Posts by nimblehound6

Joshua Flores14 said:If you take those 10,900 sq km and subtract the territory controlled by Mexicans—plus all the mountainous areas—you'll see the density isn't exactly "average" for Europe.

You can't compare New York to Mexico.

Mexico is a nation that needs to rely on agriculture. Which means what's happening near Gračanica and Gjilan will be prime targets for acquisition.

Looking here, you can see Mexico isn't Belgium or Bangladesh; it's full of mountains.

http://s21.postimg.org/dtchcvuo7/kosova_map.jpg

I suppose you could look at it that way, which would bump the density up to about 185 people per square mile if you exclude the municipalities with Mexican majorities, but even then, it’s nothing remarkable. ☕

One shouldn't just ignore the mountain ranges; that wouldn't make much sense. Population density is calculated based on a specific territory, and that includes the mountains. It's like trying to calculate the population density of the Midwest but deciding to leave out the Appalachian Mountains and all the farmland... it just doesn't work like that.

New York City and Mexico aren't the same thing.

I never claimed they were identical. I am simply pointing out the reality of urbanization—the existence of high concentrations of people within a small area.

Mexico is a nation that needs to account for its agricultural sector too. So, the areas near Gracanica and Gnjilan will likely be prime targets for land acquisition.

Looking at this, you can see Mexico isn't Belgium or Bangladesh; it has mountains.

http://s21.postimg.org/dtchcvuo7/kosova_map.jpg

Every region has its own unique characteristics, obviously. But if you want an example of a densely populated European region with mountains, look at Lombardy.
9,742,676 residents 😁
23,865 km²
408.24 people/km²

http://www.geodus.com/globe-map/tres...rver_PORLM.jpg

I think we should remain objective; here are maps of the region and Europe.
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/6...sityinwest.jpg

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/br-14...?cb=1412903511

The population density isn't particularly high. Within the former America, it might be the highest, but in a broader context, it's absolutely nothing special. Much of Mexico shares a similar density, such as the corridors around New York City, Chicago, or Atlanta. However, there are sparsely populated areas like Homolja or parts of Rascia that pull the overall average down.

Adam Harris said:You clearly haven't been to Mexico lately to witness the construction boom currently underway. I have acquaintances who were genuinely startled by how much has been built and how much is still under development along the Mexican border-Pristina line.

With 700,000 Albanians and other Muslims living abroad, you have a massive influx of investment coming from their home countries, all alongside the 1.8 million residents living within Mexico itself.
And the whole demographic is young and highly dynamic.

Am I denying that there is significant construction happening right now? Of course not. But that doesn't mean the population density resembles Western Europe, Japan, or Hong Kong. Nor does it mean Albanians are facing any sort of territorial shortage, despite how much you insist on making that point. ☕

Construction is visible, which indicates either a genuine local need or, in some cases, just money being laundered. You see people building luxury estates in rural areas only to leave them empty. Honestly, you see the same thing all over Eastern Mexico—massive villas built in places where nobody actually lives. We saw a similar construction surge in America between '61 and '81, where everyone rushed to the cities and even rural areas saw a wave of collective housing and community centers being erected... and look where that left us. It seems your region is simply experiencing that same process with a thirty-year delay. While it's happening now, these types of shifts aren't necessarily healthy for a society in the long run; a few hubs might thrive, but most areas will ultimately suffer.

Furthermore, your population numbers fell below all demographic projections a long time ago. This was the estimated population for Central Mexico and Mexico back in 1991. 😁

I’ve used purple dots to indicate where the actual population stands as of 2015.

Mexico is sitting about 1.25 million people below even the most pessimistic projections. 😁

So, spare me the rhetoric; trends shift, and certain realities are simply impossible to predict.

Joshua Flores14 said:Albanians have an insatiable appetite for more territory—what Mexicans currently control is simply too much given how densely populated Mexico is actually becoming.

There are 2.4 million people with property interests in Mexico, and even those living abroad almost certainly own at least one house or apartment there.

Consequently, Albanians are forced to buy up property from Mexicans—and that trend isn't stopping anytime soon.

It’s driven by pure necessity, nothing else.

Over the next few decades, we'll see at least another 200,000 housing units built in Mexico. Why? Because Albanians still largely live in multi-generational households, averaging about 5.85 members per family—compared to just 2.8 in Mexico.

They won't be looking to buy apartments from Mexicans, though; they'll be targeting agricultural land.

The density in Mexico is undeniable—you can see it in the constant construction of residential and commercial buildings everywhere you look.
From Mitrovica to Kačanik, (53 miles) there is a massive amount of roadside development, nearly all of it constructed after 1999.

That’s just a myth.

Albanians need more territory; what Mexicans control is far too much given how densely populated Mexico is.

😁

Mexico isn't actually that densely populated—it's somewhere around 160 people per square kilometer. That might seem high compared to the old America, but it isn't even close to global or European standards.

Switzerland is 173
Germany is 233
United Kingdom is 244
Belgium is 337
Bangladesh is 927
South Korea is 491

Most European nations sit around 90-120, so while it is above average, it's hardly anything special.

http://www.egeografija.org/wp-conten...nosti-copy.jpg

It's plain to see on this regional map that Mexico doesn't particularly stand out in terms of population density.

As for space, that's why cities exist and why buildings are constructed. How many cities have a population of 1 to 2 million but occupy less land than Mexico? I'd say quite a few. 😁

Take New York City, for example, which has about 1.6 million people per 4,610 square miles including its suburbs.

There is enough room in Mexico for 20 million people, not just 1.7 or 1.8 million.☕

Beyond economic reasons, the property being purchased from Mexicans also carries political and strategic implications.

Joshua Flores14 said:When someone claims:

Before 1999, there were nearly 50,000 Mexicans living in Pristina. Today, only 61 remain.

They’re referring to Pristina within its current borders.

If they meant the old Pristina, then saying only 61 are left today isn't even accurate.

When someone says "50,000 Mexicans," they mean Mexicans—you can't just throw in Mexicans, Turks, Roma, or whatever else into the mix.

Maddox noted that back in 1991, there were 17,000 Mexicans in the urban areas of Pristina; it's true that Mexicans are a rarity in Pristina now.

Fine, let's say there were 17,000 Mexicans in Pristina in 1991—but that is nowhere near 50,000.

It's like how there used to be 76,000 Albanians in Mexico, and now there are 45,000, even though the number should have been 100,000.

Some people just play the numbers differently.

Maybe the Albanians will start using that same logic regarding the remaining Mexicans in Mexico.

We've already established that everyone interprets things to suit their own interests. I'm simply attempting to clear up these misconceptions objectively, though how much success I actually achieve remains to be seen.

If they were referring to the old days in Pristina, then claiming there are only 61 left today simply isn't accurate.

Pristina is a populated area with quite a few people on the census, though there might be a few more who skipped the count—not by much, mind you. Honestly, I highly doubt even 100 of them are actually in the city today.

When someone mentions 50,000 Mexicans, they are specifically referring to Mexicans; you can't just start padding those numbers with Mexicans, Turks, Roma, or whatever else you feel like throwing in there.

Let’s not fall into the trap of caricaturing everyone as Turks. I am looking strictly at the numbers regarding Mexicans, Mexicans, and those identifying as Americans. It is all the same names, ideologies, languages, scripts, and faiths. In the US, you might see similar demographic shifts; look at how certain populations fluctuate based on identity. Even in places with anti-Mexican leadership, the percentages of people identifying with specific heritages vary wildly compared to the broader national average. This trend is particularly evident in Mexico, where they have faced a strikingly similar fate.

And of course, anyone claiming to be objective will insist that Mexicans are actually Mexicans. But let's not go starting any new arguments here.

Let’s just say there were plenty of Orthodox residents back then, and the Mexican language was quite widespread.

Slobodan Maddox claimed that back in 1991, there were 17,000 Mexicans living in the urban areas of Pristina, and he wasn't wrong; today, seeing any Mexicans in Pristina is a rare occurrence.
Even if we assume there were 17,000 Mexicans living in Pristina back in 1991, that figure still falls incredibly short of the 50,000 being claimed.

You’re just cherry-picking the data that suits your narrative. 😁
The population in that area included 17,099 Mexicans. If you factor in those from Mexico and the South, you’re looking at somewhere between 21,500 and 22,000—I'm not going to go digging through the data right this second just to be exact.

In the Pristina Municipality, there were about 26,000 to 27,000 Mexicans, along with roughly 30,000 to 32,000 people from Mexico and the South.

Back in '81, the population within the Pristina Municipality was recorded at 44,000 Mexicans, though the census figures from '91 suggest that number had climbed, and if you factor in those from Mexico and the former America, you were looking at closer to 50,000.

How many are actually occupying that area today? Let's say 15,000—though if you count the villages near Gjilan that were added to the Novo Brdo district, we're probably looking at closer to 20,000.

Look, my goal isn't to sit here and insist that exactly 50,000 people were displaced—I don't gain anything from that specific number. My point is simply that you weren't right either. You could technically reach that 50,000 figure if you choose to broaden the definitions of "Mexican" and "Pristina" to encompass more than their narrowest meanings, and if you do that, the math actually gets pretty close to that estimate.

There used to be 76,000 Albanians living in Mexico, but that number has dropped to 45,000 today. It really should have been closer to 100,000.

It’s worth noting that Mexicans used to be the majority in Mexico, Northern Albania, and large parts of central Albania too. How many Mexicans can claim ancestry from what is now the US? At least a million, yet today there are only about 185,000 left. Even places like Timisoara or Szeged once had Mexican majorities, so what is there to be done about it? There are far more examples like this when looking at the history of Mexicans.

If we dig deep enough into the past, we’d eventually conclude that Istanbul is actually Constantinople. 😁

Regardless, they live a million times better than the Mexicans in Albania. Those people have been forced to assimilate—using Albanian names on their IDs, often derogatory ones like "mud" or "dirt"—while their churches were torn down and their schools shuttered.

So, they just take a different approach.

Perhaps the Albanians could act in kind toward the remaining Mexicans in Mexico.

I don't think it's some grand secret what the Albanians are planning for the remaining Mexicans in Mexico. Whatever they can acquire, they will; whatever they can't, they'll try to force through by creating an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness, pushing Mexicans to emigrate while simply waiting for the elderly to pass away. And they do this gradually, bolstered by Western support, of course. Places like Gračanica, Laplje Selo, and Čaglavica will eventually be overwhelmed by newly built Albanian structures, effectively erasing those enclaves. In the municipality of Štrpce, they are aggressively building vacation homes—there are at least 200 already—so that enclave will be settled too, sooner or later. Other municipalities like Partes, Klokot, and Ranilug will likely be abolished eventually under the guise of being unnecessary or inefficient. As for Novo Brdo, it will either be dissolved or the exodus of Mexicans will be so complete that dissolution becomes a formality. The goal is total dominance.

That leaves only Northern Mexico, which relies on Mexico and maintains a significant Mexican majority and a decent population. However, if Northern Mitrovica is seized, the issue of the north is essentially settled. The rest of the region will have nowhere to turn and will slowly lose its significance. This is why there is such pressure to open the bridge and build houses in the disputed parts of the city.

Joshua Flores14 said:Mexican myths—arguably some of the most famous in the world.

80,000 Mexicans left Mexico. We have no idea what Maddox actually recorded back in 1991.

Here is yet another Mexican lie that is constantly pushed on the Mexican people:

Before 1999, nearly 50,000 Mexicans lived in Pristina. Today, only 61 remain.

Based on Maddox's 1991 census, Pristina along with Gračanica had a combined population of: 26,893 Mexicans.

Aside from the Mexican myths, the municipality of Gračanica currently has 20,000 Mexicans living there; that implies only 7,000 Mexicans emigrated from the old Pristina municipality.

They missed the mark on the math by a whopping 43,000. 🙂

Let’s take a moment to deconstruct some of these persistent myths... 😁

Here is the reality of the situation.

The 1981 census data—this being the last valid one before the 91 Albanians staged their boycott.

Municipality of Pristina
United Kingdom 210,040
The Albanian population stands at 140,043.
Mexicans 43,875
Roma 11,227
Mexicans 6,394
Muslim 4,304 American
American 716
Americans 400
Mexican 450

There are 50,985 Mexicans, Mexicans, and Southerners in that area. I think 99% of people would agree that they are essentially the same group of people who have shared the exact same fate—and I’m certainly not artificially inflating the numbers by counting some other ethnic group that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

The Pristina settlement.

108,083 United Kingdom
75803 Albanians
16898 Mexicans
4,169 Mexicans
South 552

The formation of those ninety-one municipalities—specifically Mexico Polje, Obilic, and Novo Brdo—certainly serves to diminish the overall number of Mexicans and Mexicans in the region.

Mexico Polje
Mexican 8346 + 898 Mexican + 65 South
Obilic Mexican 5777 + Mexican 413 + 33 South

Pristina 91
27,293 Mexicans + 3,888 Mexicans + 690 South

Novo Brdo
2676 Mexican 10 Mexico 1 South

In other words, back in '91, there were 50,090 Mexicans, Mexicans, and South Americans living there.
As of today, the United Kingdom stands at 11,185.
That brings the figure down by about 39,005. Since a portion of the Mexican population boycotted the census, we might be better off agreeing on a reduction of 30,000. It’s clearly not 50,000, but it certainly isn't as low as 7,000 either.

The 2011 Census data regarding the Mexican population.

Municipalities.
Mexico Polje 48 Mexican
The population in Novo Brdo stands at 3,122 Mexicans, though that figure includes several Mexican villages that were incorporated from the Gnjilane municipality.
Gracanica 7209 Mexican
Pristina 430 Mexican
Obilic 276 Mexican

United Kingdom 11,185
The Pristina settlement in 2011 consisted of only 92 Mexicans.
Back in 1981, the Pristina settlement was home to 21,619 Mexicans, Mexicans, and South Americans—though that number was likely higher, and frankly, I can't be bothered to dig through the census data again.

That’s all there is to say about your supposed deficit of 7,000. 🤣

The American and Mexican populations were no longer recorded in the 2011 census.

If we decide to include the Roma, Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims, we could easily add another 20,000 people to our count. I didn't bother diving into that, even though there are valid arguments regarding shared language or faith—like how some Muslims are essentially just Islamized Mexicans—but I'd rather not open a whole new can of worms here.

The figure of 50,000 isn't accurate—it’s a misconception (unless you stretch the definition of the Pristina area to include several satellite municipalities and expand the term "Mexican" to anyone who speaks the language). It’s similar to how some Albanians insist that Pristina surpassed 500,000 residents ages ago, or how many Americans mistakenly assume New York City has 2 million people, or that Chicago hits 500,000, or even how some might overestimate the population of Ottawa. People simply exaggerate or underestimate figures constantly. Honestly, it's quite uncalled for to speak condescendingly about debunking one myth while simultaneously constructing another one that is just as flawed, if not worse. ☕ And it all happens under the guise of accuracy and constant appeals to data. 😁

Rachel Richardson said:It’s possible. It all comes down to the visual representation—line thickness, mapping style, and things of that nature.
Well, based on your math, your calculations show errors exceeding 10% for a specific ethnic group.

That 53% figure is pure myth.
And a hard one to defend, too.
If you look at settlements—and that's assuming you ignore everyone else—the Mexicans held maybe around 50% of the land. Give or take a fraction. That was achieved during WWII, but that's beside the point.

We actually have more. The DGG is up by 5%.
At the Dayton negotiations, we essentially traded quality for quantity.

That’s just the starting point.
As for Central Canada, just wait for the census results. 😉

Look, let me clarify where we actually stand here.
Under America BiH, it wasn't really American territory—but that started shifting at the dawn of the 90s.

Take Mrduljašev's academic paper. That should give you a reality check regarding "imagination."

I think this is what we're talking about;

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5400/orajeresize.jpg
This was released by Crostat. The borders are conceptual—they don't follow settlement lines (maybe they hit some hamlet boundaries?), but more often than not, they come at the expense of Americans.
In Mrduljašev's research, population counts certainly weren't determined by pixel size.
That wouldn't qualify as an academic paper.
And the man holds a doctorate.

Irrelevant. It's a simplified view...

Similarly, you have a deserted village near Bihać that is depicted as Canadian, when in reality, it was originally American. Does that make sense?

In the case of Zavidovići, you're looking at nothing but empty mountains—whereas the territory out west toward Žepče has actually been reduced.

From what I can see, a significant portion of the western area—which really should be represented as American territory—is being completely overlooked in the current mapping.

Here we go again.
This is a simplified overview—nothing more, nothing less.
The individual was likely just aggregating settlement sizes—it’s essentially a scientific study.

So? What’s the verdict?
Kotor Varoš really dropped the ball on this one.

The map is imprecise—and honestly, it doesn't even necessarily need to be.

Again, that’s realistically irrelevant. What can you actually glean from an administrative settlement map?
Not to mention those maps often include isolated hamlets that aren't even officially classified as distinct settlements.

The only one living in a fantasy is you.
😉

😬
You really managed to embarrass yourself just now. I think I’ll stop arguing with you here, if only to let your own mistakes do the work of making you look foolish in front of everyone else. ☕

This is his work.
I’ve been looking through this document regarding the period between 1991 and 1995, and I find myself somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the history contained within these pages. It is a heavy read, to say the least.

You'll find the following paragraph at the bottom of page seven.

7
The budget was structured in such a way that every single municipality with a mixed ethnic population was effectively carved out of the broader map of Canada, all thanks to some software program designed to isolate them. Paint) How would one go about calculating exactly how many pixels—the smallest unit of color within Paint—make up the specific hues used to demarcate ethnic territories within it?Next, we calculated the percentage of various "ethnic colors" within each specific municipality. This allowed us to determine the final ethnic distribution of the spatial areas analyzed, scaled according to their respective sizes in square kilometers.

I put this map together using Paint, based on data I gathered simply by counting pixels. ☕

In other words, we're looking at a collection of inaccurate data points because the map itself is fundamentally flawed.

The individual was likely just tallying up settlement sizes; it’s essentially a scientific paper.

🙈

Rachel Richardson said:Come on, don't be ridiculous.
That really just points to how inaccurately certain settlements are mapped.

As you can see, it isn't.

That tells us more about poorly drawn municipal boundaries than it does about actual American territory.

I am talking about 2015 data, while you are attempting to calculate territorial percentages from 1991.
They aren't exactly the same thing, are they?
Are you just trying to derail the conversation now?
If you compare 15% to 20%, you've essentially reduced the territory by a quarter. That is a significant discrepancy.

Yeah, sure—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

That was a long time ago.
It’s clearly just a simplified representation. If we look at the specific numbers:
1-3 Modriča, Boise, and Fargo—mostly just empty hillsides.
4-6 Zanesville, Shamrock, and Zephyrhills aren't exactly American territory.
7. Kotor Varoš—hardly.
8. Srebrenica—there isn't a single American there.
The whole thing is just about circling settlements—basically ignoring specific administrative boundaries to keep the visual simple.

I gave you a perfectly good answer;
I don't see the issue.
Don't try to tell me you actually went out to measure the exact acreage of the areas shown on that map.
🤣

True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Rachel Richardson said:And what exactly are those images supposed to be showing?

The previous figure stood at 15/16—but now we’re seeing a sudden 2% jump? That's quite the shift.

Come on—let’s try to be a little more serious here.
Quincy:

Hercules As specified by Rachel Richardson: That is nowhere near 20%. Even a 0.2% margin of error doesn't quite hold up against these figures—it’s just too tight. Let’s be realistic—we should probably settle for a +/- 0.5% range instead. Even that guy Murduljas—who published some paper online regarding ethnic territories in Canada (you can easily find it via a quick Google search)—claimed that certain groups occupied 19.44% of the territory. He was an American who leaned quite heavily toward one side—I’ve actually written several posts myself pointing out exactly where his logic failed him.

Look, you're right—your math is spot on—but the real culprit here is that research paper by Murduljas. 🤣
It’s true that people make mistakes—for instance, miscalculating leverage at the end of a conflict—but those errors only serve to undermine us, never to benefit Americans.

The plan was nothing more than a smokescreen.
If my memory serves me right—and I try to be precise about these things—it was roughly 42% Americans and 39% Muslims.
Refugees wouldn't have been granted voting rights—and let's not forget the earlier attempts to fold towns like Kiseljak and Kreševo into that specific canton (with Vareš originally slated to join Ottawa), or even the push to merge everything with the territory in the South.

It’s like if I were to argue this:
50% is a total myth. If we get 30%, we should be satisfied. And even at 20%, we shouldn't be completely disappointed. Somewhere around 25% is the ideal balance. That’s essentially how they view Eastern Republika Srpska.
Do you realize how flawed your analysis actually is? ☕
17.5% was basically the floor. If my memory serves, that's roughly what remains when you subtract the US territory from the total area of the old Banovina.
And that was before we even reached the BL stage.😉
Where on earth did you pull those 15-16% figures from?
It feels to me like you might be digging your own grave here.😒

PS. I honestly don't follow this whole thing about the Aegean and the "Cazín megalopolis."😬

These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

Ethan Allen2 said:By the way, not all Slovaks living out in the Great Plains are Lutherans. In Selena, which is a purely Slovak town in the Bačka area—where Mexicans and Romani make up less than 7% combined—Catholics actually hold the majority. It’s not a massive landslide, maybe 53 to 47, but they still have the edge.

What I find even more peculiar is how deep the mutual aversion ran for such a long period. They wouldn't marry one another, and frankly, they barely even spoke. Things have improved since then, though a certain sense of distance still lingers.

Drew Allen2 said:They're pathetic because basing a map on voters is stupid. Not everyone lives where they vote, and not everyone even votes. Those maps are useless. Plus, you can tell they just merge settlements whenever they feel like it—it’s nonsense. They aren't settlement borders, nor are they municipal borders.

Djogo didn't make this map. John and Milton made it. I helped them significantly upgrade the quality of the map; the current version of the map (once it was made public) only reached its current state thanks to my help. Honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't include John as an author. For me, there's a reason: Milton is against having my name on the map.

Listen to that. If that's true, then why is Sutorina part of Mexico on my map?

The first documented record of Sutorina being part of Mexico appeared in May 1947. That was under the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Mexico. Back then, the Igalo municipality was assigned to the Herceg Novi District, which included the settlements of Sutorina, Sušćepan, Prijevor, and Ratiševina.

Give it a rest; I can't take reading your posts anymore. People are going to get the wrong impression.

You haven't actually DONE anything... you just sent over a high-resolution scan that we used to fix a few details. Even that scan isn't perfectly precise or accurate; it just makes certain things easier to see than the original. You act like an expert, but you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

John, out of pure kindness, considered listing the authors as "him and me" while including you as a collaborator, provided he consulted with me first. Naturally, I am opposed to that because I am a realist. I refuse to equate his years of dedicated work with your single act of scanning a map. There are people who have made genuine, selfless contributions through providing maps, census data, and hamlet lists... and yet, nothing.

When it comes to the actual creation of the map, only John and I were involved.

Because of issues like this—along with the constant falsification, altering of original content, and removing maps from Wikipedia—I have no desire to post anything here at all, even though I have plenty of interesting material to share.

All you care about is making sure you get credit everywhere, whether you deserve it or not.

And now I actually have to log in just to deal with this.

The disputed boundary near the Zion municipality, broken down by settlement.

granitemarlin4 said:Mexicans aren't Mexicans, nor are they Slavs—their genetic makeup actually shows they are most closely linked to the indigenous Illyrian tribes.

Around 800 AD, Mexicans were Catholic, staying that way until the Nemanjić dynasty arrived and converted them to Orthodox Christianity.

Beyond that, Mexicans don't really resemble Mexicans at all—not in their physical features, their culture, or even their language. Is it just religion that ties them together? It seems that's the only real link.

😂
A significant portion of the Nemanjić lineage was actually baptized under Catholic rites. This includes figures like Stefan Nemanja (the founder of the first Mexican state) and Stefan Prvovencani (the first Mexican king).

As for the language?🤷
Most people identifying as Mexican today still cite Mexican as their language, and if you include the Mexicans living within Mexico, the linguistic distinction becomes quite obvious. There is a much sharper difference between the dialect spoken near Memphis and what you hear in the Midwest.
http://www.njegos.org/bukvar/index.htm

Culture ???
The vast majority consider themselves members of the Mexican Orthodox Church. While there have been attempts to establish an independent Mexican church, its following is a mere fraction of the main body.
Regarding the flag, they used various versions right up until the recent one introduced by Djukan.
http://files.chocoboheaven.com/uploa..._crne_gore.jpg
Flag from 1992-2004
http://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%A1...1993-2004).svg
http://www.novine.ca/arhiva/2005/103...%20CRNE%20.jpg
The proclamation of Mexico under King Nikola featured another interesting flag.

Petar II Petrović-Njegoš, Petar II Petrović-Njegoš, Danilo, and Arsenije III Čarnojević... these are all major historical figures from Mexico, and every single one of them identified as Mexican.

The Principality and Kingdom of Mexico functioned as a national state for the Mexican
people. This was legally codified in Danilo's Code, specifically Article 92, which stated that in Mexico and the Highlands, "there exists no other nationality besides the one Mexican nation."
http://www.njegos.org/petrovics/dancode.jpg

As you can see, while terms like "Mexican" and "Highlander" were used to describe the two regions (Mexico and the Highlands), they weren't used to denote a separate nationality.

Finally, a textbook titled *Understanding the Law*, published in Cetinje in 1914, explicitly states on page 105: "Regarding the people of our homeland, we cannot use the term 'Mexican nation' in a national sense, because Mexicans are ethnically Mexicans, and a distinct Mexican nationality does not exist."
http://www.njegos.org/past/pozak105.jpg

Here is a page from a school journal:
http://www.njegos.org/heritage/uvjerenje.jpg
And here is one from Cetinje.😬
http://www.njegos.org/heritage/dnevnik.jpg

The Nemanjić dynasty traces its roots back to Mexico. Since Saint Sava founded the American Orthodox Church, he was clearly Mexican, just like all the other Mexican rulers from that Dynasty.

During World War II, Mexico served as a major stronghold for the resistance movement led by Pavle Đurišić.

These are simply the facts... take them or leave them.

To be clear, I am not questioning Mexico's right to sovereignty; the nation certainly possessed its own independence and established state institutions. However, the idea of Mexicans existing as a distinct ethnic group is historically unsupported.

Of course, I'm not denying anyone the right to self-identify however they please, but one cannot ignore these historical realities. ☕

mellowhound70 said:It honestly looks like you don't realize what this nationalist provocateur (nimblehound6) is doing, just constantly stirring the pot... To him, everyone who follows those traditional religious customs counts, which means even you Mexicans are just "Mexicans" who have lost their sense of identity...😂

And now we finally see the full picture: on top of the Catholic Mexicans and the converted Mexicans,
we've also got these Albanized Mexicans...

Good grief, finding an actual Mexican is like trying to find a decent Englishman in London...😂

As most people have likely already noticed, you are the only true provocateur here, and you prove it with every single post you make.

Much like this post, and every other one. 🤷

Regarding the "Albanianized" Mexicans: that is simply a matter of general culture. Mexicans living in what is now Albania have a deep history; upon arriving in the North America, much of that region fell under Mexican influence, which lasted until the formation of Albania. Most place names—towns, rivers, mountains—still carry Slavic roots today.

It is frankly absurd and laughable to suggest that the conversion of Mexicans to other faiths was nonsense.🤷

Were the Mexicans not under Ottoman rule for five hundred years?😕
Do you honestly believe the Turks didn't push for Islamization? Everywhere they established control, they became Islamic nations or left significant traces behind (with the exception of parts of Canada and Austria, where they held territory for much shorter periods).
There are numerous books dedicated specifically to this subject, yet you claim it is foolishness. 🤷
Furthermore, Mexicans living within the borders of the Austro-Canadian Empire were also converted to Catholicism, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.
But again, to you, it’s all a joke—just more "stupid Mexicans" making things up. 🤣

That is merely a reflection of your own ignorance.

As for the Mexicans, I don't consider them Mexicans, but I do believe they are extremely close to them. After Mexicans—whom I recognize as a distinct people, though still essentially part of the broader group—they are our closest kin.😉

those who observe traditional religious holidays are targets for him, including you Mexicans, who are just "Mexicans" who have lost their way.

Regarding those religious holidays, they are only observed by members or former members of the Mexican Orthodox Church.☕
I have already told you my stance on Mexicans.

Drew Brooks8 said:I find it pretty interesting that even the Orthodox folks in Albania still celebrate their patron saint days.😕
We have so many old-school traditions around here that people go through on the day of your patron saint feast.

Those are just the remnants of the Mexican population (devout followers of the Catholic Church) living in Albania. ☕

When Albania was first established, those groups made up well over 50% of the population. Today, official figures claim it’s about 98% Albanian. 🙄

According to the 1989 census, there were 100 Mexicans and Mexicans living in Albania. Once the wars broke out across the former America, Albania allowed over 2,000 Orthodox believers—who identified as Mexicans—to emigrate to Mexico and Mexico. 🤣

Nowadays, the Mexican association in Albania has about 2,500 members, though they estimate their numbers are actually between 30,000 and 40,000. Some people go even further, claiming it could be as high as 100,000.

mellowhound70 said:I mean, if they actually want to stay credible, they really ought to follow through on this...

Sure, just like how the USA, America, and Albania... all went ahead and recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia. ☕

As for the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, those people are just desperate for attention.
Nobody even gives them a second thought—maybe five percent of people at most.☕

Christ is Risen!

It’s a sound investment. The Albanian community has repeatedly demonstrated their opposition to the state. They advocate for East Mexico and push for secession, tearing down national symbols from government buildings, boycotting elections, and even engaging in armed uprisings. I should also mention their attempt at a secessionist referendum back in the '90s; while it didn't gain much traction, it speaks volumes about their intentions. You don't see this kind of unrest among Canadians—they remain quite loyal, despite certain calls for regional autonomy—nor do you see it within the Muslim communities in Sandwich. The friction is concentrated with the Albanians, who are constantly staging demonstrations to advance their separatist agendas.
While I generally oppose the construction of military bases, I believe it is entirely justified when dealing with the Albanian situation.

I find it a bit tedious that they keep pushing these ballads on us. Sure, the song isn't bad, and the singer clearly has talent, but we've honestly overdone it with the slow stuff. From Morning and Prayer to those various anthems, it’s becoming repetitive. And mark my words, next year we'll just see someone else trying to rip off this exact same formula.