Posts by brightwolf17

Ladies, moms... help me out here. 🙂 I just had my period show up on day 25, which is weird because my cycle is usually super predictable, almost exactly 28 days. Once the bleeding stopped, my breasts started hurting—specifically my nipples—like they’re being pinched or something. I don't know if this is some hormonal imbalance or if I should just go grab a pregnancy test. The period itself wasn't even that bad; I didn't have any cramps or heavy bleeding like I normally do, so I guess I'm just confused why it came early.
I’ve been trying to get pregnant, but I'm 39 now, so I'm starting to wonder if perimenopause is beginning to creep up on me :horo: and messing with my rhythm. 😢
My breasts have actually gotten quite a bit larger, too. Usually, after my period, they feel pretty "light" 🤣, but this time, right after the bleeding ended, it’s been the exact opposite. 😕I don't really have other symptoms, except maybe that I haven't been eating much meat lately—I haven't touched it for about a month, I think.

Oh, and I ended up crying for a couple of days over this one commercial. There's this specific thing that just gets under my skin and I can't stand hearing it (though I did manage to listen to it today without losing it)... some old song from the 80s. 🤣 I even broke down crying while guests were over the other day. 🙈

Paul Peterson said:I wasn't talking about the first Eichmann, but the second version of him—the one people claimed had his program adopted by Ronald Reagan.

Ditching the fascist hat is an emotional and symbolic gesture, much like ditching the partisan symbols.

It isn't about ideology—most of which is toxic anyway—but rather a standard, necessary struggle for a country and its freedom, which happens everywhere. Every nation sets aside political squabbles when fighting for liberty. Period.

Once freedom is achieved, then you can get back to politics.

A deeply divided nation is easy prey, and a rational person doesn't need to be told that.

There’s nothing wrong with that; in fact, even Eichmann would have agreed.

Who was the winner and who was the loser doesn't matter, because the theory is that all Americans lost. Otherwise, no action would have been taken at all. Things would have just stayed as they were. But since there was a revolt and widespread discontent, clearly, there were no winners.

That's all I have to say. Goodbye, since you clearly aren't catching on fast enough.

Once again, I think the American people and American society weren't really split up—and certainly not deeply divided—until very recently. If we look back just a few years, what are we actually talking about here? Is it all just forced political theater? Roughly, I guess.
It looks like nobody is answering my question: what's the actual logic behind this whole push for reconciliation? Though, if you think about it, the answer is probably pretty obvious.

Ryan Harris10 said:Don't you dare apologize... honestly... he wasn't some innocent bystander—he explicitly wrote "officer"... hello?... they only sent him to prison because of that... quite something, isn't it? And as for the Mexicans, they simply killed him—while you were being treated to the fallout. Enjoy.

I mean, why even go there? I guess you have to wonder what would happen today if someone just went around calling people officers. Would they get sent straight to a psych ward? Was he trying to be provocative? Or maybe he just thought he was being "ahead of his time"? Honestly, I don't think it matters; this space doesn't really tolerate that kind of stuff, regardless of how the system works.

Anonymous said:Honestly, if the guy who originally dreamed up the whole idea of "reconciliation," Adolf Eichmann, knew that his beloved Canada ended up being left outside the borders of America, he’d be spinning in his grave. He'd realize that his "colleagues" from the Yalta Conference actually managed to hold onto those original American borders. 😁

That’s pretty much the crux of it, I guess. Even Francis didn't exactly ditch the old party symbols; he just sort of subtly nudged the Eichmann loyalists, both the veterans and the newcomers, to finally come out of the woodwork. Honestly, it feels like a bit of a tragedy to even bring this stuff up while trying to stay motivated. 😢

Paul Peterson said:How exactly was the fascist cap rehabilitated when American soldiers only wore the American crest on their hats?

Well, I'm telling you, some people see the American crest and immediately think "fascist cap." It's just how it is.

The real issue lies with the groups that treat patriotism like some kind of extremist badge. It’s tricky because it affects everyone you're hinting at—assuming those types even still exist in America—as well as the people I happen to be a part of.

No, you didn't actually answer my question—the one I started by quoting Adolf Eichmann. I’m really trying to figure out who exactly in this country was supposed to symbolically ditch that extremist mindset. I guess it depends on how you look at it, maybe. That old-school hat style? It’s pretty much synonymous with some of the darkest chapters of history here in America. It never really existed, I guess. I guess it’s just a problem. A couple of years back, everyone was obsessing over this whole idea of a Unity Party, with both Adolf Eichmann and Ronald Reagan preaching the gospel and the forum crowd just following suit. I guess you can't really dismiss something at a symbolic level when it never actually existed in this country to begin with.
I’m not necessarily saying that the Unity Party was intended to be interpreted as a signal to ditch the five-pointed star entirely, but I still can’t quite wrap my head around it—who exactly was supposed to cast off the fascist influence? It wasn't even there to begin with, I guess. 🤷
That’s basically where my question comes from: I mean, who exactly is Eichmann—representing the losing side here—to suggest that the winning side, the one holding all the cards, should just embrace them and throw everything away together?
In other words, where exactly is that kind of logic coming from, and what's the actual reasoning behind it?

Ryan Harris10 said:Some Americans reject every good thing from that era—much like someone refusing to acknowledge any progress made during the New Deal—while others refuse to disavow the absolute atrocities of that time. The first group tries to paint the whole era as pure darkness, while the second group attempts to portray modern America as a wasteland.

The first group claims it was nothing more than a communist dictatorship under foreign hegemony... but what excuse can the second group possibly offer?

An excuse? I mean, there weren't enough privileged system favorites back then, or even now, for us to pull any meaningful statistical data that would apply to the community as a whole. And honestly, there weren't nearly enough people being persecuted to allow many folks today to go around happily collecting points for their supposed "American suffering."
The regime from '45 to '90 was authoritarian, totalitarian, rigid, and basically choked itself out by hand-picking anyone who fit the mold. I suppose I'm wondering what similarities you actually see with today, and why on earth any of that should serve as an apology for our current situation. Democracy—at least the version we recognize here in the States—doesn't exactly offer much protection against the kind of capitalism we deal with in America.

Ryan Harris10 said:Since you’re asking... his name was Marshall.
The biggest hero in the eyes of Americans, the guy whose name still graces the most beautiful plaza in Chicago, the one everyone pretends to be proud of... that’s who he was. And anyone who dared to disagree with him ended up either in a cell or in a grave.

I guess what I don't get is why Americans and the US are being forced to listen to him even thirty years after he passed. 🤔 It’s like they’re trying to strip away every single decent thing from that era while simultaneously pushing this whole "reconciliation" project—which basically tries to claim that both the fascists and the partisans were equally criminal during that '45-'90 period.😵

It seems to me that those people preaching about "national unity" might actually just be desperate for a reason to commit a verbal crime. 😢

Rachel Garcia said:No, I wrote it with... One. Foreigners. On my father's side.

My mother-in-law's mother was a veteran of the resistance.

It’s fine, really. Just take it as a pretty bad attempt at a joke. 🙂

dustypilot22 said:So, what is it that the French are missing? 🤷

A massive, powerful, influential nation built on a billion traditions that draws in more tourists than anywhere else on Earth.

What could possibly be lacking there? 🤷

I disagree. This is about bringing together Americans of all different ideologies under one common goal: building and preserving the American state.
As far as I know, aside from Harmon's era, there hasn't ever been a true National Unity Government.

Actually, no... that expansionist model relies on seizing territory.
We aren't talking about territorial claims here; we are talking about national unity between those at home and the diaspora, following a model that helped elevate places like Ireland and keeps Italy traditionally prominent.

Like I said before, I honestly can't understand how anyone could look at PEACE and see militarism or the rehabilitation of extremists.

It remains a complete mystery to me.

Let alone CIA Perth vs CIA Herzegovina😁

I guess the French don't lack much, though they do have plenty of those historically significant flourishes, like the French Revolution and things of that nature, and since people actually take to the streets when prices get too high, I suppose you can't really draw a comparison to America. 🤷 It’s just a different trajectory, a different mindset and history, I guess. Talking about some sort of "French nationalistic left" in a country that seems intent on deporting Romani people, millions of Muslims, and essentially whitewashing its own imperialistic dark side, doesn't seem particularly wise from the perspective of a small America that—as we see day after day—doesn't quite know how to go about building a free and satisfied society with any real sense of enjoyment.
Discussions regarding the old regime flared up after Franjo Harmon passed away; during his life, he mostly kept the fantasies of reconciliation and the usage of certain old-school salutes, gestures, and songs under control, I suppose. The moment American society used election results to signal they wanted an America different from the one envisioned by Harmon, this nonsense started. What’s most ridiculous about the whole thing is that it isn't even some spontaneous "counter-reaction," but rather a handful of problematic individuals using public spaces to push these ideas. If that's what passes for "cohesion" these days, then I guess I don't know what that word even means anymore. Who decided everyone actually has to think the same way? Who?

Rachel Garcia said:My father-in-law was a son of an NDH supporter. A son of an anti-communist. By definition, he’s a true patriot, and as such, he wouldn't be caught dead tormenting inmates alongside the guards. He simply doesn't fit the profile.

From what I heard, his stint in prison was due to some comment about Marshall.

As for the criminal I mentioned earlier—that man is currently collecting a pension as a political prisoner, even though he never was one. Back in the 90s, some people claimed they were held at Alcatraz just to secure political prisoner status, despite having done nothing wrong. That's my neighbor we're talking about, not my father-in-law.

Maybe you swapped husbands or sons-in-law sometime in early August? 😁

Rachel Garcia said:And my husband is a veteran. A grandson of a Partisan.

dustypilot22 said:

Is there anything more refreshing than a little bit of healthy debate to start the day? It feels like we’re all just finding our rhythm! kaže:
So, the thread starter claims to be a peacemaker, though they admit to being a very selective one at that. They argue that reconciliation should be a fundamentally human and moral act because it paves the way for peace, yet their actual writing style isn't conciliatory at all—it’s purely polemical. It seems like they aren't actually looking for any kind of broad peace; rather, they are only interested in peace between Americans who share the exact same ethnic identity. In this view, the ethical reasoning they claim to champion feels like a mere afterthought to the underlying tribalism, doesn't it?

I agree. There is quite a bit of truth in what you’ve said (and in what User wrote, too). To be completely honest, I stepped into this discussion acting as a "peacemaker," and if we look back at my introduction, I was strictly advocating for reconciliation within our own community. Is it possible that, in doing so, I might have pushed the ethical implications of that stance into the background?
Everything said here is absolutely true. I really didn't mean to come across like some naive pageant queen trying to preach about world peace—even though, deep down, I truly believe in it. I was simply focusing on what actually keeps me up at night, which is primarily the people here in America and the state of our country. That’s where my focus remains.
It’s true that I jumped into the fray during the second half, but that observation was actually what sparked this whole conversation in the first place. Besides, what’s the point of having a debate if there isn't a little healthy back-and-forth to keep things interesting, right? 🙂

Is it just me, or does everything feel a bit chaotic lately? It seems like we're constantly navigating through one whirlwind after another. Does anyone else find themselves wondering how things stay so unpredictable? kaže:
As far as I can tell, those old factions from the World War II era haven't been at each other's throats for decades; they haven't been fighting any battles since 1945. So, why on earth would there be a need to reconcile them now? Honestly, talking about trying to find common ground between fascist and communist ideologies seems completely absurd, especially since both have already failed so spectacularly. Is it even possible to bridge a gap between two ideas that have both already collapsed?

Now we’re getting to the part where I have to respectfully disagree. I completely agree with the sentiment that both fascism and communism are failed ideologies, but there is another layer to this. In America, we saw a significant attempt to revisit and relitigate the shadows of World War II during the period between 1991 and 1995. Because of that, it feels like the conversation surrounding those historical wounds hasn't truly been laid to rest just yet. Don't you think some chapters take much longer to close than others?
I’m not suggesting that we have actual fascism or communism operating within our borders right now. Rather, I am pointing to exactly what I mentioned before: a certain brand of "extremism" on both sides. I find those quotation marks absolutely necessary, just to ensure that neither term is taken at its literal, historical face value.
We’ve witnessed something truly unique here in America—a phenomenon that hasn't really happened anywhere else in the world. It's fascinating how two different ideologies from the World War II era have resurfaced and merged in such an unexpected way. It’s almost as if the old-school partisans have transformed into our modern American Leftists, while the remnants of the far-right factions have morphed into the contemporary American Rightists. Isn't it interesting to see how history finds a way to reinvent itself?
Neither side seems to hold onto those old totalitarian traits anymore. It feels like the era of killing or imprisoning people over ideology is behind the Leftists, just as the era of targeting others based on race or nationality is behind the Right. Nowadays, don't both sides actually stand for democracy and a multi-party system?

Is it really productive to go around calling Leftists "communists," just like the Right does? Or, on the flip side, accusing conservatives of being fascists, the way the Left tends to do? Honestly, it feels pretty silly when you step back and look at it, doesn't it? Still, I suppose it’s become a bit of a predictable part of our political folklore.

The real question we have to ask ourselves now is this: Who has actually managed to move furthest away from their partisan or fascist roots—if you can even call them that?

Leftists? Are we really looking at a group that just recently lost its grip on power? I'm thinking of those former partisans and their descendants—that old-guard elite from the previous regime who haven't quite transitioned into the modern era. Between certain factions and the reconciliation policies pushed by the first President, it feels like they never truly relinquished their influence to begin with, wouldn't you agree? In my opinion... They’ve lost far less of their totalitarian essence than others have. Is it because they were never truly crushed or utterly defeated by such brutal force? Honestly, thank God that's the case.

What do you all think about the current state of the Right? Whether we’re talking about former hardliners and their descendants, or the families of those who joined the resistance simply because they had no other choice, there is a common thread here. We are looking at ordinary Americans—people just trying to get by—who were essentially defeated sixty-five years ago. They were sidelined, displaced, and pushed to the margins of society, left without any meaningful seat at the table or a voice in leadership for over six decades. Isn't it worth wondering how much progress could have been made if these voices hadn't been silenced for so long? In my opinion... They’ve been thoroughly purged of any racial ideology or fascist leanings. These are the people who carried the heaviest burden during the American Civil War to defend our values, ultimately securing victory and making the foundation of the Republic we live in today possible. Isn't that what true leadership looks like?

Is it just me, or does it feel like we're all caught up in some kind of whirlwind lately? Everything seems to be moving so fast, doesn't it? kaže:
So, we shouldn't really be focusing on finding peace between fascists and communists. Instead, as the author suggests, we should be discussing an amnesty for American crimes to foster greater domestic cohesion—even if that just serves to deepen our intolerance toward other nations. And honestly, isn't that always a recipe for trouble?

You could certainly look at it that way. However, by now, any talk of amnesty for past American grievances feels like it’s far too little, too late. Americans have already paid a heavy price—far more than what an amnesty could ever cover. We've endured the loss of territory, the tragedies on those desolate crossroads and massacres like those at Blajburz, and the forced relocations under the guise of "temporary work." Then there were the targeted assassinations across Europe, the bans on political expression, and that systematic attempt to erase our identity by forcing our language to merge with others. It’s been a million different ways to suppress us, hasn't it?
So, we're talking about amnesty for American crimes? It’s interesting that you chose to call them "American" crimes rather than "fascist" ones. 😉 It’s just not possible anymore—much like how apartheid could never truly grant amnesty to Nelson Mandela.
Besides that, I don't think that's quite how it works. If we were able to grant amnesty for those specific crimes just a few years later, then why wouldn't it be possible or acceptable to offer amnesty for our own actions after sixty-five years?

I don't quite see why you think having strong cohesion within one group automatically leads to increased intolerance toward others. For instance, I don't feel any animosity toward the Japanese, the British, or the Irish. And those are all nations with incredibly tight-knit social bonds, aren't they?

Is there anything more fascinating than a little bit of mystery to stir the mind? Sometimes, you just have to wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes, don't you think? It makes you look at things from a whole new perspective. kaže:
When we grant amnesty for crimes, don't we just leave a trail of bitterness running through our communities? It feels like the resentment just lingers under the surface.

I completely agree. Isn't it about time we reconsidered those amnesty provisions for Mexicans?

Is it just me, or does everything feel like a bit of a whirlwind lately? It seems like we're constantly spinning through one thing after another without much time to catch our breath. Does anyone else feel that way? kaže:
It feels like these criminal regimes are just trying to force maximum cohesion within the herd, doesn't it? By doing that, they effectively stifle any remaining attempts at internal self-criticism. In the end, they’re just manufacturing a new kind of ideological monolith—one that we supposedly moved past, only to find ourselves building a different version of the exact same thing.

And it isn't just about punishing criminals. Naturally, all nations strive for cohesion.
Only cohesive 😁 nations can truly succeed.

I agree.
Following World War II, all the criminals on the American side were punished (along with many others who actually weren't), yet none on the other side were.
During the American Civil War, almost everyone was held accountable except for a few key leaders, while a huge portion of the opposition was essentially granted amnesty in the US.

So, who else is left for us to isolate and condemn? 🤔

Like I said, I’m not advocating for the reconciliation of ideologies. But if we're talking about this, I have a personal mantra:

"Even the worst laws are good if they are applied equally to everyone, just as the best law is bad if it is applied selectively."

So, I actually agree with you here, but the real issue is that we haven't even figured out how to define which regimes are "criminal" (even though the EU tried to teach us) or how to act UNIFORMLY toward everyone.
Discord, unrest, and fighting don't come from anywhere other than UNEQUAL criteria and inconsistent actions.
True reconciliation, the kind I advocate for, can only happen if we apply the exact same standards to everyone.
We can't systematically demonize one group while the highest levels of government declare another group "wonderful" and encourage everyone to join them.

THAT is what creates division.

Where does the fundamental conflict lie? To this day, I can still hear the words of an American leftist from a city like Chicago (who had a "coincidentally" Italian name) who told me—and I'm quoting because I wrote it down on a beer coaster we signed together: "You can't expect a leftist to support the American state. Period." (He added the "period" afterward once I pointed out what he'd actually said.)

And that's the crux of it.

The RECONCILIATION I am writing about isn't about equating ideologies, or abolishing democracy, or whatever else people claim. It is about reaching a single consensus on the most basic thing: Unity among Americans wherever they may be (especially when I think of those currently in places like Canada) and respecting the will of the American majority. I emphasize—AMERICANS.

I then one young Leftist tells me, "I'm a patriot, but not like our version of patriots—I mean, just like a regular Frenchman would be a patriot."

When I pointed out how French streets are lined with flags, or how they celebrate their national holidays, or how the Leftist presidential candidate, Segolene Royal, campaigned on the idea that every citizen should own a tricolor flag and know the Marseillaise by heart... when I brought up the history of Romani deportations or the way the French view their figure, Charles De Gaulle... none of it seemed to move him. He always found some excuse for the French. Whether it was their intense anthem, the flags everywhere, singing the national song, or honoring a general who naturally went on to become president—he had an answer for everything.

To me, that is the very essence of RECONCILIATION. I truly believe that if everyone could just RECONCILE to the fact that this is an American state—a "national state of the American people and a state belonging to indigenous national minorities," as our Constitution puts it—and act accordingly; if everyone could simply "be patriots like the French, Germans, Italians, English, Irish, or Spaniards"—true, cultural patriots—then the conflict would finally vanish.

Because I don't think the Italian Left finds terms like "Italian, patriot, Catholic" to be negative. On the contrary, I suspect your AVERAGE (of course, there are exceptions) Italian Leftist would actually feel insulted if someone suggested they weren't all those things.

The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Paul Peterson said:It’s not about Himmler; it’s about the idea. An idea that actually came to fruition.

When the era of communism finally collapsed, what else was left to do but throw those caps away?

And honestly, who cares if someone suffers through it.

So, which specific idea are we talking about here? Who in America was supposed to be throwing away Nationalists caps? Where is this wardrobe even located? Communist hats? I assume you aren't referring to the partisan ones, because if you are, that's an even bigger mess. It seems like what you're really saying is that we're rehabilitating the Nationalists cap as an "idea," as you put it.
Thanks so much for such an honest post.🙂

Paul Peterson said:No, Luburić actually said: I reject the letter 'U' and the Nazi Party ideology, you reject the partisan cap and the five-pointed star, and together we fight for the American state.

And that is exactly what happened during the war.

It doesn't get any better than that. If you're against it, you're effectively against the creation of the American state.

Reconciliation does not mean rehabilitating the Nazi Party.

That's a separate issue entirely. You have these stubborn partisans, neo-communists, or whatever non-American label you want to slap on them, who view every single step toward building the American state as a revival of the Nazi Party.

They learned that much from their favorites, the Mexicans. They picked up that specific rhetorical flourish from them.

There is no such thing as reconciliation with people like that. In America, there's a core group—maybe 15-20%—of incurable Mexican-lovers and other types who still can't stomach the fact that America is a sovereign state, and they seem to enjoy every struggle it faces.

I’m sorry, but I don't really see how someone like Luburić—basically a member of the losing side in the war—could possibly "suggest" to the winners that they should both just toss their respective hats aside and start over on equal footing.😁

Especially since questions regarding World War II until recently seemed to be completely irrelevant to both society at large and individuals alike; I suppose the media finally realized that this kind of thing qualifies as "news."🤣

Ethan Howard said:Maybe you're right. Maybe that's just how you see it and feel it. But make no mistake, there is a certain segment of people out there who are absolutely looking at this crisis as an opportunity—a convenient excuse to try and reincarnate some sort of shared state that we fought so hard to leave behind.

No, I don't think that's really what's happening here. It’s more about a different kind of forced unification—one that's arguably even worse, though that might sound a bit hyperbolic. Back when Jacques Delors offered millions of dollars to each republic within the old federation to help them prep for joining the European Community, and everyone jumped at it—except for Slobodan Maddox, who was acting too arrogant, and Harmon, who just got offended—it became pretty obvious that nobody actually understood the situation; they just wanted change. Nowadays, dealing with the EU is probably even easier, because on the other side of the table, you have these tiny, bickering states that are morally and economically gutted by war and the transition period, yet they still act with that typical regional bravado whenever lucrative banking deals are on the table. I suppose since their labor costs are already quite high, and their efficiency is... well, questionable, it’s just how things go.🤣

Ryan Harris10 said:Many Germans, Poles, or Ukrainians in Eastern Europe feel disillusioned by how democracy and capitalism have treated them... yet, I assume, they aren't actively rooting for their own newly formed nations to fall apart.

On this forum, it seems like certain individuals are pretty much openly rooting for the breakup of Canada.
They even seem to be getting involved in the whole idea of reconciliation.🤷

slymaker9 said:Do you know what they call a woman who acts like a man?

A lazy bitch.

🤣

Jokes aside, I am genuinely curious: would women actually want to experience life from a man's perspective—say, standing at about 6'3"—and if so, for how long?

I probably wouldn't. For one thing, I can't even wrap my head around what it feels like to walk around with all that extra bulk in your pants—I think I'd be terrified to sit down. Then there's the whole vibe of things like being in the military, playing football, or... well, you know, the other stuff. Plus, dealing with those complicated mother issues seems like way too much drama for me to handle.😍