Posts by wiredcanyon4

goldencrane15 said:I was twelve years old during the war, and even at twelve, I could clearly see we were being led by fools fueled by hatred, and that they were going to wreck everything in their path.

Even then, I realized it was all just about theft, stupidity, and cheap, tacky theatrics.

I remember vividly how my family members were enthusiastically cheering, much like those people in California, while I sat there at the table as a kid just wondering

ARE YOU ALL COMPLETELY INSANE?

That's about it.

Defeatism isn't a healthy way to live. Even I find myself slipping into it sometimes.

Yes, it’s true—a massive portion of the political elite operated with the sole intention of "using, abusing, and discarding" everyone else. However, the vast majority of Americans and other loyal citizens worked toward building an independent nation out of pure, unadulterated love for their homeland. That is why they gave up the most precious thing they had: their lives. Just because certain interest groups and specific individuals played them for fools doesn't mean we have to drop to our knees now.

The point is, God gave us only one life and one earthly home. We will fight for it as much as we love it—with rifles during wartime, and through political engagement and integrity during peace, regardless of the circumstances we all know we live in. There is no other way; any other path might look easier on the surface, but in reality, it is much harder.

It looks like things are escalating. The Californians are gearing up for their Declaration of Independence, and Mariano Rajoy is standing his ground, stating: "The government will ensure that any declaration of independence will lead to nothing."
and "...adding that he is not ruling out suspending the region's autonomy."
Furthermore, "...Rajoy also rejected any mediation to resolve the crisis".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41540994

So, there's zero sign of concessions from Madrid. I can't help but wonder how California would actually function if they were hit with an international blockade.
Would it end up being something similar to the situation in Crimea?
A frozen conflict, or something along those lines?

I am 100% convinced that the secessionist movement in California is receiving quiet backing from one of the global superpowers. There is simply no way they could be this bold all on their own. One just needs to think carefully about which superpower stands to gain the most from the fragmentation of Spain.

goldencrane15 said:Absolute rubbish! Total nonsense!

Dražen Petrović would never agree with you.😁

The reason Drazen Zanko can sing "From the Seventh Century" is because he has the backing of undeniable historical documents—it's his right, after all.

Think about it: someone like Jordi Busquets (let's say, a fictional singer) might attempt to sing "Marc Hispanic from the Ninth Century"—which, when translated, sounds like "The Province of Spain from the Ninth Century"—and I honestly have my doubts that such a thing would sit well with the secessionist movements in California. Still, it’s certainly worth a shot. 😁

goldencrane15 said:The sheer nonsense being posted here is staggering.

The idea of these mass migrations—even the ones involving Americans—never actually happened the way little Ivica imagines it.

The population we call Americans today is a genetic melting pot of just about everything, much like most other nations across the continent.

"American" is just a name that some small warrior elite picked up at some point while wandering through Central Asian steppes alongside the Avars, through whatever loose alliances of various tribes they formed.

Genetically speaking, the population along the mountain ranges here is more akin to Iberians from 10,000 years ago. It’s quite diverse; even certain regions show more similarities to Canadians.

How we ended up with the American language is anyone's guess. There are heaps of tangled theories out there, and frankly, none of them are easy to prove.

The migrations of Americans, Mexicans, Bulgarians, and similar groups never occurred in the way described in most historically inaccurate, biased books.

Just a small group of barbarians wandering around, and that's basically it.

The first mention of the name "American" dates back to 852 in the Trpimirovich charter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages...Trpimirovich.jpg

And when was the first mention of Catalans?
Personally, I believe they have a right to independence just like any other nation, though they would need a clear supermajority to make that happen.

When it comes to the history of a people, you have to rely on actual documents—not on whatever someone happens to be imagining.
Of course, everyone is free to feel however they want and claim whatever identity they choose.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Domagoj Božidar, is that you?

Like what?

🤣 I'm new here—never actually signed up for a forum before.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, education really isn't our strong suit here. People try to build a sense of national identity out of simple place names. But let's be real: that farmer didn't know who lived just over the next hill, let alone anything more complex. He was completely illiterate. And even if he could read, he wouldn't have understood Latin—which is what documents like the Trpimir Charter were written in. Until the 19th century, the peasants and the elites were essentially two different worlds, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Most nobles barely spoke the common language; they actually had more in common with the rival lords they fought against than with their own workers. Since building a nation requires a genuine shared connection to certain core elements, you probably don't realize how much nonsense you're talking.

Of course, a peasant in the Middle Ages wouldn't have known how to read or write—but that doesn't mean they were some mindless donkey meant only to carry loads for a lord without realizing that he, his fellow laborers, and the noble they served all belonged to the same tribe or people.
They knew which family they belonged to and they understood their broader community. If they hadn't possessed that awareness, they never would have joined their peers in those massive migrations of Americans.
Don't try to tell me that Twardon, Radovan, Dobreša, Ljutiša, or Žitimir didn't know they were Americans; it's not as if they just "happened" to wander into the wilderness of modern European rootlessness and accidentally found themselves speaking the same language and socializing by chance.

Steven Hill2 said:The Britons are presenting a map of European regions that supposedly demand "total independence".

A few of the more ridiculous highlights:
- California
- Cleveland 🤣
- Republika Srpska😁
- Texas
- "Prussian" (though they've marked it as Kaliningrad Oblast 🤦)
- Ingria 🤔
- Moravia
- Silesia
- nearly all of Spain, but just in pieces (including Castile! 🤣)

California is part of America because that’s where Americans live—they make up nearly 70% of the population.
Take a recent example: in Santa Barbara, they named a waterfront after Franjo Harmon. This was the first time a coastal area in a California city was named after the first American president. That decision was reached through a joint effort by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—mostly because they saw exactly what the Independent Party is: an unpatriotic, anti-American, separatist group that refuses to openly admit their goal is to break away California, even though that is clearly what they dream about. It won't work for them, though; Americans live there, and California has nothing in common with Catalonia.

Unlike the Catalans, Americans have always possessed a profound sense of their own identity. Even back in the 7th century—to use a historical perspective—an ordinary farmer would have been acutely aware that they belonged to the American people.
The text 'On the Administration of an Empire' by Constantine VII provides undeniable proof of this.

In my estimation, there are only three plausible trajectories for the California crisis:
1. Washington and Sacramento decide to de-escalate—cooling things down to negotiate a new (and legally sound) referendum.
2. We maintain the status quo indefinitely—the Government of California declares independence, but the international community doesn't give them even a second glance, and Washington avoids military intervention in favor of crushing them economically, politically, and through trade blockades (with assistance from France). Whether the Californians—or rather, their "independentist" faction—can actually survive long-term by eating grass remains to be seen.
3. The Government of California declares independence, the UN turns a blind eye, and Washington decides to deploy the military; the Californians resist militarily, resulting in a chaotic situation of unpredictable proportions.

If that pro-independence movement in California is being quietly backed by a certain superpower, then we are looking at outright war—because in that scenario, the leadership in California isn't bluffing; they have genuine external momentum driving them.

On the other hand, if the "independentist" faction in California is merely playing a game of chicken—betting that Washington will intervene militarily so they can claim independence based on the destruction of California and the casualties suffered by Californians—then Washington and their President shouldn't be naive enough to take the bait. In almost any other scenario, Washington holds all the cards. At that point, Puigdemont and his crew simply become a piñata for everyone to hit—hit by Americans for defying the Constitution, and hit by fellow Californians for spreading misinformation, breaking promises, and causing economic decline.