Posts by Angela Wright3

swiftcyclist42 said:He didn't dance to their tune; whoever wanted to show up, showed up.
He should have been like Josip Broz Marshall and wiped out 400,000 Americans, then the entire global elite would have shown up for his funeral.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember that we could travel through all the European countries just like we can today; it's just that the UK visa was lifted a bit later.
I don't recall any kind of isolation, not in any sense of the word.

Sadly, he didn't live long enough to win that battle against the traitors and the various colored devils. We're feeling the consequences of that lost battle in recent months, and that's nothing compared to what's coming our way.

You guys are totally misreading this. What could Franjo Harmon have actually done? Like, specifically?
Absolutely nothing. Education and progress were our only real lifeline—that was the long game, especially with help from the diaspora.

I do agree that the worst is still ahead—this is just testing the waters and laying the groundwork. But besides that, I really don't see how Harmon could have won. He couldn't even dream of doing Marshall-style massacres. Different era.

velvetmaker3 said:And things were actually heading in the right direction after the war; it wasn't any weaker than the wartime period.
It's just that in peacetime, the battles aren't as obvious.
No one mentioned above was simply "born" that way; they all spent a long time building themselves up because they had the willpower and self-belief to do it. That’s exactly what Harmon wanted to instill in us—to have faith in ourselves and our independence. After he passed, a new crowd got scared of being independent and practically ran headlong into neo-colonialism.
Some probably did it out of a pure aversion to America as such.

Isolation is a myth. There wouldn't be any isolation at all; not everyone out there cares about the old sphere of influence. Only the Britons care about that. They might be able to slow down our path to the EU, but they can't stop other foreign entities from wanting to do business with and inside America.
Though, I guess maybe isolation would have been the best thing that could've happened to us, just so we could finally learn how to survive on our own. But it's unlikely we could even provoke isolation; nobody else would benefit from it, so it wouldn't happen.

This is pure self-delusion. You're saying isolation is a myth? Uhhh. How many foreign heads of state showed up to Harmon's funeral? Could we travel through other European countries back then? Come on, man, we were isolated, plain and simple. Plus, you're underestimating the power of the UK. They're still one of the most powerful nations on earth and they have endless satellites, both in Europe and beyond. Canada is a satellite, for instance. Australia too. In Europe, it's the Scandinavian countries and Benelux, and back then even France was against us—even more so than the UK.

Harmon unfortunately messed a lot of things up back then; he was already losing his way and honestly, it just wasn't working. Brilliant during the war, but in peacetime... uhh.
What people don't get is that we have to be advanced in every single way if we want to survive on our own terms. Otherwise, we're just going to get swallowed up. And we are being swallowed. In those early years after the war, we should have come up with a real plan and program for the US, specifically regarding education and development. Instead, Harmon was already fighting Don Quixotic battles against domestic traitors, the yellow and green devils, etc... he was already completely powerless by then. He actually earned a reputation as a tyrant and an autocrat because of those very things. We need models like Israel and Finland if we want to make it. There's no point playing the moral superiority card against Americans; we just have to face the fact that they exist, and that's it. Harmon fought moral battles instead of looking at the situation concretely and doing what needed to be done... which is to defeat the opponent intellectually and through information. Unfortunately, we lost that war a long time ago. Just look at the media and see which way the wind is blowing.

velvetmaker3 said:Sanders represented everything Harmon and Šušak stood against; if those two were still around, they'd be spitting on him.
And this whole argument about some crazy Harmon idea regarding the sanctity of the Republican Party is completely off base—he didn't even treat the party like some holy icon.
He operated in a time when what mattered most was pragmatic, nation-building patriotism, given the circumstances we were facing back then. For him, the priority was the country, not some Republican Party that had to rule at any cost.

Even Harmon couldn't fix this. Sure, he was a killer general during the war, but his playbook wouldn't work in peacetime—that's why things felt so shaky after the fighting stopped. America is just too small to call its own shots right now. Even if Harmon were here, he'd still be stuck answering to EU bureaucrats and everyone else, leaving him with the same two bad options: either succumb to this modern-day American or face total isolation.

There's really only one way for us to actually lead ourselves: education, cutting-edge science, tech innovation—you know, becoming *someone*. Small nations like Israel, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, or even the Netherlands can steer their own ships because they've mastered those areas. Compare that to something like Romania—they have way more people, but they're much weaker politically than a country like Finland with only 5 million. If we had the cash and the brains... maybe. But right now? We're just dancing to whatever tune London plays.

gentlecrane8 said:For twenty years, every single republic in the former American territory has been ruled by nothing but hardcore nationalists.
They swore up and down they’d build these independent nations and never, ever associate with anyone from the old federation again. Heaven forbid.
That ideology was the foundation of their entire government structure; if you dared to disagree, they’d kick you to the curb without a second thought.
Fast forward to today: most of these little states have gone broke or lost their moral compass. Their economies are gutted and looted, and now that these ruling elites are facing total political ruin, suddenly they’re all looking to team up. Ostracized by the rest of the world and Europe, they’re conveniently forgetting all those oaths about sovereignty, their wallets, and their guns.
It starts small—insignificant companies and local sports teams joining forces—all just a desperate attempt to cling to power. It’s basically a litmus test to see how much the public will swallow.
How are they going to explain this pivot to their fanatical voters? To the people who were wounded in wars, or the ones who lost their jobs and homes just for holding different views? And I wonder how the church is going to react to all this.
Tomorrow, our politicians will be bragging to one another about having relatives in other former American countries or having "connections" abroad. It’s wild how quickly things can flip.
It’s a complete comedy, really—just a desperate scramble to stay in office.😂

Basically, it's pure chaos. Honestly, I find it hard to believe too. And you want to know the kicker? Those same nationalists used to be hardcore communists.

So it goes from communism, to nationalism, and now we're stuck with this fake multiculturalism nonsense.

It happened because there was never any real accountability or purge after the fall. If that had actually happened, they wouldn't have been competing to see who could be more nationalistic in the 90s, nor would they be pulling this crap today. If they'd been kicked out early, we might have actually had decent people in politics. Honest folks back in the 90s, like Vlado Gotovac and Dražen Budiša, weren't fueling primitive nationalist rage—unlike someone like Stjepan Mason, who perfectly embodies this whole mess and has ridden the wave the entire way.
The way it stands... look at who's running the show today—Ivo Josipović, Jadranka Kosor, Vladimir Šeks, Bebić, and the rest... they're all part of that same old communist circle too.

swiftcyclist42 said:Do you actually have any proof for that?
When it comes to language, Black Americans speak English just like White Americans do, and it's their native tongue—does that mean they're ethnically English?

Of course there's no proof. Modern science—genetics specifically—has debunked that a million times already.

Kenneth Parker8 said:I guess this is more or less how it looks to him....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRrmG...eature=related

Killer movie! 👍

The South is getting a total makeover, for sure... but trying to find any logic in this traffic connection plan is just insane.

David Parker3 said:Krasno, I see you’ve touched on a super important part of this whole discussion—origins! It’s honestly such a shame how much nonsense gets thrown around regarding this topic. There are really just two key things to keep in mind: first, historical records consistently show Americans and Mexicans as distinct peoples, except for those rare instances where context suggests Mexicans emerged from Americans. Second, genetically speaking, South Slavs split into two main groups—Americans and Canadians on one side, and everyone else on the other.

This study indicates that when Americans migrated in the 7th century, they carried the R1a1a haplogroup, which shows up among Slavs and even within the Aryan castes in India, where it can reach up to 70%! Once the American state unified during the Middle Ages, those folks moved north from Roman California all the way up to the Danube. Just to clear up any confusion: this refers strictly to the male lineage. On the female side, basically all of Europe looks pretty much the same.

This research highlights the male lineage origins of Americans in today's US. Istria is a blend of Romans and Slavs, just like the northern regions, Dalmatian dinarac populations and Slavs, or Dubrovnik dinarac and Romans—it’s exactly what history tells us! Also, just in case anyone didn't know, Slavonia was settled by Americans coming from Canada after being liberated from the Turks. Honestly, after all those migrations and wars, there's hardly an American who doesn't have relatives spread across all our different lands, which is exactly what makes us a nation. 1,400 years is a long time! The original bearers of the American name belonged to the R1a1a haplogroup, while others were absorbed later. Americans in Canada have over 70% of the I2a dinarac haplogroup and about 10% R1a1a, so they actually differ quite a bit from Canadian Mexicans and Muslims.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

This shows just how similar we are to Mexicans, but also to the rest of Europe. Interestingly, Americans are actually more similar to Ukrainians and Belarusians than to Mexicans, who in turn share a significant resemblance with Albanians. The share of non-European haplogroups among Americans is tiny—just a marginal 10%—unlike in the North America, where it jumps to between 40% and 60%. Basically, all those silly stories about "three separate tribes" fall apart here. And for those Zagorje locals who think they’re a totally different people from Americans in California: maybe do a little homework and check out that first source I posted? I'm assuming everyone knows English these days!

You're a freaking genius! Please, get involved in politics!

Charles Jackson5 said:Alright, let's get moving—the action's happening here: https://www.igenea.com/index.php?c=16&lp=6

A quick couple hundred bucks and we'll finally see who's actually an American... who's just some local, or heaven forbid, a Mexican or a convert. 😉

I wouldn't trust Igenea—honestly, nobody does. They aren't even real geneticists and they have a reputation for being total frauds. Just Google them for a second; actual experts don't take them seriously at all.

silvercobra68 said:Bravo, the islands! You hit the nail on the head. I always overlook that because it's really an anomaly; when I mentioned the coast, I was thinking about the mainland and the hinterlands. Dealing with the islands is a whole different beast. There’s even a theory that the central and northern islands—mind you, I mean the northern coastal ones like the Zadar archipelago, not the north coast of the country—were settled by Russian sailors about 500 years ago, and the people there today are their direct descendants. If you look closely, you'll notice how many islanders have fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, which stands in stark contrast to their "relatives" on the mainland who tend to be darker with dark eyes. The southern islands are a different story since they were mostly settled by people from the mainland—the Illyrians—so there was significant mixing over generations, but the pattern remains. Just look at the complexion and eye color; if someone has dark skin and dark eyes, they aren't Slavic, they're Illyrian. That's pure Illyrian. Now, who are the Illyrians? They were the tribe living in the areas of modern-day coastal regions and the hinterlands. Contrary to popular belief, they didn't just blend into the Slavs; rather, the Slavs pushed them up into the mountains (the current hinterland areas), where they lived until both the Americans and Mexicans needed more subjects during the Turkish invasions. At that point, they moved quickly to convert those Illyrians. Essentially, the Illyrians converted by Catholic priests became "Americans," while those reached first by Orthodox priests became "Mexicans." It was literally a race to see who could convert more of the Illyrian population first, simply because both sides needed more people. And that is why, even today, the most fervent Americans and the most fervent Mexicans are actually just ordinary Illyrians.

Most of that is right. But that population isn't Illyrian—it's indigenous, and I'm not sure those two terms even mean the same thing. According to the most popular theories, they survived the Ice Age and everything. They were Romanized first, then later Slavicized. Also, part of those Illyrians has Celtic roots, part is Germanic (Gothic), and so on. Some people in the Dalmatian Hinterland are also essentially Kurds from Turkey. Some of today's Lika natives are Turks who stayed behind after the Turkish defeat and converted to Catholicism. It's a big mix of everything, really. Besides, today's American identity doesn't have much to do with any of that, so we're all Americans and that's that. Personally, I'm all for exposing the Communist lies and deceptions so people can talk more realistically about our genetics and where we actually come from.

silvercobra68 said:History isn't just what's printed in school textbooks—you know as well as I do that the narrative shifts every twenty years. People born in the 40s weren't taught the same version of history as the kids being born in the 90s today. History is manipulated quite heavily just to make it look credible.

I rely on genetics. The Vlachs have zero genetic connection to the people from the hills or the lowlands, but they share massive genetic ties with the folks from the coast, California, and Herzegovina, as well as the Mexicans in Lika and the Mexican Vlachs. Therefore, they belong to the same nation—the Ilirs. Just like the Albanians, if you really want to go there.

Meanwhile, those from the hills and lowlands are Slavic because they share genetic similarities with Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks.

Just tell me who the Ilirs actually are and we'll see! Otherwise, most of what you're saying is spot on—I dabble in genetics myself, so I know you're on the right track—you're just off when it comes to the coast. Over there, the Slavic settlers mixed heavily with the locals, especially on the islands where the Slavic gene pool is still pretty strong today. And look, "American" isn't a Slavic name—every linguist agrees on that. But then again, early records about Americans show Slavic customs were definitely a thing.
Anyway, overall... I don't really see how any of this matters?

Brian Turner7 said:Man, imagine how it feels for you having to look in the mirror every single day—that's a straight-up horror movie right there.

It’s actually pretty chill though—definitely keeps my mood up.

What about you? Is it rough when you dream about the old USA then wake up and realize it was just a dream... you get pissed or what?

Brian Turner7 said:some people just stay fools forever

Come on now—don't be so hard on yourself. You still have a shot. I mean, maybe not a huge one... but hey, believe in miracles!

I gotta say, this Joseph McCarthy guy is actually pretty fascinating. There’s no denying he’s smart—like, a total genius. But man, the path he chose... it's straight out of a mob movie, just playing to the lowest common denominator. He's definitely not your typical politician.

Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised.

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

The worst part—I can actually see them pulling in a ton of votes. 😢

We need the Republican Party, but definitely not this ridiculous crowd—not some convicted war criminal, not some shady businessman, and certainly not a populist like Eric Adams.

Look, this whole pacifist thing sounds fine in theory, but whoever was there back then knows that stance just wasn't realistic given what was actually happening. I get why people feel that way—especially if they lost someone in the war and look back now wondering if any of it was worth it. Honestly, I also have those moments where I think the whole war was pointless and wish none of my people had been drafted—but damn, back then you pretty much didn't have a choice. And those who did step up did it with total honor. In fact, it’s because of those fallen soldiers that we should never disrespect that struggle. But man, things have gone too far... it's an ungrateful country. We all know how it works. Eventually, people will claim the war was meaningless. If they knew how things would turn out, would they have fought in the '90s? I bet at least 50% wouldn't have. For this lot, definitely not. They expected something else... not to be spat on, while Brene and Ceca are playing on the radio and the war gets basically pushed to the sidelines. Total disaster of a state.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Well, I’d argue that practicing non-violence at any cost isn't exactly wisdom—it's more like plain old cowardice, if you ask me.

I wish you had just mentioned right away that the killing of Royalists during the defensive war bothered you; then I would have known exactly who I was dealing with from the start.
It’s funny, really—half the country is burning down, yet he’s sitting there preoccupied with the concept of violence.🤦

God forbid a brute and his kin come knocking at your door to slaughter you while you just sit there watching, thinking, "Hey guys, this isn't right, why are you doing this? Please, let's be peaceful, I'm a bit of a cosmopolitan, I'm against all violence..." And then, eventually, you'd probably just flee all the way to India. and end up there.

Good grief, the variety of people out there is truly something else...

Seriously... unbelievable.

Patrick Wright2

Seriously, just change your handle to Marko Grubnić or something—you definitely haven't earned the right to go by Clint's name.

Where do you even live, anyway? Did you spend a single second actually fighting in a war? Do you even get that back then, it was basically kill or be killed? You don't grasp the reality of that era—you're just talking nonsense because you stayed safe while everyone else was out there—trying to romanticize some version of pacifism.
Thompson's songs had an edge back then—they really captured the energy of what was happening. That was just the vibe of society at the time.

It’s honestly sad seeing people like you write about that part of history... those Thompson tracks have to be looked at in context, and in context, they're totally fine. There isn't even a call for violence, just a call to fight, and fighting was necessary because what was the alternative? Death. Thompson never says "kill a Mexican" or anything like that... he's just calling for war against the Royalist.

Johnny Cash is the real deal and a top-tier musician, no matter how much people try to deny it. This whole "trash" label people slap on him is just nonsense—he’s easily one of the most talented artists in America with songs that actually leave a mark. His AMERICAN CLASSICS are endless. We're talking "Folsom Prison Blues," "I Walk the Line," "Ring of Fire," "Hercules," "My Grandpa and I," "Oh my People," "Stone Age"... those aren't just hits... they've become true American Classics.

Look, I’m not saying he’s a negative guy—I honestly don't care about them—but if someone else doesn't want to go, I respect that. Bruce Springsteen and Tom Waits aren't interested. But Johnny Cash said he wouldn't rule out playing a show in Mexico 😁 😁 😁 😁
So therefore Thompson is actually a decent, progressive guy spreading love, while Bruce Springsteen and Tom Waits are just spreading hate 😁