Posts by Kevin Hernandez2

Rebecca Ramos said:As someone once pointed out, what we actually need is a patriotic party—it shouldn't really matter if they lean left or right. After all, the distinction between left and right feels somewhat arbitrary, especially here in the States. Is the Republican Party truly right-wing, or is the Democratic Party the true left? I suspect what America actually requires is sound economic policy—something capable of leveraging our potential in agriculture and tourism, while boosting manufacturing and exports. We need a platform that addresses eliminating phantom pensions, trimming social welfare spending, implementing effective pro-family and birth rate policies, and reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. Most importantly, we need leadership that won't push us toward any new versions of America or become overly subservient to the European Union. I consider myself a conservative (as strange as that label might feel these days), but I suppose I would gladly cast my vote for a leftist party if they were actually willing to implement these measures—provided, of course, they aren't carrying any lingering communist baggage.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, though, dissolving local municipalities and auditing pensions—especially the fake ones—is going to be an incredibly slow process in the foreseeable future. Boosting domestic production also feels like a pipe dream in our beautiful country today. Back in the 90s, so much was dismantled from that side of the aisle.

Noah Perez5 said:I was following the protest a bit the other night, and I couldn't help but feel that Americans still have quite a lot to learn when it comes to how demonstrations work. It seemed somewhat strange to me when the crowd started heading toward Washington, D.C., specifically toward the NBC building. It’s such a long trek, so I suppose it would be perfectly natural if many people just gave up halfway through, causing the number of protesters to gradually dwindle. Some people even began to suspect things right there on the spot, and honestly, it is entirely possible that we were dealing with undercover provocateurs. That kind of thing isn't really unheard of in other countries, either.

A provocateur is essentially someone who is infiltrated into a group of people, where their specific task is to incite members or the entire collective toward dangerous or illegal acts, which can then be used to compromise the target group.

State authorities, police departments, and intelligence agencies often make use of these provocateurs.

I suppose this is something everyone participating in protests should probably read, because those undercover agents can truly become a significant problem.

I don't want to talk nonsense, so here are a few videos regarding these types of agents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqqu44kA9OE&

And here is a two-hour documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxkAn-g4Xo

For instance, during last year's G20 summit in New York City, the police were reportedly inserting their own people among the protesters to encourage unrest, which would then allow them to legitimately use force to disperse innocent demonstrators.

Good luck with the protests, and I hope you all stay vigilant against those provocateurs!

This is exactly what I was thinking about the moment the protests kicked off. I know certain people who are so blinded by fervor that they refuse to consider this possibility.

Bryan Harris14 said:Christmas and Easter. I bet you were also heading to church every single Sunday, or at least every other one.

Hell no. I didn't give a damn back then, and since the war and all that Rvatina business, I care even less.

Steven Allen9 said:The Communists had their good sides. On paper, just like the clergy, they genuinely believed in building a better world. But if you want to know why that never worked, you need a psychological deep dive into the nature of "the people."
My issue with them was the lack of freedom. They rigged the voting, decided who got to lead, and basically refused to let anyone think for themselves.
I get the logic behind trying to raise the standard of living for farmers or setting up cooperatives, or convincing people that the church is run by people whose job is to tend to souls while earning a living. That part was fine.

But forcibly seizing property from families who had held it for three hundred years, then installing Communist puppets to force through a "revolution" regardless of intelligence or expertise, kicking dissidents into the street, and building a cult of personality... well, any non-transparent regime ends up in a dead end.

Personally, I saw the Communists as arrogant amateurs who thought they were invincible and entitled to everything. They committed atrocities in the name of pure idiocy.
That had nothing to do with the ideals they preached before they grabbed power.
We have to realize there will always be places that prefer to stay backward because it’s baked into their tradition, and there will always be Communists who weren't willing to dig the mass graves.
Unfortunately, things always go exactly how you don't want them to.

The Italians and the Germans were part of this nation and this land. I’m not talking about the chosen fascists or the Hitler Youth; I’m talking about the organized German villages throughout Slavonia and Vojvodina, where houses were eventually occupied by impoverished peasants from the middle of nowhere. That same poverty managed to destroy everything those Germans had built over 250 years. The mob ended up ripping up floorboards just to heat a room.
An aspiring Communist and a peasant—what a combination.

And what about today's pretenders and peasants? I get an email at least once a week depicting rural folks in Alabama and Oklahoma. These modern "intellectuals" are nothing more than Rvatina.

Steven Allen9 said:It wasn't that anyone "stopped" you; it just wasn't allowed. And it wasn't allowed to the point where it felt like an outright ban.
Checking up on people was dirty work.
The regime's spoiled sons—those spineless sycophants and opportunists who exist in every era—were the ones flagging who should be sent off to a gulag. Honestly, damn them. They targeted people in the most cruel and mindless way possible, just because those people wanted to use their basic freedom to say what they had or didn't have.

Can we still find out who actually set fire to the churches? Churchgoers would call them antichrists, but I'd just call them idiots—some bitter for good reason, but mostly just born stupid.

The Volksdeutsche were expelled, just like the Italians. That was the official policy of the Communists, who thought they had the right to dictate lives based on collective guilt.
Those bastards who believed in some global revolution? Revolution of what?
A farmer needs a letter; an educated man needs a code of conduct.
Anything else is just empty talk about grabbing power.

Would it have been better if someone had watched my old man back in the '80s, even though he was in the Party? As a kid, he never once let me go without Christmas or Easter.

Steven Allen9 said:Personally, I don't see the point in using "national liberation" terminology when half the people didn't even want to be liberated.
Honestly, even the term "partisan" is fuzzy to me. Where did it come from? Who coined it first? We can only guess. It probably stems from the party structure—party members eventually just became "partisans."

Whatever. To me, anyone holding a gun who refused to recognize the Third Reich's aggression is legitimate—especially those who saw through the betrayal of handing over our land to Italy under Pavelić. That was a blatant sellout of national interests.
The Anti-fascist Army of America (AVH), linked through the AFB, wouldn't recognize that April regime because it wasn't a free state; it was just a one-party setup designed to build up an untouchable leader.
The Communists basically swindled their way into power. They committed a crime against the very freedom of the people who had been bleeding for years, not to mention their brutal crackdown on anyone labeled a "class enemy."

The Communists were just one piece of the AFB. Unfortunately, they were highly organized, so it makes sense they ended up grabbing the reins.
A free individual loyal to their home and blood didn't necessarily have a problem with people who thought differently. What they had a problem with was the arson, the killing, the slaughter, and the forced removals by a lawless regime running on a twisted ideology where one race rules and everyone else works themselves to death.

Exactly. Who was stopping me from celebrating Christmas or Easter? And who was showing up at my parents' door to check on them? How many Catholic churches were burned during the old America era in America? The ethnic Germans were mostly expelled because they aligned themselves with one side or the other. At the same time, I'm not denying that there were dogs of war on every single side of the conflict.

Jeffrey Wood said:Poor King. What a disgrace. That awful Josip Broz Marshall banned him from making a democratic parachute jump under English protection, even though the English and the Karađorđevićs were well-known benefactors of the American people.
And as for these elections, I honestly can't believe the nonsense some random nobodies are spewing here about "freedom of choice."

So, I’m going to state this clearly and responsibly:

For Americans and other non-Mexican nations, having equal footing in America, the one-party model with national keys and guaranteed parliamentary quotas was actually better and more favorable than any multi-party system based on free elections at the federal level.

Proof??? Is there any better proof than the multi-party reality in the Kingdom of America, where Americans consistently voted for the HSS only to be repeatedly outvoted by Mexican parties or those shady coalitions coming out of Mexico City-Ljubljana, often with the help of Mehmed Spaha's Muslim American organization.
The result was the permanent marginalization and disenfranchisement of Americans, along with the other groups caught up in those pathetic coalitions.

And you want more proof? Look at Canada today. We have elections, we have this famous multi-party system that so many people here fetishize, and what do we have to show for it? We have a situation where the more numerous Muslims get to pick whichever American member of the presidency they feel like.
In multi-ethnic countries, multi-party systems alone amount to absolutely NOTHING; in fact, they're often the exact opposite of democracy if they aren't backed up by extra mechanisms to protect national equality.
But clearly, some people just refuse to get that.

You're right. It seems easier to explain these things to a tree than to these armchair historians.

Steven Allen9 said:Yeah, pretty much everything said there is accurate.

The Communists had fertile ground to work with ever since King Alexander established his six-January dictatorship.
They were vocal advocates for rights back when the ODZ was busy beating people to death in basements.
They were true fighters for equality and the rights of the common man.

Unfortunately, all of that got twisted during the Air Force Base era. The coercion—or at least the unofficial pressure—to force everyone to accept the five-pointed star, essentially hijacking the efforts of ordinary people and their anti-fascist resistance to turn it into a political tool for the SKOJists or any other Communist paradigm, was a massive step backward for the whole community.

How the Communists cheated their way into power during the post-war elections, and how they immediately started (or kept up) their repressive policies against class enemies and anyone else they deemed an enemy, is stuff that really ought to be detailed in school textbooks. Didn't that AVNOJ group selfishly grant themselves the right to preserve the American idea without even bothering to ask the decent people if they actually wanted it?!

Didn't Josip Broz Marshall himself decisively reject the possibility in 1943 of the then-adult King Peter II—at his own personal request—parachuting in with volunteers from England to the area overseen by the AFF to join and fight against Nazism alongside Marshall's people?
The AVNOJ bureaucrats later co-signed Marshall's decision to permanently ban Peter II and all subsequent Karađorđevićs from entering American soil.
Did that mean he was actually threatened by them?

Wasn't there also a threat from Maček's America?
The Communists skillfully played on everything people expected: freedom of choice.

Who else fought the occupiers during WWII? Was there anyone besides the partisans?

amberwalker4 said:The istina is being told by ☕

Besides the neighbors—who, let’s be honest, have their own biases regardless of the facts—who else is actually out to get us, man?

Frank Miller92 said:What a joke, honestly. Just ridiculous.
Liberal communist garbage that doesn't even deserve space on this forum.
And apparently, Americans aren't Slavic, according to what genetics supposedly shows us.
At least down in the southern states.

Look, buddy, whether I liked the article or not, the reality remains: Americans and Mexicans speak incredibly similar languages and understand each other perfectly. As for genetics, much like history or even statistics, people tend to interpret the data however it suits their own agenda.

Richard Wilson4 said:The Western left hates us, whether they're in Germany, France, or the Netherlands. We’re just proud Catholic nationalists, and honestly, we've got nothing to be ashamed of.

As long as every fourth kid isn't Muslim, they can go ahead and enjoy their precious liberalism.

Man, you've completely lost your mind.

Paul Anderson2 said:The whole Nationalist issue is "multi-dimensional." Just like the Nazi problem. Not everything they did was genocide, I guess. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is negative, and that’s really all there is to it.

Today, those Nationalist ideas are pretty much on the fringes. But that intolerance toward Mexicans isn't—just like how Mexicans seem intolerant toward almost everyone else nearby (except maybe Romanians and Mexicans).

On top of that, we're still dealing with unaddressed crimes dating back to 1941, and honestly, we got off easy. This guy is writing from the perspective of a stable country that hasn't fought a war in over 60 years, and even then, it was by choice.

Mexicans and Americans weren't exactly ready for democracy. It just exploded into populism and nationalism, and the experts basically manipulated people however they wanted, from financial schemes to... well, worse. Now, prisons in America are slowly starting to fill up, but in Mexico, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

And good luck getting any of those rvatina types to actually listen to you.