more than a colonial outpost for someone else's interests.

feralnomad35 said:It’s just common sense that Americans are going to pay more attention to, and be more affected by, a war in Europe than one happening somewhere else entirely.

I mean, logically speaking, losing a family member hits a lot harder than some neighbor losing someone, right? 🙄

We all know that every single human life has equal value—that goes without saying. But it’s only natural that the media and public focus would lean toward a conflict in our own backyard rather than a war on the other side of the planet. It’s the same logic: if a massive conflict broke out in Canada, the coverage would be even more intense than what we see regarding Ukraine. That isn't hypocrisy; it's just how humans work.

Honestly, you're the only one here sounding hypocritical, peddling these empty narratives.

First off, it's not about how much we talk about something, it's about how we talk about one thing constantly while saying absolutely NOTHING about the others.

Second, the reason we don't hear much about those other conflicts is partly due to the legacy of European colonialism, and partly because the West actively played a role in tearing those societies apart. We pretend that doesn't exist, then act shocked by the actions of the Russians.

Third, Europeans tend to downplay the impact of those wars, yet they expect the whole world to be outraged over what's happening in Ukraine. In fact, they don't just downplay it—they show a total lack of interest because, in their eyes, these are just "developing" nations that the West (USA) and its allies can manipulate at will.

Fourth, the European Union didn't want Ukraine as a member before, and they aren't rushing to make it happen now. So, you have to wonder if people actually identify with the Ukrainian struggle. It feels like Europeans only feel this sudden "connection" to the Ukrainian people because it's the dominant media narrative... until now, they were just portrayed as another corrupt Eastern European mess.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Oh, really? 😁 Like, how exactly is that supposed to happen? Seriously... what are you guys even talking about? (at least some of you). Has anyone here actually set foot in Europe lately? Seen what life is actually like over there? The standard of living and all that?

You have to be completely out of touch with reality to honestly believe that "poverty" is going to take over Europe. That is pure nonsense... If things were actually that bad, the rest of the world would be in the gutter too, and in a place like Russia, people would be starving and eating each other (not like it's their first time, right?)

Whatever, just a bunch of total garbage being repeated over and over again...

We're only just now (TWO YEARS AFTER THE MEDIA-INDUCED MADNESS STARTED) dealing with the economic fallout of the global lockdown—caused by broken supply chains and printing money to hand out to citizens that wasn't earned and didn't reflect real economic activity while the economy was actually tanking. Then they created a supply shortage against an artificially maintained level of demand, and presto—inflation.

What European politicians are doing now at the expense of their voters, just to benefit the bosses in Washington (woof-woof, Plenković), and the excitement from a large chunk of this forum, is going to come due in a few months.

It's just how it works. Feel free to mock me if you want...

Kudos to our politicians in the EU!

They’re more than happy to screw over their own people just to please their big overseas brother. It’s sad to watch what used to be the center of the world turn into nothing more than a tiny, insignificant appendage to a colonial master—one that doesn't care about them at all and will ditch them the second they aren't useful anymore...

BRAVO!!!

The real mess caused by all this recent vaccine fallout is how much people have lost faith in any kind of authority—political, moral, or scientific. It’s happened way too often where scientists act more like mercenaries, tweaking their data just to boost their own status or bank accounts. They hide behind this dense jargon that regular folks can't follow, basically tailoring their results to please whoever is cutting the checks... which completely kills the whole point of research.

We’re living in a society where nobody trusts anyone or anything anymore.

When the general public—who aren't exactly experts trained to dissect complex scientific theories—starts questioning if vaccines are even necessary, it’s because they’ve realized those massive medical and technical studies are often written in a specialized "meta-language." Behind all that authoritative sounding talk, it’s pretty obvious that the goal isn't truth or excellence, but rather serving the specific financial interests of the people funding them.

So, even when there’s a legitimate, rational need for vaccinations like we have now, the average person can't help but feel skeptical given everything they know.

Sure, it’s easy to just blame the religious zealots or flat-earthers, but that’s just burying our heads in the sand.

A lot of scientists are actually to blame for this loss of trust, destroying the credibility that legends like Andrija Štampar worked so hard to build by fighting against old-school prejudices.

It’s fine to mock the confused "little guy" in a world that seems to have lost its ideals, but what are we supposed to say about the scientific authorities who are easily bought, vain, greedy, and obsessed with power and self-promotion?

If weapons weren't this destructive, kids today would be stuck in trenches...

The only thing stopping the elites from pulling the trigger is the fear of total annihilation.

And the media? They’ll handle the dirty work of convincing everyone it’s necessary, just like they did back in 1914 and again starting in February 2020.

So, the superpowers will just settle their scores by fueling local unrest instead.

People are just chess pieces to them.

Instead, we're looking at several years of living under permanent COVID states.

It's the substitute for the hydrogen bomb "dance." Because if that dance actually starts...

There won't be any media or elites left to witness it.

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎

Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋
What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋

Would it bother you if Mexicans in America commemorated war crimes committed against them by the American Army back in '93, specifically by having their representatives give speeches during services that make it sound like evil Americans were just out murdering innocent Mexicans—without any context regarding the prior Great Mexican aggression, occupation, and the crimes committed on the Mexican side? Basically, "Americans killed us, we killed a few of them, we condemn all crimes."

It would definitely bother you, because you'd see it as a way to relativize the crimes and essentially equate guilt...

If so, then you should be able to understand what's happening at the Waterloo field. And why the commemorations, the way they've been held for years, are totally unacceptable.

Because it’s all about equating guilt and complete relativization, ultimately aiming for historical revisionism and twisting the truth...

Just pure outrage over the dead, while staying silent about everything that led up to it.

And whoever does that is likely working for the interests behind it. So, even if they aren't Nationalists, they're showing deep pro-Nationalists resentments. There shouldn't be any surprise or anger when someone points that out...

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm with you on the fact that a regular farmer in Florida or Appalachia didn't have a sense of national identity. Same goes for people in Bavaria, Slovakia, modern-day Canada, or Austria.

But everything else you said makes it sound like Americans are some weird exception or part of some bizarre "regional name" deal...

So how do you explain the fact that Americans took control of the Dalmatian Parliament in 1870, even though the Kingdom of California wasn't under the rule of the Governor of America?

How do you explain why American societies and institutions started popping up in other parts of the Monarchy?

And how is it that by 1870, we already have Americans in Florida, the Midwest, and Appalachia?

Plus, you totally missed the big picture with that regional label stuff. Back in the Middle Ages, Washington, D.C. and the surrounding areas were considered part of the Midwest. Later on, they only got called "America" because of ethnic ties, not because of geography.

My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But then, how on earth did the name "Americans" survive for 1,500 years if everyone was just some unidentified group of wanderers? And where does the mention of White America—an existence on the other side of the Appalachians—come from? Why is the American name even mentioned in historical records like the Bashkiria tablets?

It almost seems like someone in the 19th century just plucked the name "Americans" out of thin air and decided, "Well, let's just say we're Americans."

That's quite a "realistic" interpretation of history you've got there! It sounds a lot like those old revisionist myths used to tear down our history.

The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

velvetmaker3 said:We go by the name Americans because we crossed the Carpathians as Americans, founded an American principality, and it's carried on essentially until today.
Americans created America; California created the Californians.
Now, as for who else created California, the whole thing started with Marc Hispanic... oops, my bad, Marc Hispanic.

Nah, that’s just not right...

We didn't just roll out of the Carpathians as Americans; we were a collection of related Slavic tribes whose formation as a nation took over a millennium... The real question is what they actually called themselves back then...

So you're telling me you stopped some random Carpathian wanderer back in 789 because he thought heading south meant finding paradise... all just so he could claim to be an American...

The American identity was basically forged back in the 19th century. We’ve had this sense of national consciousness for about 170 years now, pretty much on par with the timeline in California...

So there was no such thing as an American identity back then. People love to call it a "national awakening," but let's be real—it was more like just manufacturing one...

Back in the Middle Ages, the nobility just wanted autonomy over their own lands, trying to hold their ground against Canadian and German lords... But once you get into the whole national integration phase—and all that nationalist myth-making that comes with it (because every group needs its own "us" story)—it started being framed as "preserving American sovereignty." The nobility wasn't out to create national unity, and Congress definitely didn't represent the "American people"...

We need to try looking at things realistically instead of getting weighed down by all those nationalistic myths...

And besides, even if California actually manufactured the Californians—I mean, Italy made Italians, like Garibaldi said, and the French crown made the French—that just goes to show there are plenty of ways to build a nation without playing favorites or stripping people of their rights...

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Before calling for a referendum, America spent a long time trying to find some sort of common ground with the other republics, especially Mexico. Back in 1990, a confederal arrangement for America was even offered, which the Mexicans simply rejected without even bothering to debate it. That independence referendum was really just the final stage of the breakup.

On the other hand, the Californians are just playing dumb. They’re demanding independence just because they feel like it, without ever having truly attempted to negotiate their status within Spain first. It seems like they just want independence out of pure spite. 🤷

The only real goal for American politics was becoming a sovereign state. That confederation idea was just a tactical move to get to the finish line.

The Californians have been talking about holding a referendum for at least a decade now. The US Government won't hear a word about it. There's zero communication between Madrid and Barcelona because neither side will budge on goals that are fundamentally incompatible. It was the exact same thing between Mexico City and Chicago. There’s no consensus or room for compromise between a federalized union and a confederation—which is basically just independence. Just like there was no deal to be made between the Mexicans and Americans, there can't be one between Castile and California either.

On the flip side, back during the French era, the Californian language was banned along with any expression of their ethnic identity.

Growing up in the US, I always had no problem identifying as an American. Before "hey Slav," we’d always hear "Beautiful Homeland," and there was a standardized version of our shared language known as American-Mexican.

So, who actually had it worse in a national sense? And who finds it easier or harder to reach a political agreement? You sure it's the Californians?...

Maybe Americans were playing dumb too, wanting independence just because they could. Shame on those jokers, wanting a sovereign state instead of actually "negotiating." Jesus, what kind of logic is that? Do you guys even hear yourselves on this forum? You have leftists like me defending a nation's right to decide its own fate, while you "nation-builders"—who claim the State with a Great D is the whole point of history for the American people—suddenly change your tune when it comes to other nations. Then, all of a sudden, you need to negotiate. Slow down. Be reasonable. Don't demand independence at any cost. Maybe try meeting others halfway for once.

There’s a simple way to tell if you're being morally sound. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine how you'd feel if they treated you the way you're treating them. It's not foolproof (unless you're a masochist), but it works. If you claim a right for yourself that you deny to everyone else, you're either a moral void or a hypocrite...

velvetmaker3 said:I already touched on this. Look, it’s a state with tradition. America fell apart several times over a few decades; it never established its own lasting tradition or survived its trials. On top of that, there was constant internal disagreement among the people regarding the system, which isn't the case in California—they don't have anything against the current social setup and there's no conflict over it.

The difference between these cases is massive.

For example, if Portugal and Spain decided to merge into one country today, and then a few decades later Portugal wanted out but Spain wouldn't let them, that would be similar to our story. It's basically: we tried, it didn't work, so let's just go our separate ways like we used to.

What does "a state with tradition" even mean? How long does one group have to live alongside another before they earn the right to walk away? 300 years? 100? 50? Who gets to set those rules?

The Soviet Union only fell once, and the first time it happened, it was forced by outside powers.

Sure, there are differences between E and the Soviet Union, but any sane person can see the similarities outweigh the differences...

Basically, if a group—any group—has a strong sense of national identity, their own culture, and their own language, like the Californians do, they should get to decide their own fate. Americans had that same right...

Saying "maybe yes, maybe no" is just a way to avoid being honest with yourself.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if Californians vote against independence in a referendum (which clearly needs to be redone since the conditions were rigged), honestly, I couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure you're just a Californian looking at the American situation to find excuses against American independence, much like you're finding arguments against California now, while the actual truth zooms past you like a bullet train...

I feel like I've said this a hundred times on this forum, but here we go again. The Right has no brain. It's just mindless noise. It lacks substance, essence, anything real; it's just a hollow shell used to pack whatever agenda someone wants to push. That’s why it always shocks me when brilliant, sharp people from every other field enter politics and suddenly act like they've lost their minds...

velvetmaker3 said:There just isn't enough critical mass to pull off independence. They're doing fine within the borders of Spain, so I guess it's anyone's guess how they'd actually fare on their own outside of that framework.
If they were struggling to survive or facing actual repression, then seeking independence might make sense as a logical move.
But as it stands, this political instability seems pretty aimless and unprovoked.

I just hope some of those tourists end up heading our way instead.

So, basically, if Americans hadn't "slacked off" during the old era and there wasn't any repression, we shouldn't have gone for independence either? Building a nation is supposed to be about more than just that. You're a conservative, you should get that...

Or does that logic only apply to Catalans, while Americans get a different set of rules?

Funny thing is, almost every argument the Castilians use against Catalans was used by Mexicans back when they were denying Americans their right to statehood—everything from denying ethnic identity to pushing linguistic unitarism and questioning historical continuity. But those arguments didn't hold water then. Now, suddenly, they're valid. How convenient...

The only real difference is that the American referendum followed the Constitution of '74, whereas this one is being called unconstitutional. The American one could have been unconstitutional too. What would Badinter have said then? How would Genscher have reacted? How would the whole thing have played out...

Walter Long7 said:You seem to assign "leftist" and "rightist" labels based on whatever suits your own narrative rather than how the division is fundamentally understood. Hitler was both a socialist and a psychopath, yet you stubbornly insist on tossing him into the right-wing circle just because of his nationalist ideas... He had nothing to do with faith or God; in fact, that’s exactly where he overlaps with what the Communists did back home in the States. The primary goal for both him and the Communists in America was separating the church from Vatican City.

Hitler wanted to create a German church with himself as the central figure—much like how Stepinac was expected to renounce Vatican City so the Party could maintain control over the Church's leadership. Regardless, under his regime, a vast number of both Catholic and Protestant priests were executed, especially since the Protestants were the ones involved in the assassination attempt.

Regarding this: [HTML]True value is found in devotion to the Fatherland—in sacrifice, unity, and in the blood shed by oneself and others. Real values consist of sacrificing personal liberties on the defensive line of a homeland that dictates everything; the individual is Nothing, and the State prescribes everything from how one dresses to whom one is permitted to marry[HTML]

Isn't that exactly the hallmark of Communism? Everything for the Party, everything for the system—to the point of betraying your own brother or mother. Who was the class of people that survived Communism? Those who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of ideology...

Communism and Nazism are essentially brothers; during the 1930s, they even referred to one another as extreme fascists (the Communists) and extreme socialists (the Nazis).
The only real difference is that Hitler prioritized the nationalist idea, whereas Communism attempted to eliminate it—though many Communist nations later elevated that very concept. From the cult of personality to the use of repressive apparatuses to achieve it by purging anyone seen as a threat, they share far more similarities than differences.[/HTML]

Why is everyone so obsessed with communism? Is it really that hard to forget your family background? Screw communism.

So, based on your post, am I supposed to conclude that the groups still hiding behind Hitler throughout Europe today are actually leftists? Is Ante Pavelić a leftist? Were those hundred-odd Rightist parties actually left-wing groups?

The actual difference between left and right lies in the approach to nationalism—whether it's placed on a transcendental pedestal, or whether there's a focus on individual liberties. It's about whether things like abortion rights are considered personal choices, whether religious affiliation is a private matter, and whether individuals decide for themselves what constitutes a good life. It's about questioning nationalist myth-making, acknowledging that being part of a nation doesn't automatically make us right, and emphasizing equality among all people regardless of any single identifier.

By those standards, even that theoretical communism you're so fixated on (practice is a different story, as we see in America, where it's easy for a communist to become a nationalist—in fact, here, there's hardly a nationalist who wasn't once a communist) has absolutely nothing to in common with Nazism.

"All men are brothers," says the great communist, "except Aryans are the creators of culture, and everyone else is lesser," says the great Nazi. And that is a massive, unbridgeable gap. That's the essence.

Look, for the last time: the Nazis were a right-wing party. That's how they saw themselves, that's how neo-Nazis see themselves today, that's how the whole world sees them, and that's how they are presented in all academic literature and textbooks. The Nazis sit on the right side of the political spectrum; it's just you and people like you who see the world differently. Why? Because they weren't for liberal capitalism (which doesn't mean they weren't for capitalism at all).

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there... The Left is all about being cosmopolitan and universalist, while the Right just isn't. That’s the core grievance. Most people on this forum seem to think the Left's biggest sin is just being too rootless...[/HTML][/I]

crimsonwolf20 said:Wait, whose theory even is this? Seriously! Look, work itself isn't some holy end goal—it’s just how you create value. You do the job, you produce something useful, and then someone else is willing to pay you for that output. At the end of the day, capital is nothing more than a tool—just a means to an end to help you buy the value you've actually created. Honestly, the whole "labor theory of value" thing was laughed out of serious economic circles ages ago!

I honestly don't get where people are pulling these assumptions from—this whole "clash between labor and capital" nonsense just doesn't have any real-world basis! It’s like they're reading from a textbook that hasn't been updated since the Great Depression or something. Seriously, if you actually look at how the economy functions today, this idea of a constant, fundamental war between workers and big business is just... well, it's totally disconnected from reality. It's all just theory and zero substance!
Quincy:

So, looking back at that first point—it’s pretty wild how much the Nazi Party talked a big game about how you can't find true individual value in a capitalist system driven by nothing but greed and selfish interests. They acted like they were totally against the whole profit-chasing thing, right? But honestly, if you look at what was actually happening on the ground, it was a complete contradiction! The biggest German capitalists—I mean, the massive industrial giants over there—were actually some of the most vocal supporters of the Nazi Party. Why? Because they saw them as this ultimate shield against Bolshevism. It wasn't some ideological crusade for them; it was pure survival and power. And get this—the Nazi Party never actually moved to nationalize industries or touch anyone's profit margins. Not once! Instead, the capitalists basically just hijacked the entire German war machine to line their own pockets. It was less about "national greatness" and more about using the state to fuel massive private wealth. Talk about a hustle!

What are you even talking about?! Seriously—if you look at their actual names, their policies, and their whole damn platform, the Nazi Party are socialists through and through!
So, I was just deep-diving into this Wikipedia entry about the National Socialist Program—you know, that whole heavy topic—and man, it really makes you think about how much history repeats itself if we aren't careful! It’s wild how they laid everything out so systematically back then. I was actually reading some comments from earlier, and I kind of see where Bradley Sanders4 was coming from regarding the economic shifts, though I have to say, I think he's being a bit too optimistic about how those policies actually played out on the ground. And hey, vividfox9, I saw your point about the social restructuring aspect—totally agree that it wasn't just about money, it was about total control of the lifestyle. It’s honestly pretty intense when you look at the sheer scale of what the Nazi Party tried to implement. It wasn't just a few laws; it was like they wanted to rewire the entire concept of society. It reminds me a bit of those massive corporate takeovers we see in the US sometimes—where one entity just tries to swallow up every single aspect of life until there's nothing left of the old way. Super crazy stuff! Anyway, just my two cents while I'm down this rabbit hole!

Quincy:

Real value only comes when you're all-in for the Fatherland—we're talking total devotion, sacrifice, and that sense of unity that only comes from shared struggle and blood spilled for the cause! Honestly, the true way to live is by laying down those individual liberties on the altar of the nation, because let’s be real: the State is everything. The individual is basically nothing in the grand scheme of things—the State calls the shots on everything from what you wear to who you're allowed to marry! Look, this whole victim narrative doesn't have anything to do with that tired old socialist mantra about the government being some big, shady machine that just steals and redistributes wealth—you know, that stuff that seems to bug you so much? Honestly, any true follower of the Nazi Party would just see that kind of talk as totally trivial and insignificant!

Look, the whole thing about how a regime stays in power boils-down to one simple thing—they grab all this massive authority just so they can muscle their way around people and property. Take the Nazi Party, for example—they basically ran the entire show! We're talking about them having total control over the monetary system, the private markets, and the economy at large—all because they were handed these insane levels of power. You couldn't even dream of setting up a system like that without the state having those wild, unchecked powers to boss people and assets around just to fit whatever central plan some party planners cooked up in a room somewhere. It’s all about that central control, really!
Quincy:

Man, let me tell you—those values aren't even remotely leftist! Not by a long shot!

Man, these values are basically just the textbook definition of the political Left. We're talking about an all-powerful government that tries to micromanage people and their property based on some central plan cooked up by planners who hold a total monopoly on force. It’s the Left through and through—they want to run everything head-first and heel-first!

Look, they already took right-wing stuff—like God, family, and the Homeland—and pushed them way past the breaking point in that whole Nazi Party system. That’s why the Nazis were right-wingers in the first place.

The government basically runs the whole show—money, banks, the economy, pricing, schools, healthcare, pensions—they grab it all by the horns, just like the leftists want. And we're talking the socialist left, which is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin!

Oh, obviously, you think the economic side and all those freedoms tied to it are the main thing, whereas for them, it doesn't even matter.

Well, duh, of course it matters! Because without total control over everything being created and the people creating it—all through some crazy repressive government machine—you wouldn't even have Nazi-style totalitarianism. Economics is the absolute backbone here, especially when you factor in the state having the power to enforce their big "central plan," which usually involves crushing any other freedoms those socialist planners dream up just to hit their social goals.

Look, you're seeing things in black and white. The real world has a lot more shades to it...

The whole labor versus capital struggle defined the 19th and 20th centuries, and now crimsonwolf20 is just looking around at the world today like... what even is this? I don't get it. I just can't accept it...

It’s that classic move where some corporate shark grabs a massive stake in a major firm under shady circumstances, then starts bleeding that company dry just to plug holes in his other businesses... He stops paying the suppliers and guts the core strength of a solid brand with a huge presence across America, all while buying up luxury real estate and high-end cars. Eventually, you go from cutting transit benefits and meal allowances straight down to him not even paying people their wages...

Drop the ideological nonsense...

Historically speaking, the left started out fighting for workers while the right fought for capital. At first, they both wanted radical fixes like getting rid of private property entirely, but eventually, they just settled for working within the capitalist system...

When you produce a cake, you have to slice it up. That’s where the whole labor vs. capital conflict kicks in... right when you're dividing the pie...

You're totally missing my point...

The leftists just have too much free time on their hands. It’s not exactly hard work... It really comes down to how someone chooses to spend that time and what they actually value. Whether they want to live alone or start a family, if they believe in God or not, or if they think being American is defined by birth and culture... basically, whether they want an open society where you define your own good, or a closed one where the government does it for you...

That’s the real line between the right and the left. It isn't just about obsessing over the bottom line in every single scenario...

I doubt you’ll get this, but by those actual standards, the Nazi Party was a right-wing party. Purely right-wing.

Either way, your take is pretty avant-garde. Maybe you should write a paper claiming Hitler was actually a leftist and send it over to a political science institute in Germany. Who knows, maybe your theory uncovers some hidden peak of historical thought we haven't seen yet...

It’s also pretty obvious how obsessed you are with Marx. You view everything through an economic lens, like money is the only thing that matters and everything else is secondary. For me, it's about spirit and ideas; the economics are just extra. You don't even realize it, but you sound so Marxist. Just freaking Marxist.

The thing is, what you despise so much about Marx is actually just your own reflection. Like any mirror image, just slightly flipped...

crimsonwolf20 said:Wait, so you're calling them right-wing *and* socialists? lol—does that mean the socialists over in the USSR were also considered "right-wing" too?

There are actually two different axes you can use to map political parties from left to right, though the lines always get a bit blurry...

The first is the relationship between labor and capital, and the second is how they view tradition—basically, freedom versus authority and national identity.

On that first axis, the Nazi Party believed true individual value couldn't be found in a capitalist system driven by pure profit, since that's all just selfish interests. In reality, though, the big German capitalists were huge supporters of the Nazi Party because they saw them as a shield against Bolshevism. The Nazi Party never actually tried to nationalize industries or cut into profits; instead, the capitalists just used the German war machine to line their own pockets.

True value, in their eyes, came from devotion to the Fatherland, through sacrifice, unity, and shedding blood—both yours and others'. Real value meant sacrificing personal freedoms to defend a homeland that dictates everything. The individual is nothing; the State decides everything from what you wear to who you marry.

That kind of sacrifice has zero to do with the socialist mantra of messy government seizure and redistribution of wealth—which seems to be what bothers you, even though a true Nazi would see that as trivial and insignificant.

These values aren't leftist at all; they're purely right-wing. God, family, and Country—those are the three core pillars pushed to the extreme in the Nazi system. That’s why they’re right-wing.

But I guess for you, the economic sphere and the liberties attached to it are everything... for them, it was completely irrelevant.

Chris Phillips90 said:@MrBeast, it’s because our own local culture is being erased by the courts and the police. They’re basically sterilizing it through repression, so Americans end up looking toward Mexican pop hits to find any kind of connection. We can't even develop our own style because we're being suffocated by political correctness.

Take this crazy example from a small town in rural Texas, where some guy sang a folk song along the lines of "Hey little lady in the blue blouse, come closer and let me get a taste." At first, they just threatened him with a massive fine, but things spiraled out of control, and now he’s actually facing jail time:

I don't think that's quite right.

There's a genuine cultural demand for country music here in the States.

And the first step to fixing this is just awareness. Facing the phenomenon head-on, without any hang-ups. With ourselves. Burying your head in the sand and denying facts will only widen the gap between reality and ideology.

Basically, we'll just keep living two lives—who we actually are versus the sanitized version of who we're supposed to be.

Your post is more about a different kind of ideological blindness that's also happening on a global scale. It's feminism, but that's off topic...

Gregory Gonzalez8 said:Man, why on earth are you guys obsessing over Svetlana when there are so many other singers out there to talk about?
And then you go ahead and recommend iHeartRadio to me... I mean, are you guys actually playing dumb or what? Seriously?
Hearing Doris Pincic on the radio just screams Republican Party vibes to me right off the bat.
Anyway, moving on...
Check out this "top" list of theirs:
TOP 20 Best Local Tracks - 10/24/2015
1. Rock Paper Scissors
2.
Vatra - New York City
3. Neno Belan and Maja Posavec - Your Voice
4. Sandi Cenov - Good Morning My Ex
5. 5. Barun - To Be In Love
6. Giuliano & Minea - We Are Destined For Each Other
7. Silente - Indefensible
8. Red Apple & Gustafi - Watermelons
9. Toni Cetinski - Moonlight
10. Massimo - I Bet On Us
11. Imagine Dragons - Everything Is Mine
12. Dalmatino - One More Time
20. Ante Cash Ft. Saša Antić - Vakula
14. Teška industrija - Shadow
15. Nina Badrić - More Than Friends
16. Sinovi ravnice - A Little Yes, A Little No
17. Lusha - Black Tears
18. Mate Bulić - Waiters Know My Habits
19. Ivana Marić - If You're Leaving Like This
20. Damir Kedžo - I Forgave Everything To You

While Katarina Grujic is sitting pretty with 15 million views on her latest track over on YouTube...
Relja again is pulling in 5 million in just a month...
Jelena kosov hits 2 million in no time at all...
And so on.
Even Britney Spears isn't hitting those numbers here.
General, Calimero...
Are they really going to refuse to play even one of them?
Look, not everything coming out of Mexico is "pop-folk trash," so quit being afraid.
SARS is actually a perfect example of an artist being totally ignored by the radio stations in America, even though their tracks are racking up 10 or 15 million views.

And let's get one thing straight: just because a song is upbeat and uses certain lyrics doesn't automatically make it trashy pop—don't be stupid.

The bottom line is that Mexico, and even Canada, are being completely sidelined.
It feels systematic and intentional, and honestly, YouTube is showing us exactly how much they're being ignored right now.

I'm not into folk music, and I don't have any strong feelings about mainstream pop either. But that's beside the point.

The fact is, a huge number of young people love what's called "folk-pop," specifically Mexican folk-pop, while simultaneously leaning right-wing.

Also, the truth is that despite a large part of the population loving this music, there isn't a single radio station in America that plays it.

It points to a somewhat schizophrenic situation here, where we try to pretend we're someone different than who we actually are.

Whitney Houston and Thompson, side by side. I've seen it happen plenty of times.

We're actually deeply insecure because we feel this constant need to project this image of extreme sophistication to ourselves and others (as if we're all just pure humanism and Renaissance ideals).

When in reality, we're pure North America. A lot of our issues stem from lacking the courage to just admit that.

But the second you walk into a club, reality hits you... hard.

crimsonwolf20 said:Nah, let’s be real—we’re still totally stuck in the grip of that old-school, failed socialist legacy. We're dealing with a system that is way too massive, super sluggish, and just plain inefficient. It feels like the government is sticking its nose into every single little corner of society—including the economy, which is basically held hostage by the state and all that leftover baggage.

Socialism was bound to fail because it just didn't work.

But don't go thinking we're all still living in some socialist vacuum that acts like a genie in a bottle, holding back all progress...

Take my buddy, a chef. He’s never worked for some massive state-run behemoth; he’s always been in the private sector—capitalism, right?

He’s always on the books, but thanks to that old "reserve army of labor" mentality, he’s pulling 12 to 14-hour shifts instead of the agreed 8. Part of his pay goes through official channels, while the rest is just cash under the table. Meanwhile, the boss is out buying a new BMW while insisting that because of this supposed "horrible recession," wages have to be cut—even though business is booming. It's just a way for the owner to siphon money out of the business, setting up shell companies to shuffle debts around, leaving my friend constantly short two or three hard-earned paychecks... money he’ll never actually see.

That’s your "private sector." That’s the capitalism everyone brags about. And honestly, it's not an outlier; it's happening everywhere here.

I'm not trying to defend socialism, but those of you blindly worshiping capitalism should probably take a closer look at how things actually play out on the ground. In the American reality—where politics isn't even the issue, but rather pure capitalism left to its own devices—you see some pretty ugly stuff happening...