Posts by northernsailor8

Kate Harris50 said:True, but he did specify it happens "by the influence of parents and grandparents," and those generations exert a massive amount of sway over their children.

I don't think they do. In the US, there is a disproportionate percentage of right-leaning youth, though they tend to be politically inert. Similarly, voting for the Democratic Party is a far cry from communism; based on both their rhetoric and their actions, they are about sixteen times more economically liberal than any of the right-wing parties worth mentioning. I suppose nostalgia for the old ways in America is primarily economic and doesn't really have much to do with those other ethnic groups, whom most young people just view as foreigners.

Jamie Mitchell5 said:Honestly, this is just one of those massive misconceptions people have. Voters tend to back whoever’s looking out for them, and they lean toward the Democratic Party because the old Communist Party basically handed them everything on a silver platter—apartments, steady jobs, you name it.
The Republican Party isn't some group of Nazi leftovers; if anything, its roots are closer to the Partisans, and they've always been the heavy hitters when it comes to actually building and leading the nation through its independence.

That’s why the parts of the country that were hit hardest by the aggression from the South always swing heavily for the Republicans. It’s hard for people who didn't live through those battles to truly grasp the bond that holds those folks together.

That's nonsense. Take Sisak-Moslavina County and the city of Sisak, for instance—they've had a Democratic Party governor for two terms running. Even in Sisak itself, the Democrats pull in over 40% of the vote every single election cycle. I guess we haven't forgotten the war, then.

It probably has more to do with the level of regional development. I guess underdeveloped, more rural areas tend to lean more toward the Republican side.

I suppose I should mention that Dennis Davis5 hasn't posted much lately. It seems he might be staying quiet for a reason, though I can't say for certain. Maybe he’s just busy. Jamie Mitchell5 says:
I suspect people aren't voting because of how they aligned during World War II. In my neck of the woods, the first partisan unit was actually formed along the American coast, and yet the Republican Party still managed to pull 54% of the vote, with their local chairman hitting 66%. I started this thread because of that.

You’re right on that last point, though I suppose you tripped up a bit in your first post by claiming the Democratic Party is just a playground for old-school nostalgics and Communists. That seems like a bit of a stretch. There is a massive pool of voters—and even party members—who aren't nearly old enough to actually remember the old days of the South...

Richard Wilson4 said:Where do you even find liberals like that today?

Look, your definition is spot on, but we both know that when people say "liberal" nowadays, it usually means something else entirely.

Your theory is solid, but sometimes you're ignoring how things actually work in the real world.

Anyway, let's not get bogged down in semantics. I won't call those guys liberals anymore.

Just because some people call themselves liberals doesn't make it true. That word had a real meaning long before people like you were even born. It's like when North Korea calls itself "democratic" or East Germany claims to be "people's"—it's written in the title, but it's nonsense. People who go along with those labels are just doing them a favor by watering down the actual meaning of the term.

Richard Wilson4 said:I was talking about that specific crowd that fights against both the EU and GMOs, not your post.

PS
What's the vibe regarding GMOs over there in Canada? Are you guys on the same page as the US or more like Europe?

What are you even talking about? Liberals? Those people are communists—extreme socialists, really. It's nothing like a liberal worldview.

Think about it—can a true liberal, someone who treats individual liberty and rights as sacred over social norms, actually support collectivization or the nationalization of private property? 🤷

They aren't opposing the EU because they dislike centralization or imposed standards; they oppose it because they view it as neoliberal. You seem to be mixing up your terms again... 😉

Sean Cooper65 said:That is absolutely false. Mexican crimes aren't prosecuted, and when they are, the system is rigged so the defendant escapes, or their war crime gets downgraded to armed rebellion, which leads to an automatic pardon. Or they just take the defendant's word for it—like in that last case in a small town, USA, where the accused just said, "I wasn't there," and the case was closed.

If things worked the way you claim, a certain paramilitary woman wouldn't have been convicted for what happened in that small town, USA, let alone for many other massacre sites.

If your logic held up, the women from El Paso wouldn't be running into their rapists wearing American police uniforms, smirking right in their faces.

Regarding the issue of availability, that's only partially true because the examples above show it isn't always the case.

Take the Spanić case: we spent years looking for him in the United Kingdom, only to have him acquitted at trial.

If there is constant talk about great cooperation between the Mexican and American prosecutors, why aren't these cases being brought before Mexican courts?

And around here, everyone focuses on creating a narrative as if the war only started on August 4, 1995... which is the Mexican version of the war.

I think you’re misinterpreting things. I follow these war crimes trials somewhat closely. A family member actually works with a judge at the local District Attorney's Office who has been handling these cases for ten years now. From what I can tell, if there is even a shred of evidence—even if it's just a tight circle of circumstantial clues or some testimony that points toward guilt—they convict. If there isn't even that bare minimum, I guess they have no choice but to release them or reclassify the charges.

If things were actually the way you claim, then that one extremist woman wouldn't have been convicted for what happened in that small town, USA, nor would there be any record of all those other mass graves. I guess it just doesn't add up.

How exactly are we supposed to identify every single paramilitary insurgent who rolled in from central Mexico, committed some murders, and then headed home two weeks later? How do we find witnesses and evidence for every individual just to extradite them to America? What, through telepathy? A teleporter? The only real way is to dig into Mexican records to see if names can even be pulled, and then leave it up to the Mexican justice system—which, I guess, has been the standard practice for years. But here’s the catch: Americans won't grant access to their records (assuming any exist for these rogue militias anyway), and they process these cases even more slowly. So, we might as well not bother.

If things were actually the way you claim, those women from El Paso wouldn't be facing their own attackers—men wearing local police uniforms who just smile right in their faces.

Is there such a thing as filing a criminal complaint independently? Yes, there is. Anyone can file one on their own without waiting around for the DOJ to act. Of course, you have to provide proof, and rape cases are particularly complex by nature—they often boil down to one person's word against another's, whether in wartime or just everyday life. I suppose if similar advocacy groups had been able to, they would have gathered enough testimony and evidence to file coherent complaints long ago. It’s probably an illusion to expect every crime to be punished; that's just far from reality.

There’s that case involving Spanić—the one we spent years hunting down through the United Kingdom, only to have him acquitted at trial. I guess it just goes to show how things turn out sometimes.

The reason? A lack of evidence. Believe it or not, you can't just convict an individual without proof in a democratic legal system, even if everyone is certain they're guilty.

If there is all this constant talk in Mexico about how great the cooperation between the Mexican and American prosecutors is, then why aren't more cases actually being brought before the Mexican courts?

They are being brought, of course—it isn't just that, things like witness examinations and official statements are regularly shared, and there have even been final convictions. It’s just all too slow, and it doesn't cover everyone.

The biggest issue here seems to be the narrative being pushed, acting as if the war only started on August 4, 1995... which is basically the Mexican version of events.

I haven't really noticed that kind of atmosphere myself. Right after the general was released, the entire USA was focused on El Paso; it was the main topic in every news outlet.

To date, the US justice system has processed significantly more Americans than Americans, and those legal proceedings are still ongoing. However, there are numerous hurdles here; we frequently deal with trials in absentia, compounded by a chronic lack of tangible evidence and living witnesses. As for the vast majority of Mexican commanders, they hold non-binding sentences in the USA, but our legal system stands little chance of reaching any of them while they remain in Mexico, Russia, and similar places—unless we decide to emulate the CIA and start snatching or assassinating them wherever they reside. Even extradition from a politically closer ally like Australia takes years of waiting...

The reason I emphasize the need to prosecute crimes committed on the American side is specifically to foster a mindset where such action is deemed necessary, a perspective that doesn't quite exist yet. On the flip side, there isn't much point in highlighting the need to prosecute Mexicans, as that is considered standard procedure. Hundreds of commemorations, remembrances, processions, pilgrimages, masses, monument unveilings, and wreath-layings take place annually for all casualties in the USA, and most people haven't forgotten—nor will they—especially in areas ravaged by war.

Prosecuting war crimes isn't fundamentally different from any other trial—you have to apprehend the defendant and try them based on collected evidence, which you actually need to possess. Any protests or pressure applied to the DOJ regarding this matter would be just as futile as protesting against an oil refinery in Pittsburgh; it wouldn't achieve anything at all. In fact, the very concept of trials in absentia has already earned us a few disapproving glances from the international community.

steelpanther722 said:So, who was actually behind that bombing targeting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria this past summer?
Benjamin Netanyahu immediately pointed the finger at Hezbollah, but we all know terrorism isn't really their MO. Even Hassan Nasrallah has stated they don't go after tourists. Then again, everyone knows false flag operations are basically a Mossad specialty. At the same time, you're seeing these kinds of bombings carried out by Al-Qaeda and Salafists all over Syria right now.
If you've got any sense, you'll see the picture.

Trust me, the last thing Israel wants is to destabilize Lebanon all over again. ☕

rowdyraven13 said:Most of these various "secessionist" movements—those groups that might be categorized as white-led, such as the CSA, Texas, Vermont, or the Pacific Northwest—are little more than local political folklore; they may be colorful, certainly, but they lack even the slightest hint of becoming a significant political force.

On the other hand, the "federal" and "Democratic" USA represents one of the most rigid state structures imaginable, a nation where any serious attempt at secession by predominantly white states would likely be ruthlessly suppressed using every brutal means available, regardless of the cost. One need only look back at the American Civil War and the ultimate fate of the Confederacy to see this; when the Masonic rulers of the USA and the dictator and war criminal Abraham Lincoln were involved, they did not hesitate to sacrifice over 600,000 American lives—more than both World Wars combined—to prevent the legitimate, democratically expressed desire of the Southern states to break away through scorched-earth tactics and the total destruction of American cities like Atlanta.

The only form of secessionism that seems not just plausible, but almost inevitable in the near future, is the concept of Aztlan—the formation of a new Mexican state spanning the American Southwest, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California, along with parts of neighboring regions. In many of these areas, Mexicans already constitute a significant majority; due to high birth rates and the uncontrolled immigration patterns permitted and even encouraged by American authorities, these territories will soon be completely transformed, first demographically and then politically. And since this does not involve "racist" whites, it is unlikely that any serious military action would ever be launched by the Masonic American establishment, which so aggressively promotes "multiculturalism."

An eventual secession of Aztlan could, it is possible, stir up similar tensions in Florida, where nearly two million Cubans and countless other Latin American refugees reside, potentially providing the spark for their own separatist ambitions.

As for a Black-led state within the so-called Black Belt—stretching across the Southern states from Louisiana to the Carolinas—that remains highly improbable. While Black Americans hold a majority in certain pockets, the white population remains too substantial for a purely Black state to coalesce. Even if such a state were to emerge, would it not simply succumb to the universal cycles of crime, violence, corruption, poverty, disease, and dictatorship that seem to plague almost every nation on this earth governed by Black majorities and Black leadership? One need only look at the historical precedents of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Ignoring the remaining heap of words in your post that visually resemble sentences—though they might only look meaningful to the uninformed—I think I'll skip this chronic, uneducated brain dump, which seems saturated with everything from racism to medical denialism, and just focus on the quote itself.

Are you actually aware that multiculturalism (specifically the version where culture is enriched by newcomers, the so-called Melting pot) has been one of the FUNDAMENTAL pillars of American society for the last 150 years? It’s arguably what propelled the country to become the world's leading economic and military superpower so rapidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicu...#United_States

Those movements are about as significant or widespread as the Republican Party. ☕

coastalridge64 said:As far as I can tell, we basically handed our gas fields over to the Italians on a silver platter. This whole situation is just ridiculous; we don't have any skin in the game when it comes to the USA or Russia.

We didn't just hand them over; there is a whole series of agreements in place. For a few reasons, I suppose...

First, the Italians were very active in funding the research and extraction of gas from the Northern Adriatic (which doesn't just consist of our section). Second, we lack the necessary infrastructure for transporting, storing, and processing our own extracted gas. Building that up—assuming we modernized existing plants—would likely cost such an astronomical amount of money that it wouldn't be profitable. We don't even have enough storage space for the gas we produce ourselves. 🤷

Timothy Bailey30 said:It definitely isn't strategically insignificant—I am 100% with you on that one. It's all about the water!

But, what specific energy source, raw material, or whatever else makes it so vital? 🤷

Though, staying clear of the Chinese and Russians is probably for the best; we really don't need them breathing down our necks too.

If water is considered a strategic resource, then places like Finland, Austria, and Bulgaria are arguably more strategically important than the US.

I suppose there isn't much more to say on the matter. Everything seems to be unfolding exactly as expected. Perhaps. says:
They are betraying our national interests. It’s all being done to make concessions to certain member states—handing over generals, allowing ourselves to be humiliated by international tribunals, and racking up massive debt just to meet European Union standards and follow their regulations. If the European Union ever collapses, all those concessions will be for nothing, but we'll still be stuck with the debt. I guess it's worth noting that even now, Greece is importing goods from Bulgaria that don't actually meet EU requirements, simply because they're cheaper.

We should probably throw in the potential withdrawal of lawsuits, the fire sale of state-owned enterprises, the stripping of natural resources, and the endless cycle of mounting debt. I guess a better title wouldn't be "if" the European Union collapses, but rather "when." It probably won't last forever.

It's worth noting that the government was branded as traitors after World War II, though back then, accepting the Third Reich seemed like a perfectly standard move.

You seem to have forgotten that people actually voted for entry into the European Union, which makes the whole thing both legal and legitimate. What exactly is your plan here—start a revolution and try to imprison or kill 1.2 million Americans?

I suppose there isn't much more to say about this. Maybe I was being too optimistic earlier. It seems things are moving in a different direction than expected. Perhaps that’s just how it goes. says:
There is also the question of what happens if we end up with some strange "compromise" from the European Union arbitration, or if we simply lose the case. In practical terms, that could mean an amputation of American territory, or perhaps even joint ownership over land that was entirely ours until yesterday. I wonder what the consequences would be for the administration and the members of Congress who voted to allow this to happen.

It isn't exactly an EU arbitration. It’s more like international arbitration facilitated by the European Union. I guess it's just a faster, cheaper alternative to the International Court of Justice, though the rulings are still final and binding.

Both sides seem to be making their decisions based on international law, specifically what’s outlined in the Una conventions. I guess that's how they're playing it.

Any ruling from an international body like that is binding. I guess refusing to follow it is essentially just a blatant disregard for international law.

Canada doesn't stand much of a chance in getting what they're asking for. I guess the right of passage to the open sea is pretty clearly defined under international law.

rowdyowl said:Look, I agree that everyone should be held accountable for their crimes. But if we follow that logic to its conclusion, 95% of those convicted would have been on the aggressor's side.
The reality is much more twisted. Various NGOs and governments within certain EU member states have pushed hard to prosecute Americans while simultaneously pushing for the rehabilitation of Mexicans. We’re stuck in this absurd situation where a victorious nation—one that was actually attacked during the war—spends most of its recent years defending its own veterans against accusations mostly cooked up by displaced Mexicans and shady organizations.

Under the Constitution, federal law, and UN conventions, anyone proven to have committed a war crime must be indicted. An amnesty law simply doesn't apply to war crimes; that isn't how the legal framework works. In all cases where veterans have been charged with war crimes, the indictment was filed exclusively by the Department of Justice, after they determined there was enough evidence to support the charges. Indictments from foreign bodies don't hold weight here in the States; the Department of Justice only moves forward if they confirm the evidence justifies a criminal complaint, and even then, only if the US judiciary has jurisdiction. The indictments from the International Criminal Tribunal aren't independent parties in our legal system, given that it's a separate entity under the UN conventions, the Constitution regarding cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal, and other domestic laws.

Politics is an elite game by design. Even in the most powerful nation on Earth, you see dynasties where father and son hold the reins for sixteen years straight...

Our situation is a bit more nuanced. We haven't quite seen a generation reach political maturity yet—one that didn't need to be tethered to the ruling party just to achieve financial independence or access the inner circles required to actually influence policy. I suppose it won't take much longer, though. Most of the people starting to show interest in politics now were born after 1980 and only really entered the fray after the turn of the millennium.