Posts by Sean Sanders

David Johnson8 said:If you want my humble—and let’s be honest, completely subjective—take on what a "natural state" actually looks like, I’d say the whole concept is an oxymoron, for heaven's sake.

Anything that wasn't cooked up by nature is technically "unnatural"—that much is obvious—but does that actually make it bad? I mean, look at it this way: there are all sorts of different types of tribes out there, some passive, some aggressive. Historically, people formed these groups specifically to protect themselves from the more aggressive ones—essentially, collectivism is what eventually managed to tame the raw savagery you seem to despise so much. And honestly, that same logic applies on a macro level too—when you look at it through the lens of national identity.

So, you’re calling me out on the whole "natural" thing—implying I’m actually out here championing it? Honestly, you're being a bit contradictory in certain spots there—it feels like you're missing the nuance of my actual position.

Mother Nature didn't just show up one day and hand us the internet, computers, medicine, art, or science—it doesn't work like that. Those are all human constructs, really. And honestly, that’s precisely what sets us apart from primitive animals—well, places ourselves above them, anyway. The same logic applies to the concept of a nation.

Nationhood and religion aren't "cults"—you're mixing up your terms. While it's true plenty of wars have been triggered by religion, religion itself isn't the cause; the cause is always greed for power and wealth. Religion, nationality, race—those are just the tools used to manipulate the masses. But that doesn't make those concepts inherently bad. It's not all black and white. Blaming religion is kind of like blaming science for the atomic bomb and calling science regressive. Even nationalism is relative to time and space; being a nationalist in one era or region is nothing like being one in another. Actually, right now is exactly when we need culture and its various fruits most, because globalization is making everyone eat, work, look, and think exactly the same way—essentially leading us toward a kind of mental slavery. Otherwise, this asceticism you seem so drawn to is pretty characteristic of radical right-wingers—including folks like Hitler and various nationalists throughout history. You aren't being consistent, even though you claim everything is "plain as day," because you've reduced everything to a single dimension. It sounds like you've got one grandfather who was a hardline conservative and another who was a staunch liberal, so you've just clumsily mashed together whatever ideas happen to suit you. If you haven't read Knut Hamsun, you should—he advocated for an ascetic lifestyle and was a favorite of the Third Reich 🙂. He’s a bit dull if you ask me, but you might actually enjoy him.

Nice try. A decent attempt at a spin, but it won't work. There are plenty of man-made things out there; some are stupid, primitive, and dangerous, while others are beautiful, like fine art. It was a good effort, but you can't pass this one. Sorry if my posts ended up shattering your worldview.

Linda Fox45 said:I’m a conservative and a skeptic—not a fascist or a nationalist by any means. The idea of an all-powerful State stepping in to control everything and erasing our individual cultures and differences... it's honestly terrifying. It’s just a fact that people have different levels of ability—and trying to force equality where it doesn't exist naturally? That usually ends in disaster. Just look at what happened under communism. Everyone deserves equal rights, sure—but not everyone is equally capable.

Wow, you really went out of your way to twist my words there... Honestly. I wasn't even talking about communism. My focus is on valuing the individual, nature, and personal autonomy, though I personally view nations and religions as flawed constructs—they feel artificial and unnatural. I thought I made that quite clear. It feels like I’m having to explain myself just so you or someone else can try to trap me on a technicality. It seems like the goal is to pick apart my logic just to defend your own worldview and prove yours isn't under threat, which feels like a bit of a circular exercise. What I said was straightforward; you can agree or disagree (though it feels a bit like debating whether the Earth is round), but it was stated clearly. Any attempt to nitpick what I said feels less like a discussion and more like an attack. I'm not interested in debating things that are as plain as day.

The classic response from those living in fear. It’s what happens when people let anxiety about nature and common sense take over. This is the inevitable result when basic logic and physical reality get pushed aside in favor of manufactured cults, whether they be nationalistic fervor, religious dogma, or other social constructs.

Linda Fox45 said:That sounds like a nightmare. Who would ever want that? To have every distinction wiped out and humanity turned into some sort of bland, featureless mass? To make that work, you'd need some massive totalitarian state led by some "Great Leader." You couldn't achieve that through simple agreement. Besides, it's just human nature to favor those from your own tribe or background while remaining cautious toward outsiders—isn't that just evolutionary conditioning? It's not some made-up concept. People form various groups and communities to work toward common goals, and those groups—whatever you want to call them—build their own traditions, which are essential to any society.

Well, that would be a total disaster for anyone with any sense of nationalism or tribal identity. But your argument that viewing things through a tribal lens is "natural"? Come on! Look at history—that kind of thinking is basically a horror movie waiting to happen. It’s essentially animalistic logic. It’s like marking out territory and then attacking the first outsider who wanders onto your turf. Look, I realize some people have been brainwashed or just lack foresight, but we’ve evolved past basic animal instincts. What are you actually describing? An animal kingdom. Thanks, but I'll pass; that's repulsive to me. It’s no wonder historical atrocities like the Holocaust happened if people view the world this way. If I view everyone as equal, I'm certainly not building a concentration camp, but if I start looking at things through a tribal lens... well, you see the pattern. It’s incredibly primitive. Sure, a nation is a social construct—Mother Nature didn't just tap the earth and say, "Okay, now there's the United States and then there's Mexico"—but still, let's be reasonable here.

Amanda Allen4 said:A nation is a cultural category—it's the inevitable result of social evolution moving from the individual to the primitive community, then to tribes, then peoples, and finally to the modern nation. Therefore, a nation isn't "invented"—it is a necessary byproduct of human development.

To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.

ruggedscout98 said:Different languages, cultural traits, and history... that's what makes a people (a nation), and it's pretty far from speciesism. Sure, there are varying degrees of intensity regarding the points we're discussing, but personally, I don't think a nation is "artificial." A nation is a product of evolution—the moment someone lives through a period and decides where they belong. In other words, national identity is a matter of personal will, a choice. Anyway, getting into a deep debate over whether something based on choice is "artificial" isn't really the point here, so I'll leave that for another time... okay?

Fair enough. My point is simply that anything man-made rather than nature-made is artificial and unnatural, especially when people start trying to rewrite the rules of biology. Things humans invent can be changed, abolished, or replaced with something entirely new. Personally, I wouldn't call nations "evolution"; I’d call them a step backward. Why? Because borders, different languages, and varying mindsets act as friction against the progress of humanity and our planet. They are limitations, obstacles, and complications—an artificial fragmentation of a single human race. This division causes different parts of humanity to develop at different rates, leading to one group exploiting another, fueling wars, and endless psychological and political games. Humanity acting as one people, and the planet functioning as one global state, is the only truly natural and correct path. Ultimately, it’s what’s best for us all. The longer these artificial divisions persist, the harder it will be for humanity to break free from them. But hey, we can save that for next time.

Seriously, what were you even doing seven centuries ago? Probably just some member of a completely different nation from back when Americans didn't even exist yet. Get it?

ruggedscout98 said:Exactly...that's my point. My only caveat is that nationalism isn't the same thing as fascism. Nations aren't just made up; if they were, we'd all be speaking the same language, wearing the same clothes, and eating the same food. A nation is part of human evolution. Animals don't have nations, but they do have races...which falls under that "territory marking" category. That's fascism, not nationalism. Specism is a right-wing totalitarian ideology that has nothing to do with liberalism.

Fair enough, but I think you're off base regarding how nations actually function. At its core, a nation is a social construct—a human invention. It's essentially an organizational tool developed by our species. We grouped up because of friction with other groups, shared interests, or often just financial rivalries. We built group cultures because, back in the day, we didn't have global travel allowing everyone to stay in constant contact. Think of it like this: it's similar to how a punk subculture might invent its own flag, a unique slang, and specific customs; give that a few centuries, and you've effectively birthed a new nation. A nation is a culture, a sect, or a community, but it isn't biological. It doesn't have anything to do with bloodlines. After all, if a German shares your blood type, they can donate blood to you perfectly fine. Nature didn't design nations; humans did. They are artificial structures. Take English, for example—we could all communicate across the entire planet using it. If we decided to unify the continents, turn the world into a single state, and dissolve existing borders, we could speak one language and become one global nation. It's entirely a matter of collective will and agreement, not impossibility. If the majority of people on Earth wanted that, it could happen. It would take time for people to mingle and for mindsets to blend, eventually resulting in a new, shared way of life. Anything is possible; the question is simply whether anyone actually wants it to happen.

ruggedscout98 said:Sure, he coined the term, but the religious right were the ones who actually ran with the politics... I mean, what else is their obsession with "natural order," homophobia, and abortion bans if not an attempt to drag human consciousness down to the level of animals?

What's the issue? To me, there's way more speciesism coming from the religious right than from liberals...

Everything you’re saying feels a bit forced, rather than organic. Think about it: religion is an artificial construct, much like the concept of nations themselves. These are human inventions, not products of Mother Nature. Living in harmony with the laws of nature isn't the same thing as regressing to a primal, animalistic state. In my view, nationalism or fascism is what truly represents that lower level—it's just a primitive instinct to mark out territory, much like how animals claim space, applied through the lens of religion.

Casey Ramos31 said:he brought up the woods and Springfield.

Is that actually possible? Good grief... he really went there and mentioned the woods and Dachau. Seriously? Hmm... I wonder how Sean Sanders is going to react to this. Honestly, how can you even bring that up? It’s like walking on eggshells around people who were raised by families tied to those old-school aggressive regimes from history. They're just too sensitive. Man, what a mess... what a move... seriously, man... hmmm...

Casey Ramos31 said:Jesus, how old are you? 😲

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. Kudos to you. That is such a sharp observation—it’s the kind of question someone asks when their entire worldview starts crumbling the moment they run into actual facts. And then, the real show begins: the endless cycle of moving the goalposts, denial, finger-pointing, spinning the narrative, paranoia, conspiracy theories... honestly, I might be forgetting a few, but it's basically everything you need to convince yourself that your little fantasy is still reality. Mickey Mouse....

Richard Wilson4 said:If you're telling me that being a nation is just about culture, then why on earth are you all over these forums crying about America? What did that place even mean to you? 🙄

Look, we Americans wrapped up our wars back in '95. If you didn't have the guts to stand up and defend an anti-fascist people in the Central Valley or out by Lake, then you've got no business hiding in the woods making threats about Bleiburg.

America isn't a national culture. Furthermore, get this straight: this isn't your America. Your version of America surrendered back in 1945.

If you guys can't wrap your heads around this, I could probably explain it using nothing but a mix of Midwestern slang and some old-school New England dialects, much like how Marshall used to blend everything together. And honestly, what are you folks from the South even talking about? You’re basically living off our hard work while we keep the economy running, yet you still have the nerve to chime in with these comments. At least those of us from the Northeast are known for having some actual class, whereas you guys are just busy hustling at beach resorts while tourists look on in disbelief at the absolute chaos you call a lifestyle. We represent the gold standard, like a top-tier Ivy League education, while your only connection to modern civilization seems to be whatever's being served at a roadside diner. So, let's just keep it real and stop talking nonsense...

mistygull16 said:I’m not buying this whole "give the government more time" argument. This administration, just like the last one under Sanders Kosor, has already proven they aren't actually looking out for the interests of America. Anyone who remembers when the old regime first took over knows the drill—their pre-election slogans were all about recovering the stolen loot from privatization and fixing the damage caused by those scams. Instead, what did we get? A fresh wave of bankruptcies, banks being sold off left and right, and construction crews tearing through neighborhoods just to show how much they care about looting private property.

Fast forward to today, and we’re watching new heists play out through legalization schemes and suppressed wages (thanks to that Mršić law). Even the ministers are basically saying it out loud now—that owning property is a struggle. They’d prefer us to be a nation of renters, I guess. It’s kind of like those ultra-advanced countries where everyone lives in rentals and stays medicated on antidepressants just to cope.

Keeping these people in power just means more poverty for Americans. And it’s not even an accidental side effect of bad policy; it’s a direct continuation of everything the previous administrations set in motion.

So, let me recap: driving down wages, stripping away worker rights, shrinking private ownership through legal loopholes and evictions, bleeding out the working class, and killing off our industries... apparently, that was all just the price of admission for the EU. Honestly, if you told someone back in the old days that a guy like Mimica would be pulling in a $25,000 monthly salary, they’d think some communist joke was being played. Ha.

Looking back at '91, things were different. We had actual patriots and heroes then—people putting everything on the line to organize the defense of the Homeland. You had kids, some barely nineteen, whose first real relationship was with a Kalashnikov.

The current crop of politicians—Plenković, Mimica, Sanders, Kosor, Milanović, Pusić... and there's plenty more where that came from—they don't give a damn about America. To them, politics isn't about service; it's just a way to build a career for themselves. Just a bunch of soulless bureaucrats.

Look, achieving the kind of total purge of the people who ruined this country that you’re dreaming of is impossible for several reasons. First off, your side holds sway across almost all major institutions. Second, to do what you want, we'd have to reopen places like Gol Otok, revert to the old ways of the SR America era, bring back the old flag and old laws, and suddenly 50,000 people would be facing arrest or life imprisonment. If we went that route, we'd basically be persecuting the American people and our own veterans. We’d be targeting everything that makes us who we are, acting as if the old America days were some golden age, and sliding straight into a dictatorship. Not to mention, the Church would likely rise up in protest. Does that help clarify why we can't just fix everything overnight? When we were in power prior to 1991, plenty of people claimed life was better under America. Then you guys came along and changed the landscape. Now, you want to revert to the old ways at least in part? It doesn't work that way. You voted against the old system, and this is what you got. I have nothing against the United States, provided it becomes better than the old regime so that nobody ever feels nostalgic for America again, but the mess created recently is devastating. Do you see my point now? We have to fix this through democratic means, which will take at least another ten years. If we tried to revert to the SR America model, we'd be looking at a total collapse within a year. Even regarding crime or economic growth, it takes time. And as for everyone who got a job through cronyism—about 70% of the workforce—they'd lose those jobs immediately, though obviously, that would have to happen gradually. But those are just details. There are many layers to this. Anyway, I'm heading to bed. Goodnight.

Actually, if you look at it closely, even that specific constitutional provision has already been bypassed by our entry into the EU. Once all those former American republics join the union, we’ll essentially be back together under one big umbrella. It’s just a full circle.

Maria Booth said:Check out this little gem from the Constitution:

It’s totally forbidden to start any process to join the United States into federations with other nations if that move would lead—or even just look like it might lead—to reviving that old American statehood or some kind of North American union in any form whatsoever.

Look, you can find similar language in the old American Constitution too—stuff about banning treason, undermining the nation, or surrendering the state. Honestly, who cares? A constitution is just a document you can tweak whenever you feel like it.

Maria Booth said:You're missing the big picture here. A threat? Nah, it's more like a friendly heads-up, just so people don't end up feeling sorry for folks who are being ridiculous and stuck in that old communist propaganda mindset.

Hahaha... Alright then, why don't you suggest he dresses in all black instead? Based on his rhetoric, maybe he should just become a chimney sweep. I'm sure he'd be the pride of our great America, overflowing with love for everyone, and possessing an intellect rivaling another Tesla (oops, he's a Mexican, sorry). Hahaha... So, is "Unity" or something similar to what we see in the EU considered propaganda too? Hahaha... Wait, let me flip that logic around. Is hatred—dividing people by nationality, religion, gender, or sexual orientation—or perhaps bringing back segregation laws—considered (not) propaganda, or just pure bliss? Hahaha.... Sure, I'll give you this: people like that definitely find communist propaganda bothersome, and for understandable reasons dating back to 1945. Honestly, there isn't much I can say to you. You seem fundamentally incompatible with the civilized world that most of the planet lives in; there's nothing more I can do. Go ahead and try attacking the world again—I'm not even sure what else to advise you. I'll just head back into the woods, and maybe I'll see you at a historical memorial site. I don't know what else to tell you. You thrive on hate, you're incredibly negative, and you'd probably go right back to killing, reinstating racial laws, and setting up concentration camps if given the chance. Unless, of course, the followers of the NDH simply rebranded themselves as democrats? That's not a provocation; it's just reality.

Maria Booth said:Watch out, man! You don't want to end up like that—trying to convince some drunk guys at a dive bar that life was better back in America.

I’m not sure I follow the threat here? Honestly, I find myself having those exact conversations at coffee shops all the time. I actually agree with our leader, Zokij, that we need to be able to identify those other kinds of "natural disasters." At the end of the day, he and I both stick to our principles: the Constitution, the USA, the partisans, and the legacy of America—where the current state follows that history, rather than being some successor to the NSDAP. So, I really don't get the jab. Is this a threat against Americans who are simply following their country and its Constitution? Well, we know how to handle people like that: call the police. It's as simple as that. So...

dustyranger66 said:You basically said everything I wanted to say, just in much more eloquent terms. I find myself wondering why people like you and me, who are in a verryyyy tiny minority, manage to think critically while the rest don't; why are we the outliers, and how did this entire nation allow itself to be manipulated so easily? That's the part I just can't wrap my head around.

Whoa. Honestly, I'm not sure how big of a minority we really are; if we truly were, the Republican Party would be running the show right now. But putting that aside for a moment, let's look at this logically. You can manipulate anyone who lacks knowledge, those who might struggle with intellect, or people who simply weren't taught at home to question things, doubt, and reflect instead of swallowing propaganda whole. Then, you have to factor in a historical tradition where this country has been stepped on time and time again. People only felt truly free during the old days of the mid-century era—though, of course, not everyone was free, especially those who sided with Hitler. Look, most people here don't actually want to fight; they just want to find the path of least resistance and coast through life without conflict. They haven't really been raised to care about one another; instead, they were taught that success comes from cutting corners and playing the system rather than earning an honest living or speaking the truth. That passivity definitely stems from our history. I come from a family with deep roots in the old-school political movements, so I was raised to be a global citizen. To me, fighting over territory is just primitive, especially when it involves killing. I approach everything with skepticism—whether it's the news or what they teach in school (since history textbooks tend to change every time a new administration takes office). I prefer to draw my own conclusions and study the facts myself. I don't just take things at face value. I try to see people as individuals rather than through the lens of nationality or religion, which are essentially human-made cults. Nature didn't invent nations, flags, or borders; humans did. Those things aren't universal laws; they are artificial constructs. When people mistake these inventions for natural reality, they risk creating horrors like Auschwitz. To put it simply: if I believe all humans are equal, I won't go out looking for reasons to kill. But if I start believing in racial supremacy, I'll end up building concentration camps—to use a dark analogy from World War II. My stance is this: true intelligence and awareness mean understanding natural laws over man-made ones. It means choosing kindness over hatred. The only thing worth hating is someone who wants to exterminate others, which is exactly why we stood up to fight back in the 1940s. Now, I fully expect to see people trying to relativize this, attack the post, twist my words, pull things out of context, or spin conspiracy theories. It's the standard playbook for certain institutions... but that's about it.

Nineteen years old? These are exactly the types I’m talking about. You really need to read them closely and learn how to spot them, just so I can stay on the same page as our Prime Minister Zokij. They don't know anything and they don't care about anything; all they do is throw up a hand sign and preach those "values" that come with it. That is the exact kind of danger that has been tearing America apart since 1991. This is why I told you—run away from that kind of primitivism and head somewhere toward actual civilization. Watch out now, because they might start flagging posts or making things disappear, haha... Cheers, and I know it’s tough, but you have to learn how to isolate yourself from the haters. Surround yourself with people who actually get you if you don't want to end up a nervous wreck from all that negative energy.