Posts by bluecyclist64

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Precisely. Trying to frame Royalists as anti-fascists is an absurdity to the rest of the world—it only makes sense to the Royalists and the Nationalists themselves.
But then again, we aren't exactly watching that movie over here... 🙂

Ethan Howard said:To be perfectly blunt, it wasn't even about ideological distrust or anything like that; it was simply the sheer clumsiness of fools who had themselves terrified...

I mean, one guy actually shot himself in the arm... it wouldn't have been out of the question for someone to take a head off by mistake.

But that raw, initial feeling shared by the volunteers—that specific generation that had just matured enough to deal with the chaos—that sense of reconciliation and mutual understanding? It’s unrepeatable, unfortunately. And perhaps we really did squander a certain synergy that could have been leveraged much more effectively toward the end of the war.

What are you even talking about? How old are you? Have you lost your memory?

Angela Hughes9 said:And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

At the end of the day, a Bureaucrat's son is always going to be a Bureaucrat's son, regardless of whether his old man was a Communist, a religious zealot, or some wealthy tycoon.
I know plenty of people whose family trees are a chaotic mess of Partisans, Home Guards, and even Nationalists. I personally had an acquaintance who used to show us old photos of his grandfather, who was a Royalist. After the war, he ended up serving in the Thunder units. And yes, he was a volunteer—born in Vojvodina, and an old-school Mexican at heart.

Angela Hughes9 said:Criminals like your father-in-law actually had both the opportunity and the incentive to torment the actual political prisoners alongside the guards. They were practically given special privileges for doing so, you see?

Cut the nonsense and show some decency. You don't even know her father-in-law, so you have absolutely no basis for making such accusations.
And that "is that clear" bit—did you pick that up during your time in the military?

briskviper64 said:So yeah, sure, it was opened up because of the Cominformists. Thanks a lot, Augustinčić, for the suggestion—I guess that's how he tried to make up for his "sins," but let's be real, it wasn't just the Stalinists being targeted through him after the 60s, right?
Basically, anyone could defend crushing people just because they don't agree with whoever is in charge, just to protect their own grip on power, right?
That is straight-up fascism. Pure fascist tactics, just with different logos on the sleeve.
Btw, once the old NKVD and KGB archives finally opened up, the documents proved that Stalin had zero intention of attacking America...

Look, I am not claiming that Alcatraz wasn't brutal, nor am I justifying the inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Over time, it evolved into a facility housing common criminals alongside political dissidents.
As for this whole business about opening the archives, it’s honestly a bit of a joke. What kind of person do they think Marshall was in 1948? Did he have access to those files back then? At that moment, the threat was very much a reality.
I am not saying there is no justification for locking up potential enemies—specifically potential Stalin's allies—but I will never justify treating them with such cruelty.

crimsonjackal63 said:Honestly, I’d settle for a tiny bit of intelligence, some common sense, or maybe just a single historical fact—but clearly, you're all out of those.

And who's this Savo guy from Udbina? Some distant cousin of yours?

What I really want to know is—who exactly did you "reconcile" with, considering you're busy spewing hate toward the Pavelić era?

The only ones left standing are the Royalists—and I bet you made peace with them instantly, didn't you?

What on earth are you talking about? I asked you a perfectly clear question:

If that's the case, why didn't you just grit your teeth and go defend the homeland? You had your chance at reconciliation, so what's your problem now?

Why can't you give me a straight answer?

crimsonjackal63 said:Honestly, I’d settle for a tiny bit of intelligence, some common sense, or maybe just a single historical fact—but clearly, you're all out of those.

And who's this Savo guy from Udbina? Some distant cousin of yours?

What I really want to know is—who exactly did you "reconcile" with, considering you're busy spewing hate toward the Pavelić era?

The only ones left standing are the Royalists—and I bet you made peace with them instantly, didn't you?

Spewing hatred toward those pathetic Nationalists? As far as I'm concerned, both the Nationalists and the Royalists are one and the same—just different packaging for the same damned fascists.
And anyone who glorifies or idolizes them is a complete idiot.

Ethan Howard said:YOU HAVE TO,...☕

Because you’ve just started talking out of your ass for no reason. Honestly, I don't know if you've mistaken me for someone else or what, but it doesn't even matter..
The thing is, when you start belittling your interlocutors just because of your own heated, arrogant ego, you actually have to put in the work to prove it.
Otherwise, all you're doing is highlighting your own limitations.

And yeah, don't flatter yourself thinking you have any qualifications whatsoever to lecture me on anything—least of all regarding the involvement and sacrifice my family and I had to endure.

Damn, I can only get 15 pages of results here.
Fine, it's possible I messed up and confused you with someone else.
There, I almost apologized.

crimsonjackal63 said:I’d be more than happy to make peace with the descendants of those communists, partisans, and common thugs who terrorized and murdered people all over America for fifty years—but since they were never actually held accountable, there's no such thing as reconciliation.

And who exactly have you made peace with? Some guy from the Mississippi in Udbina? Why didn't you lead with that! 😁

If that was the case, why didn't you just grit your teeth and head out to defend the country during the American Civil War? You had your chance at reconciliation back then, so what are you looking for now?
And who is this Savo from Udbina anyway? A distant cousin of yours?

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

People think they know everything about Alcatraz, but the reality is more nuanced. It was essentially established because of the intense paranoia surrounding Stalin supporters during that volatile period in 1948, when everyone was bracing for a potential invasion by the USSR. You see similar patterns in American history, like when the US government interned Japanese citizens. The problem is, most people refuse to hear the uncomfortable truths behind these historical shifts.
On a personal note, my stepfather also ended up behind bars at Alcatraz due to his sympathies toward Stalin.

Ethan Howard said:Come on now, just tell me—how old do you actually think I am?🙂?

Far too young to be participating in any kind of war. I recall reading your previous posts, and they certainly made that clear—I shouldn't have to go digging through the archives to prove it, should I?

Ethan Howard said:So, what exactly is eating at you?

Angela Hughes9 said:And yet, there was a noticeably smaller number of those "Bureaucrat's" sons picking up a rifle to volunteer for the defense. Most were simply mobilized by draft, and I never fully bought into their commitment. A huge number of them just stayed tucked away in defense offices, acting much like those children of the communist era who were essentially just employees.

Ethan Howard said:To be perfectly blunt, it wasn't even about ideological distrust or anything like that; it was simply the sheer clumsiness of fools who had themselves terrified...

I mean, one guy actually shot himself in the arm... it wouldn't have been out of the question for someone to take a head off by mistake.

But that raw, initial feeling shared by the volunteers—that specific generation that had just matured enough to deal with the chaos—that sense of reconciliation and mutual understanding? It’s unrepeatable, unfortunately. And perhaps we really did squander a certain synergy that could have been leveraged much more effectively toward the end of the war.

Who specifically didn't you trust, and when? Aren't you perhaps a little too young to be harboring that kind of cynicism?

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:

That’s their problem. ☕ (By the way, I absolutely loathe this smiley face icon; I have no idea why it exists.)

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:

I certainly was at one point, but once I realized rock and roll wasn't going to pay my rent, I decided to tap the brakes a little.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:

My colleague 🙂
Well, you can't just throw profanity around and expect it to work. The old-school users here understood that, whereas plenty of pathetic garage bands thought they could just shout shit fuck damn piss and suddenly sound like Johnny Štulić.

To me, material wealth doesn't carry much weight if it lacks practical utility—take a car, for instance; if it just gets you from point A to point B, that's its job and nothing more.
However, much like Wolf, I have a certain appreciation for the finer things in life: drinking, kissing, messing around, and yes, even a good bit of cursing.
That said, I rarely find myself using profanity to insult someone. In my actual day-to-day life, I'm a bit of a joker, and the people I hang out with don't take offense at my language. As for those who are easily offended? Well, I have no desire to socialize with them outside of necessary, formal interactions, where I am perfectly polite and well-mannered.
Ultimately, my work involves the study of language and thought, which leads me to believe that what people call "dirty words" are actually just part of a rich linguistic tapestry.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I guess what it boils down to is that a ton of people swear not because they're making a conscious "choice," but just out of habit. It’s kind of like when you hit the "T" key on a keyboard and a "T" pops up on the screen—it's just automatic. Like, say someone slams their finger in a car door and starts cursing; it's almost inevitable. As life throws more frustrating situations our way, the likelihood of someone reacting with a swear word just goes up.

Then you've got this double loss of energy, plus the distraction factor, and let's not forget being a bit inconsiderate toward others. If a person had a higher level of self-awareness, maybe some self-control or empathy, they might actually stop and think about how their behavior communicates with the world—you know, asking themselves what kind of message or impact they're having on the people around them.

Swearing, much like anything else, is pretty much neutral by itself. But once you start communicating with other people, it takes on color and perspective based on how the listener sees it. A swear word could be funny, it could be meant to provoke or push someone away, it could be friendly and show trust, etc. Or, it could just be a bad habit—just a sign that a person can't help themselves whenever things get tough or uncomfortable.

It really comes down to a person's ability to look inward and figure out where they land on that spectrum. Then there's the question of being considerate and respectful toward the people caught in those tense moments around you. And thirdly, I wonder if the energy spent on swearing might be better used for something else entirely. I suppose it all depends on how broad or narrow a person sets their goals...

So, are you saying swearing is just another form of communication? That it all boils down to execution?
Man, these posts of yours are getting incredibly long, especially once you start rambling about "energy"... Sorry, but as a dialectical materialist, the mere mention of "energy" makes my skin crawl.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:People always say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but I guess that begs the question—where do we actually draw the line?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CukIPycF3.7 miles

Based on what the Evangelists wrote, swearing and the Holy Spirit just don't really mix, I suppose. ☕

What’s the consensus here? Any experts or just regular folks have thoughts? 🙂

To be honest, I couldn't care less about spirits, even if they were holy.
Swearing is just a facet of culture; in and of itself, it isn't inherently uncivilized.
At the end of the day, you can use a curse word to express genuine awe, whereas someone using "polite" language can be just as insulting as any sailor.

hollowtrucker77 said:The accusation sounds incredibly arrogant, especially since there’s zero mention of how that rule was actually being applied.
As far as I'm concerned, the partial ban stands, though Tyndall is free to return if he wants a second chance.

You know damn well how that rule was being used.
I simply asked you to rescind the strike you slapped on me just because you felt like it.
But you refused to explain why one set of rules applies to some people while everyone else follows another. It would have required you to admit you made a mistake. Instead, you just handed me a partial ban.
Real classy move on your part.

feraltrucker5 said:It looks like you’ve been hit with a partial ban on Amtrak. Apparently, you were being a bit too troublesome over there.

Fine, so what now? You can all just throw your little digital tantrums at me, and I don't even have any recourse for an appeal?
Is there actually any way to get this partial ban lifted?
Or am I expected to be some sort of outcast in this particular American utopia—some kind of Jew in a forum Reich?

I'm having trouble accessing those PDF files you mentioned.
Any idea why that might be?

I just finished reading that controversial post, and frankly, I find myself in complete agreement with its sentiment. Awarding 500 points for a contribution like that is nothing short of an attempt to criminalize specific viewpoints on this forum.
It’s disgraceful.

Scott Cruz4 said:The fact that certain people misuse symbols—much like how some Islamic fundamentalists twist the meaning of the Quran to justify violence—has absolutely nothing to do with what those symbols actually signify.
If you feel personally insulted when someone brings up the swastika in a negative context, then that’s when the moderator should step in and issue a penalty.
Personally, I don't have an issue with it.
However, it still bothers me when people refer to our national symbols or our Catholic identity (such as the Kris) using nothing but derogatory slang. Most Americans wouldn't appreciate being spoken to like that.

The Kris is just a small municipality in Los Angeles County. It’s hardly a symbol for the entire nation, let alone a representation of Catholic identity.