Posts by rowdyhound5

Benjamin Taylor6 said:I am right there with you on this. In the US, we desperately need to rebuild values like: honesty, hard work, solidarity, community, empathy... you name it.

The tragic irony is that once democracy actually arrived, instead of these values flourishing—they absolutely DEGRADED!!!

There’s a record of this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9pO7mTUcGc

Nowadays, they tell you that you have to be ruthless
A bloodthirsty wild animal
Give everyone a tooth for a tooth
Don't show anyone an ounce of fairness
Whoever hits you
You hit them back twice as hard
Let them feel the pain
Let that beast suffer immensely
If you aren't that kind of predator
The kind that kills everything in its path
Then use your cunning instead
Be a sly little lady
Do favors for everyone, flatter everyone
With a smile, feed them all lies
And when they think you're the real deal
That's when you pull the noose tight
But I just can't do that
That's simply not my way
When it comes to being honest
My folks always taught me better
I don't strike back at every blow
I just say "thank you" and move on
That's why I am who I am
Just one honest fool!

What American Society needs right now is HONEST FOOLS!!!

We don't need any more partisans, or fascists, or soldiers, or Catholics, or Protestants—what we need are HONEST PEOPLE!!

There it is, the fundamental mistake. For heaven's sake, honest people would never have built America! Honest people would have been led away like sheep by Slobodan Maddox and his cohorts straight to the camps to be slaughtered, much like what happened to the Canadians and Alija Izetbegović—who were, quite frankly, decent men. That is why we needed "our bastard son" to rise up against "their bastard son"... because greed and theft are powerful enough engines to drive people toward a common goal—the creation of a state. Sure, there were other elements involved: fascist revanchism, extremist slogans, certain cultural displays, the return of the Midwesterners and the locals reclaiming their status to settle scores from the second World War, but now that almost everything has been looted, one has to wonder: what is left to motivate people to keep pushing this narrative of "America"? Igor Mandić would probably say—nothing. We should just go back to the days of the USA, which, as we know, was founded on partisan principles. Because under those principles, something could indeed be built, but it wouldn't have been America; it would have been the USA.

Is there anything left in this decaying nation besides seventy-year-old partisan ideologies that could possibly resuscitate it from clinical death? And it certainly won't be—HONESTY... It’s like expecting Dudek from the suburbs to carry the entire weight of the operation while being dragged along by some shady characters, a vulgar Regica, or His Holiness! Dudek is only there to provide a punchline for every episode, but he can't actually move anything on his own. Or do you really think honest people would build Las Vegas? This place is worse than Las Vegas. It's like Las Vegas in Mexico City, similar to that cartoon Tijuana Toads (Pancho and Toro), where nobody does anything, everyone is on permanent siesta, and everyone just waits for a fried frog to jump right into their mouths from the swamp. The only question that matters is "Who is the BIGGEST FROG here?" Right now, Zoran Milanović is the biggest frog in the swamp, ribbit-ribbit, but tomorrow it might be someone else.

The early 90s serve as the perfect example of a criminal concoction brewed in the Faustian retort of a psychopath—just enough to create this country: a dash of fascism, a pinch of secret police tactics, a heavy dose of greed and small-mindedness, a bit of radical terrorism, a sprinkle of primitivism and rural backwardness, a hint of anti-intellectualism, snobbery, and kitsch, some genuine patriotism and volunteers ready to die like German soldiers at Stalingrad in '41, some country fair women thinking God sent a savior from the South to liberate them from bondage, some malicious intellectuals writing protest letters, some feminist witches and PEN Club types serving as the ideal internal enemies for the righteous people to rally against, plenty of thieves and greedy expats dreaming of Audis and tuxedos for Viennese operas, white-collar frauds, arms smugglers, hustlers, thugs with burning eyes because a bone is pressing against their tiny brains, fast-talking cowboys from the Wild West, lowlifes, creeps, little Napoleons, psychopathic leaders, secret police informants, failed playboys, and priests and prostitutes with suddenly skyrocketing morality and sewn-up virginity...

Well, you simply can't whip up another cocktail quite this potent to absolutely scramble everyone's brains, much less attempt to swap it out for some nauseatingly bland notion of "honesty"... Perhaps the only solution left is to actually implement real capitalism—to completely tear down the government safety nets, scrap those useless taxes and bureaucratic hurdles, bring in the big players from China, create some sort of multicultural melting pot reminiscent of that South Korean Gangnam vibe, and finally force people to get off their backsides and actually start producing something... to roll up their sleeves, even if it means cutting corners or playing a little dirty along the way...

The responsibility for raising children should fall to whoever is actually looking after them right now... which, let’s face it, is usually just the Internet. Grandparents nowadays simply can’t keep tabs on what a kid is consuming from dawn till dusk, nor the endless stream of data they’re soaking up, because everything is just sitting there, wide open for the taking. It used to be that in those massive, sprawling American families, older siblings stepped up to do the heavy lifting since parents were out working themselves to the bone just to put food on the table. And sure, those kids worked too. Fast forward to today, and even though we aren't all pulling shifts in coal mines anymore, people are still working themselves ragged and have zero free time... so if we want kids to actually get some guidance, the only way left is for them to spend more time on their devices and basically raise each other. Honestly, it might even be fairer that way, given that any single parent carries their own set of biases that they inevitably pass down to their offspring. What good does that do us, when it's all so primitive? Just think how much stronger America would be if we weren't constantly at each other's throats over things like ancestry, old political divides, or whether someone is a Southerner or a New Yorker.

It strikes me as quite curious that capitalism fails to see it is essentially sawing off the very branch it sits upon. Families are absolutely vital to the engine of capitalism because they fuel this constant, relentless competition—the need to outdo the neighbor, the desperate urge to ensure my kid has the latest iPhone just because every other kid at school has one. If the family unit didn't exist to drive that status-seeking, this whole cycle of competition would grind to a halt, and perhaps society would actually become a bit more equitable...

Brenda Cook4 said:Think about it: we used to function in an expanded capacity, like a pack or a tribe. As we evolved, that structure proved itself to be the most effective foundation for society. It’s how we ensure the best possible care for our offspring. In that dystopian scenario you're painting, who actually steps up to look after the kids (even if I don't think we're headed for such a bleak future)? Just... houses?

The State. First off, the government would produce exactly as many people as we need for progress. Planned. Not just enough to allow some wealthy family to keep all the assets gripped in their sweaty palms... just enough so those old fossils have someone to scrape by with while they're fading away, but not so many that everything gets squandered. Then, one has to import foreign laborers from everywhere, from Turkey to Canada, though we can see how that fails, because they bring their own culture along and just siphon the wealth back home to wherever they came from. We need to boost the birth rate, and right now, only the state can pull that off. The Chinese have the opposite problem; they need to scale back because their population is already massive, but even then, they live in this sort of collectivism that has nothing to do with our American families, where everyone actually has their own room and such. They spend their entire lives under the watchful eye of someone—the state, the neighbors—privacy becomes a distant memory. I’m not saying that’s particularly pleasant, but I fail to see how else we could raise the birth rate, and without it, we’re headed for ruin...

A traditional alternative would be for the government to provide subsidies to women who have six or more children, much like what Enver Hoxha did in Albania, but I truly believe it’s wrong for a woman in the 21st century to be having ten or fifteen kids just to serve as a biological machine...

ruggedpanther13 said:I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉

Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.

But you see, this isn't actually about liberalism, or libertinism, or sexual deviancy, or any of those messy polyandrous arrangements... it's fundamentally an issue of economics. In the context of Islam, a husband had multiple wives because he was the primary holder of property, whereas the wife was treated more like property herself. Nowadays, the family unit acts as the vessel for accumulated wealth meant for inheritance. However, what we are witnessing is the rise of these massive, untouchable clans—the Rothschilds, if you will. Why shouldn't we implement regulations to prevent that? Why can't society legally mandate that they cannot pass down their empires to their children, forcing them instead to return that vast wealth to the state? That is precisely how the Chinese handle things, and their economic trajectory certainly doesn't suggest failure... Massive concentrations of wealth merely serve to amplify political leverage, which inevitably paves the way for an oligarchy. In that light, dismantling the traditional family structure actually benefits the oligarchs, as it is far easier to manipulate isolated individuals than it is to contend with cohesive families and powerful clans... though, naturally, those elites would remain deeply entrenched within their own private networks.

The core objective should be to shift economic power away from the dynastic family unit and onto the individual... allowing one to hold assets and bequeath them to whomever they choose—be it a spouse or even a same-sex partner—while simultaneously preventing the unchecked bloating of wealth within specific lineages that grants them disproportionate political sway. That would solve the problem. In the USA, we basically just rotate between two major political dynasties—it's always a little bit of Bush, then a little bit of Clinton. Obama was really just there for the laughs... Thank God that Marshall didn't leave his entire fortune to his sons, otherwise we'd be perpetually stuck dealing with a revolving door of Harmon and Broz dynasties forever...

The cold, hard truth is that over the last twenty-three years since we established this nation, everything has been sliding downhill... whether you have a family supporting you or you're out there on your own. Something fundamentally needs to be fixed. You have certain people arguing that we need to retreat into tradition and patriarchal structures because, apparently, that’s our only hope for survival. But honestly, has anyone in the history of civilization ever actually looked backward to find a way forward? If that's the logic, why don't we just revert back to the Middle Ages and serfdom? Maybe that would solve all our problems too... I mean, really. We should be moving forward, which means we need to rethink the very structure of the American family so we can actually thrive, rather than having people trapped within four walls dealing with abuse while they pray the Rosary outside... Experience seems to suggest that in 99% of cases, parents completely fail their children through terrible upbringing, mostly because they are themselves deeply broken. Children eventually figure things out for themselves as they navigate these new realities. I had a friend once tell me, "I have to teach my kid how to steal, otherwise they won't make it in this world." But no, that's not how it works; stealing is what the previous generation did. In this current generation, we should be teaching kids to be honest, because after a whole era of crooks, integrity is going to be a premium commodity. And why shouldn't we leave child-rearing to actual professionals who know what they're doing? Is the "family unit" really providing such high-quality education?

Well, obviously, primitive humans lived in tribal communities... They married, sure, but the entire tribe stayed far more cohesive than your typical modern neighborhood, local precinct, or even the residents of some apartment complex in Chicago (you really ought to pick up >'s book "root"). If one member of the tribe fell ill, the whole group would gather around with a shaman to try and heal them, because the sickness—or rather, the evil spirit—of one individual was viewed as a crisis for the entire collective... Nowadays, you go to the hospital and maybe your spouse or kids show up, and if you’re incredibly lucky, a friend might drift by...

As the family unit solidified as the bedrock of society, patriarchy emerged... Women essentially became treated like livestock or property... Consequently, once the concept of private ownership gained traction, patriarchy and the nuclear family took hold as the foundation (simply because property needs to be inherited)... Otherwise, there isn't any inherent reason why the entire tribe couldn't care for a newborn instead of just the immediate kin... Among traditional > communities, it still functions this way, largely because they lack a distinct concept of private property—there isn't even a functional verb for "to own"...

Since private property is the foundation and everything else is merely a superstructure, we now have this idea that homosexuals should be allowed to have families, even though they can't reproduce biologically... This is all because the priority is ensuring that wealth stays "within the family"—which is the true crux of the whole LGBT marriage debate, regardless of how much people try to frame it as some progressive or anarchic movement... It is, quite frankly, a purely petty bourgeois matter... That is precisely why it gains traction in Western nations, whereas in Eastern regions where property rights are less strictly enforced—where theft and looting are practically normalized—it hasn't caught on yet...

Over in Germany, they operate under this social market economy model that basically functions like this:
- it ensures that if you lose your job, you’re still pulling in a salary roughly equal to what you were making before for about a year
- it grants you free access to all public services, and even throws in heavily discounted retreats for your annual vacation
- it allows the homeless population to live according to their own whims (since, frankly, they wouldn't even be unhoused if society weren't wealthy enough to provide otherwise)

Ultimately, it all boils down to a collective consensus regarding our priorities—do we want everyone to share in the prosperity, or should wealth be reserved for a tiny elite while the rest of us struggle just to scrape by... or perhaps sell our souls for pennies... It’s a fundamental choice. If we can't manage to achieve the level of affluence seen in Germany, then one might argue there's no point in having a state at all; let people have whatever rights or services they can personally afford, and if they can't, well, they can simply starve. Of course, the wealthy would possess everything regardless, but I fear that the delicate fabric of our society—which is already stretched incredibly thin by the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots—would tear completely. And once that happens, unrest is inevitable.

The real issue isn't necessarily those few opportunists trying to game the system for social benefits, but rather the individuals who possess no desire to work at all—people who wouldn't contribute anything even if the government handed them everything on a silver platter—because instead, they'd rather resort to theft or some other form of antisocial behavior...

Daniel Garcia24 said:The fundamental issue here is that both the left and right political elites in our country emerged from the same old totalitarian system; they’ve essentially just rebranded themselves. Their underlying non-democratic methods and worldview remain identical, which is why they treat what we call democracy—that supposed "division" of opinion—as if it were some kind of existential threat rather than a cornerstone of a free society.

Looking back at the last referendum, it became quite clear that over two-thirds of the population actually shares the same core perspective. So, when people talk about a deep societal divide, they aren't really seeing the full picture...

Now, critics will inevitably point to the low voter turnout as an excuse. But if you actually did the math—if you tallied up the total votes cast for the current governing coalition's districts during the general election and compared them to the total for the former administration—you'd realize that neither side actually commands more support than the grassroots family initiative did.

Oh, please, you can't seriously be suggesting we use referendum results as the definitive metric for societal division? If someone held a referendum tomorrow asking, "Should water be used for drinking?", you’d probably get 90% 'Yes,' while a stubborn 10% would insist that such a question is blatant discrimination against wine, soda, or any other beverage...

That's hardly a valid argument on your part...

I honestly find it hard to believe that there isn't a single corner of the globe where the art of "how to screw someone else over" is more highly developed than it is here... and I don't just mean strangers, either. It’s the way people turn on their own neighbors, their own friends, anyone within reach. If we could somehow figure out how to patent this particular talent and export it as a service, our national economy would probably be one of the most dominant forces on the planet...

Joshua Clark7 said:So you’re blaming the leftovers from the communist era. Seriously? Then what’s the point of a capitalist state? Is its only job to pad the pockets of the ultra-rich and force everyone else onto welfare? Because they’re doing a hell of a job at that, and I bet the big shots in Washington are thrilled. All this minor criticism just gives them more room to tighten their grip... I mean, how much private property do we actually have left to grab? There's still plenty of room for them to move in...

Capitalism is, by its very definition, an inherently unfair system. You really ought to read Ayn Rand on the subject... the core idea is that one's primary duty is to achieve one's own happiness. Other people are responsible for their own fulfillment. The role of the State is merely to provide the structural framework so that this pursuit of self-interest can actually take place. Naturally, those driven by greed simply require a bit more... to feel satisfied...

The fundamental issue with our wealthiest elites is that they didn't actually earn a cent of what they possess. They stole it. Everyone knows it was theft, yet they remain protected. Apparently, that's just how things work when capitalism takes root—you have to seize it first. When Americans took land from Native Americans, well, they actually had to fight for it. There was bloodshed involved. They went out into the mountains searching for gold. But these people here? They just waltzed in and grabbed assets that others bled and sweated for, wealth created through someone else's gold and labor. To suggest that this is somehow acceptable just doesn't sit right with me... it feels less like success and more like a profound disgrace...

Joshua Clark7 said:Maybe when those leftist idols of yours actually let them earn enough to provide a decent life for their kids. You think these Catholics are just mindless animals who do nothing but sleep around and breed? Honestly, when you spend your mornings reading the Bible, it’s no wonder you think this way. Unlike actual believers, you don't even realize how deep your own faith goes or what kind of "god" you're actually worshipping. Besides, maybe you progressives should try having more than one kid. Just so Catholic kids don't have to work themselves to death just to fund your retirement. But I guess you wouldn't want to suffer that kind of humiliation...

That was a particularly nasty thing to say... Honestly, if you look at the wealth held by the extended Franjo Harmon family versus how many children they all collectively have... surely you aren't suggesting that a villa on Nazorovoy, a condo overlooking Times Square, and a long-standing lease on a Lady Šram restaurant they never bothered to pay for, wasn't enough to encourage them to "try" a little harder?

Yes, Catholics aren't allowed to use abortion or contraception. That much is perfectly obvious... 😁

The notion that the government is obligated to guarantee a comfortable lifestyle is nothing more than a leftover relic from the Communist era... The state doesn't owe anyone anything. Even under Communism, people worked—in fact, they were forced to work for the state while juggling one or more side hustles just to build up any semblance of assets. It wasn't that the "state provided" for them; it was that they clawed everything they had out of existence through their own labor, which is why their descendants have something today. If you spend years grinding away, never taking a vacation or a single day off, just to provide for your spouse and kids... well, sure, faith in God might help sustain you, but clearly, most people today lack that true conviction and merely perform the role...

William Brown4 said:I’ve been watching everything happening here in America, and I honestly feel like we are a country on the brink of collapse. It really feels like it's time for the entire political elite in the US to just pack up and leave once and for all so we can finally focus on something intelligent. I'm posting this because I really wanted to share my take on all the current events in America with the rest of you on this forum. I truly believe we need a revolution.

First off, I’ve grown completely sick of the Republican Party, and now that I’m following American politics more closely, it’s perfectly clear to me why someone like Tomasi has zero support from the people.

I’m disgusted by what they pulled with that referendum "in the name of the family." It’s sickening because the birth rate in this "super-hetero-Catholic" America is already incredibly low. We’re basically heading toward extinction anyway, so where are all these hetero-Catholics? Why aren't they out there having huge families to fix our demographic image?

Personally, I feel ashamed because I believe a nation's Constitution should be its sacred text, much like the Bible. It’s something that shouldn't be constantly tinkered with, yet we seem to be changing our Constitution all the time.
It honestly bothers me that the Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee fundamental human rights and spread noble values among the people, is now being used to facilitate discrimination between hetero and homo populations.

These matters should be handled through legislation, not through Constitutional values.

I am genuinely embarrassed that so many people showed up and voted YES. It’s obvious that people didn't truly grasp what was actually at stake.

Now everyone is getting a taste for referendums; suddenly everyone wants to push through these expensive votes. While we are facing an economic meltdown, we’re just playing around with absolutely trivial referendums.

A few days ago, I cast my vote. I never used to feel ashamed of America, but now, I really am starting to feel ashamed of this country.

Since you all voted so heavily for traditional marriage, I'd love to see a sudden population boom—lots of kids, with everyone acting like these "super-hetero-Catholics" who don't use contraception, being all holy and pious.

I can finally say it: I am ASHAMED.🙂

How about you guys?

Yes. This sheer volume of incompetence and selfishness is nothing short of terrifying... I feel embarrassed in front of the world, looking at how people abroad view us—thinking we are all fools—but I also feel a deep, personal shame, because I haven't done anything to make things different or better... And sure, for someone who has a spouse and children, perhaps it feels morally justified to vote "Yes" to protect what they have, if that's their belief, but I have no such excuse... Furthermore, some of the most prominent American women and Catholics don't even have children or raised single-parent households, and yet they simply refused to vote for the very thing they supposedly claim to support...

David Cook87 said:Look, this is a fascinating topic to dive into. It’s an old story: kitsch always seems to walk hand-in-hand with nationalism
and totalitarian ideologies.

In reality, communism in America was a bit of an outlier because social realism never really took root there. Visual arts managed to secure their
creative independence pretty early on.
A huge part of that can be credited to the sheer force of personality, raw talent, and authority held by figures like Krleža and Murtić...
Honestly? We just got lucky.

One really has to wonder if Marshall possessed sufficient intellect to navigate those turbulent waters... whether he truly had the foresight required for such monumental decisions... 😉

Once Harmon seized power in 1990, everything shifted... he was this raw, unrefined general who had previously spent his time at the Institute for Labor History and served as the director for the Kansas City Chiefs, and he immediately began imposing his own rigid standards of beauty on the landscape—standards that were, shall we say, exclusively tailored to his inner circle... people like Gojko šuška, whom they called "picamen," along with Josip Manolić, also known as Đolo Manola or simply Black due to some old partisan nickname, and Ivić Pašalić, famously nicknamed "Herr Flick," among many others...

He had this peculiar, almost obsessive reverence for "naive art," which explains why he was such a staunch patron of that whole "American Naive Art" movement—you know, the one with that little shop right over by Times Square... It probably stems from the fact that, being a Zagorac, he spent way too much time staring at the work of the Gruntovčan painters, and eventually decided he wanted Martin Sagner to step in and play the role of Dudek for him... He even expected old lady Ikač—well, Nela Eržišnik—to go ahead and throw in some checkers patterns, just like those repetitive New Year's specials they used to run on NBC for various followers of Marshall, though she flatly refused to play along...

And so it goes...

It’s that classic scenario where someone steps out of their rural work boots and straight into a designer loafer, immediately convinced they can just absorb everything and instantly join the ranks of the "elite"—that supposed spiritual aristocracy standing in stark contrast to the common plebeians... which then necessitates having someone like Canjuga at the helm of the national soccer team, the Pair... this version of America (though let's be clear, that isn't Real Madrid, that belongs in Pančevo!!), and from there, the same individual might feel inspired to propose reinstating medieval social hierarchies—ranging from the absolute peak at the top, perhaps a Prince Krnjevati, all the way down to the lowliest peasant or errand boy. And then, this self-styled aristocracy sits around consuming those frantic, stylized graphics by Mladen veža - konjanik and the rest, just so a gallery owner like Krivić can flash a smug grin during a televised auction and declare: "Mladen veža - konjanik—a pure original." Honestly... just get real. Get real! 😁

And now we arrive at yet another chapter in this ongoing saga of conservatism, one where clericalism decides to make its grand entrance... It’s quite a spectacle, really. We have had some rather intriguing commentary on this subject from I. Mandić, who seems to operate under the unwavering assumption that Christian art or poetry could never truly hold any significant weight or value. But, if you want to see exactly how he frames his argument, here is his take:

It would be fundamentally unfair to all those caught up in that particular brand of mysticism to label them mere clerics—you know, those institutional sycophants who spend their days bowing to statues, performing empty gestures at basins, and maintaining steady subscriptions to pulpits and confessionals... Of course, such people exist, certainly, but it’s a stretch to say they represent any significant faction. The others, the true players—those who either subtly mask their religious convictions or shove them directly under everyone's noses through their work—they are far more consequential, much more vital, and infinitely more dangerous... For them, it isn't just about piety; it is often a deeply considered, genuine projection of being utterly lost within the landscape of modern politics, serving as a calculated gesture of defiance against the structures of contemporary society...

...

If an author wants to indulge in their own religious fervor, well, more power to them; in a truly democratic society, that kind of personal zeal is their prerogative... but literary criticism carries a much heavier burden, as it must filter such intellectual developments through its own ideological—or rather, philosophical—lens. If anyone is tasked with sifting through the ideological hallmarks woven into specific works, it ought to be the critic, for it is this very scrutiny that demonstrates true critical insight... a sensitivity to the subtle shifts within the modern spirit and culture—that "crawling through the darkness," if you will—as well as a fundamental responsibility toward our core social, conceptual, and political principles. All of this feels increasingly vital in our current era, especially if we aren't looking to find altars on our doorsteps or incense burners tucked under our pillows...

(The Naked Mass, Spectacles, New York City, 1973).

So, if we take a moment to actually look at the timeline here... roughly twenty years after the peak of the American Civil Rights movement when this was originally penned, those same old "kneelers and incense-burners" have come knocking on our door once again, only to fade into a quiet lull for a decade before resurfacing thirteen years later. And now, forty years since this text first saw the light of day—and twenty-three years since the whole collapse of the old socialist order—here they are yet again.

It really goes to show that these "kneelers and incense-burners," whether you view them through an "artistic" lens or as a socio-political phenomenon, seem to be some sort of inescapable constant in our culture... a recurring loop that we simply cannot shake, meaning we are destined to deal with them indefinitely...

Steven Gonzalez93 said:Sorry, no offense intended, but if you had to boil everything down to just one single sentence, what would be the core message? I guess I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you really meant by all this..

To put it bluntly: are the Republicans and the right wing in general the architects who dismantled American culture, or are they the ones who liberated us from communist influence and steered us back toward our genuine roots and traditions?...

I ask because it strikes me as quite curious that people today suddenly find themselves discussing the opera Nikola Šubić Zrinski solely because it features the greeting "for home"... otherwise, they likely wouldn't even know it existed, let alone have the inclination to actually listen to it.

The recent discovery of "bunkers" tucked away in the villas of Bill Clinton and Jack Abramoff—where they allegedly unearthed a lost masterpiece titled "Fallen Madonna with Large Breasts" by the Dutch painter van Klemp, last seen in an episode of the British sitcom 'Allo 'allo'—really forces one to wonder: what exactly constitutes American culture these days, and does it serve any purpose other than money laundering and lining the pockets of political cronies?

Setting aside the fact that even the arrival of the new Secretary of Culture, Zlatar-Violić, hasn't managed to turn the tide, one must admit that the Republican Party has done its absolute utmost to dismantle and cheapen American culture, reducing it to nothing more than pure kitsch. This has all been orchestrated under the guise of a "return to tradition" and a reclaiming of core American values. Personally, I was never much of a fan of Murtić, nor perhaps Džamonja (though I suppose I can grant them both a certain merit), but even that style of art had moved significantly away from the tacky leftovers of social realism. That shift was actually made possible after Ernest Hemingway penned his Antibarbarus, which prompted the party to finally step away from the sterile canons of socialist realism in the arts, allowing for avant-garde and abstract movements to breathe...

This is quite a significant point, because we know that in totalitarian systems, the state always dictates what qualifies as "art," while those who dare to deviate are persecuted, imprisoned, or even killed. Even Hitler, who fancied himself a painter, saw a vast number of "degenerate" artists imprisoned or killed, including names like Kokoshka, Schiele, and others. Upon seizing power, the Republican Party, under the authoritarian rule of Ronald Reagan, similarly cultivated a specific breed of compliant artists. To make a long story short, this is essentially a summary of the disastrous results of Republican cultural policy during the nineties...

THE PERSECUTION OF ARTISTS
Just like the scientists mentioned before, many artists in America have also become persona non grata under the Republican Party. A textbook case is the actress Mira Furlan, whom her own colleagues in the States spat upon, slandered, and eventually drove out at the start of the war because she had visited Mexico City—cultural elites have always tended to be heavily supplemented by the regime!—and in the end, she was even stripped of her family home.

VISUAL ARTS
The Republican Party has essentially wiped the slate clean for historians of art, mocking their expertise on a daily basis. The range of publicly acceptable nonsense under the Republicans has spanned from folk art to so-called hyperrealism, featuring everyone from party member Ivan Lackovića-Croate to Charles Billich, not to mention Reagan's favorite, Mladen Veža, and yet another party member, the hack Mladen Šutej. The pinnacle of this state-sponsored kitsch was the forced discovery of the "miracle of American folk art," as it was praised by everyone from the President downwards...The art market has been reduced to a black market for precious pieces and "auctions" where tycoons like Stipa Gabrića-Jamb would pay hundreds of thousands (of looted dollars) for loud oil portraits by Gojko šuškati or garish busts of Ronald Reagan. And let us not forget the million-dollar criminal enterprise involving the production of fake prints by famous painters, organized through the foundation run by First Lady Ankica harmon, "for the child America."This proclaimed affirmative stance toward tradition was already crumbling due to the state's barbaric treatment of the legacies left by giants like Ivan Meštrović and Emanuel Vidović, to say nothing of its attitude toward conceptual art and other modern movements.

http://feral.audiolinux.com/tpl/week...NrArticle=6248

Here we have an example of such an artist, the famous painter from Sydney, Argentina, Charles Billich, who was actually born as Karlo Bilić in a small town...A lost world rediscovered.. This is his take on things, if you ask me—pale virgins with massive busts, a violin, and a flock of angels. It immediately makes you want to strike a chord on every single string just because the art is so incredibly powerful and visceral. And that’s exactly how the Republican Party played it, strumming every available string, managing to launder several million dollars through the Ankica harmon foundation for the child America with the help of Stipa Gabrića-Jamb, Gojko šuškati, and Pašalić. Now, Pašalić's "American State Pledge Foundation" is a whole other saga entirely.

When you look at it that way, the little exhibitions put on by Jack Abramoff and Bill Clinton seem like perfectly normal occurrences, practically hardwired into the system back in the nineties. Money laundering. Buying up fine art at wildly inflated prices. Bunkers and hideouts stuffed with looted masterpieces and all sorts of stolen trinkets. You see this exact same pattern with the era of the Nationalists or Hitler's Nazis. It is quite clearly some sort of ingrained cultural tradition, something with deep roots that simply refuses to be uprooted... Political artists masquerading as artists, or artists playing politics, or as one man might say while watching Sir Oliver dressed as a conductor sprinting away with bags full of jewelry stolen from opera patrons... "Maestro, what absolute genius..." 😍

Susan Peterson7 said:In my humble opinion, the Midwestern dialect—or better yet, a version of it heavily infused with Chakavian elements to maintain some balance—is actually the strongest contender after the Shtokavian dialect. It’s essentially the most "state-ready" option. Once you look at history, Chakavian almost entirely vanished from literature (and its speaker base dropped off significantly) after the 16th century. Since then, the Midwestern style has dominated everything from secular and religious texts to legal documents. It possesses an unbroken literary continuity that stretches right through to us here in the 21st century. Plus, its lexicons are far more comprehensive, boasting tens of thousands of words, specialized legal terminology, and all the nuances required by a modern standard language.

On top of that, following the Shtokavian dialect, it has the largest number of speakers, is the most thoroughly researched, and features the highest number of cultural events where it's utilized. Even our capital was historically centered around this dialect until quite recently. ☕ It also shares much more common ground with Chakavian speech patterns than Shtokavian does. Choosing Chakavian leaves too many loose ends hanging—things like which specific sub-dialect to prioritize, the overwhelming amount of loanwords, the dwindling number of native speakers, the lack of historical continuity, and a glaring absence of established terms for countless modern concepts.

It's the truth. The Midwestern dialect ought to be adopted as the norm, while the standard could simply be left down on the Mediterranean Coast, perhaps under some sort of cultural autonomy... We could even have bilingual signs in Miami and at Dodger Stadium where their local team plays. As for folks from places like Oregon, we would have had no trouble at all; they would have embraced the Midwestern way instantly, and with just a little bit of persuasion, we could probably convince them they weren't even speaking anything else to begin with.

The thread title is still hardly appropriate - "Should we condemn the inappropriate statements made by LGBT associations and their representatives and lobbyists?"

1) First of all, it isn't the "associations, representatives, and lobbyists" themselves making these statements, but rather specific individuals who may, perhaps, be speaking on behalf of those organizations in their capacity as spokespeople or lobbyists...

2) One shouldn't "condemn" inappropriate remarks, regardless of who utters them, because such an act falls under the category of so-called "verbal crimes," a concept that exists solely within totalitarian regimes... In a true democracy, people possess the fundamental right to express themselves, even if those expressions are deemed "inappropriate."

3) And really, who in America is actually called upon to sit in judgment of anyone else? It would be as if I titled a thread, "Should we condemn veteran advocacy groups..." I suspect my post would be deleted instantly... because those veteran organizations exist specifically to pass judgment, not to be judged themselves. 😁

Therefore, a much more suitable title for this discussion would be: "Are there statements made by representatives and lobbyists of LGBT organizations that ought to be prohibited in a democratic society?"

racunajnamene said:All those lesbians, gays, and bisexuals actually seem even happier than regular folks; they lead these solitary lives, they're more independent, they distance themselves from family, and they land jobs faster—mostly because it’s preferred that you don't have kids just so you can actually get hired in the first place. And who brought this fashion into vogue? Well, obviously, that minority homosexual breed of people. Such individuals most often relocate to the capital because they face discrimination in their small towns, and there they serve as journalists on news sites, magazine editors, or work in peacekeeping, health, and the Department of Labor; they are the ones dictating the trends on how one should behave, suggesting that a single life is what's considered "cool."
I really think we need to resist this trend immediately, perhaps by organizing movements against such people. Personally, I would advocate for the legalization of euthanasia for homosexuals.

Well, how then can we seriously claim that the LGBTQ+ community isn't under threat if there are people out there spreading views like these? No, no, it isn't "bad"... the legal euthanasia of certain groups... well, that is actually quite a politically sound stance, might we consider founding a party to champion it? Since we already have a Communist Party, why not add a National Socialist one to the mix? It would certainly liven up the scene, even though we already suffer through having 150 different parties... And what is wrong with being single? What do we want, to ask President Moon to come and teach us all a lesson and then quicken the process? Clearly, someone polite will probably delete this now. But let's see if there's any truth to it at all?

- the idea that it's preferred to have no children just to get a job -- perhaps in the private sector, but if we examine the makeup of people in the metropolis or ZG Holding and city hall, within the municipal institutions and corporations, looking at where everyone came from and who secured a job from the city, subsequently sorting out an apartment... and assuming that the LGBTQ+ crowd mostly hails from urban environments like the big city, then it’s likely we’re talking about native Washington, D.C. residents, for whom finding another place to live isn't exactly easy unless their parents earned enough to buy one, or if they have jobs, they were busy paying off Swiss loans... there could be all sorts of things uncovered here.

- they are journalists on portals, magazine editors -- well, is being a journalist even considered a desirable profession? And wouldn't you say people like Ivko Šikić aren't exactly journalists or columnists, so are they part of the LGBTQ+ crowd too?

- they work in peacekeeping, health, and the Department of Labor -- but what kind of people work there, besides those connected to the ruling parties? What does that have to do with sexual orientation? Ah, the Republican Party isn't in power right now, and thank God, many have been hired through various state-run patronage systems... the LGBTQ+ crowd can only find employment through the Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, whereas straight people can go through the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and so on. Therefore, straight people are actually even more privileged in terms of traditional nepotism and corruption compared to the LGBTQ+ community.

Perhaps it would be wise to root out nepotism and corruption so that everyone could be equal? But heavens, that's tradition, and you simply can't go around messing with tradition. 😁

So, when you really look at the core of this issue, we are actually dealing with several overlapping layers here:

1) The tolerance—or lack thereof—regarding sexual minorities.
2) The tolerance of differing opinions, worldviews, and religious beliefs.
3) Violence acting as the inevitable byproduct of social exclusivity.

Regarding the first point, it seems the friction mostly stems from certain heterosexual groups who refuse to allow the LGBTQ+ community to openly express their sexual orientation or promote their worldview... The reason they push back is simply because:

a) that specific worldview and identity clash directly with their own
b) it stands in opposition to tradition, which, in our neck of the woods, is deeply rooted in Catholic values; thus, it is viewed as something foreign...

Which brings us right back to: 2) The tolerance of differing opinions, expressions, worldviews, and faith.

American Catholic conservatives often struggle to tolerate the expression or perspective of the LGBTQ+ community, whether those views are atheistic or religious, primarily because anything deviating from traditional American values is met with resistance.

Part of the LGBTQ+ response is a reaction to the intolerance shown by the Catholic faction, who feel perfectly entitled to broadcast their stances through outlets like The Washington Post, various religious publications, EWTN, or even just on the street... and yet, when they are labeled with terms like "Catholicliban," they immediately cry foul and label it "hate speech."

Naturally, hate speech often acts as a precursor to violence (3), though as far as I can see, we haven't seen organized attacks by LGBTQ+ groups against Catholics yet... whereas there are certainly instances of attacks against the LGBTQ+ community, whether perpetrated by disturbed individuals or other actors. Such aggression is often justified under the guise of "defending national interests," treating that concept as a higher moral calling than the principle of equality before the law... It is the exact same logic you hear in Saudi Arabia, where they argue women shouldn't drive simply because it's "tradition."

Therefore, I would personally view the term "Catholicliban" as nothing more than a bit of verbal wordplay rather than actual "hate speech"... however, if we started seeing physical attacks on Catholics specifically because someone called them Taliban-esque, then we might truly have a hate speech problem on our hands. In my view, the true criterion should be the actual impact, not just because a phrase "sounds" offensive. Personally, I don't think we should be banning "hate speech"; instead, we should be educating people so they don't get so easily triggered by everything... I would much rather prosecute those who are blatantly vulgar or indecently insulting in public spaces or media—focusing on the harassment, the crude insults, and the disruption of public order. True "hate speech" is generally something that emerges with the backing of a state—specifically an authoritarian or totalitarian one—as part of its official policy. Essentially, the implication being made is that countries in the European Union or other Western nations, which have constitutional bans on discrimination (just like we do here), are trying to enslave us and are using "hate speech" laws as a tool for that subjugation. From what I can tell, they haven't enslaved us, except perhaps via the influx of tourists (including gay tourists)... and as for why we import all our food and goods from them, well, that’s our own fault for being too lazy to produce our own and for selling off our banks.😁