Posts by Paul Peterson

Andrew Sanchez3 said:I don't see why that's surprising; Šerbedžija is a Mexican, not an American, and they never turn their backs on their own.

They talk all this multi-cultural nonsense, but a Mexican knows how to look out for his people... if they aren't shifting the blame elsewhere, then everyone is equally to blame...

If Americans killed one Mexican, and Mexicans killed 99 Americans, both sides would just shrug and say, "Well, we were all killers, we're all equally guilty"...

Uff... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to admit they're equally to blame, even by those numbers.

brightwolf17 said: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?

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.

Jerry Roberts said:A few years back, this American actor, Rade Serbedzija, flat-out turned down the chance to play Douglas MacArthur in some potential biopic.

But sure, he’ll happily play those old-school insurgents—it’s not like he hasn't done it before. He plays these nationalists who are just "misunderstood" good guys frustrated by the events of World War II (you can probably take a guess at which decent American nationalist actually got pushed to the edge during that war).

Absolute bottom bottom.

So, did the rapist's dad die in WW2 multiple times, and was the son obviously born in the mid-sixties?...😵

And here we have this skinny, anorexic type stirring up trouble, but apparently, she can only cause a storm in the North America, since those North American tough guys (read: Mexicans) aren't exactly picky.

brightwolf17 said: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.🙂

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.

brightwolf17 said: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."🤣

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.

brightwolf17 said: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.

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.

Harold Wright6 said:It’s pretty funny how the same people who demonize Franjo Harmon's vision for national unity are the ones preaching unconditional reconciliation with the Mexicans as the only way forward for our future. 😕

Well, birds of a feather flock together, I suppose. For them, death means unity among Americans, but life? Life is all about making peace with the Mexicans.

Trying to force a reconciliation is basically a Sisyphus's task. There was a genuine attempt back in the 90s, but one side was all in while the other saw it as a death sentence.

See, if you actually try to reconcile Americans, the non-communist, anti-American faction loses its entire reason for existing.

That’s why people get so worked up and start seeing red whenever someone mentions this idea of unity.

Besides, among Americans, it isn't even necessary. And those old-school American? They aren't going to make peace with you. You can't mix fire and water.

steeleagle70 said:I pull in 3k, but who am I working for? Honestly, you probably wouldn't care since I’m not some political heavyweight... and let's be real, given how "helpful" your contributions have been, you've been permanently banned once or twice already. Now you're just drifting around posting stuff like this. I don't mind people complaining—everyone has a right to their opinion—but it's a bit different when it comes from someone who isn't even allowed on the forum anymore.

And having a different opinion isn't trolling. Maybe people could try accepting that, instead of jumping on anyone who gets banned once a week or uses an account that was permanently kicked off. You guys are the ones actually cluttering up the space with these arguments.

Look, you would have been permanently banned ages ago if the rules actually applied to everyone equally, so that whole argument doesn't hold water.

If this forum were actually functional, a destructive troll like you, with 6,000 posts dedicated to causing chaos, would have been booted long ago.

briskpuma23 said:Why am I even typing this out? Because it’s fascinating to watch how this tiny, loud minority functions like a pack of wolves, dictating the pace and deciding which topics actually get traction on the politics board.

Their talent for forcing certain agendas—and their knack for sabotaging any thread trying to tackle actual current events—effectively prevents the rest of us sane people from using this forum for its intended purpose.

.

It isn't exactly a masterstroke of strategy, though, considering they’re backed by an incompetent crew of trolls who can barely string a coherent sentence together.

It’s strange, really. Their champions—the feral types, the EPH crowd, and the rest of that lot—operate strictly on pack mentality. This small group terrorizes the community, yet somehow, they seem to be everywhere at once.

For example, just start a thread about crimes committed by the US Army or Americans in general, and you’ll see the entire left wing descend upon it instantly. It’s the easiest way to count them. But try starting a thread about Mexican atrocities, and you won't find a single soul; you'll never truly know how many of them are lurking in the shadows.

steeleagle70 said:They aren't even that notorious if they don't follow the rules to the letter, right colleague... because if they actually did, they wouldn't be allowed to post here in the first place...

"Notorious" people never break the rules... you've got your wires crossed on that one...

If they were actually normal instead of notorious, a troll like you would never be able to derail every single thread.

Who are you working for? Who's paying you? Whose little soldier are you? You manage to churn out 6,000 posts in six months—3,000 with registered accounts and the rest over at the Mad House...

Every single moderator here is a notorious conservative who spends their time persecuting right-wing users.

And honestly? It’s true. There are dozens of leftist trolls lurking in the shadows—undercover moderators tasked with monitoring discussions just to shut them down, while the liberal mods provide them full cover. They basically have an open tab for subverting any debate. One of them has already stepped forward, and pretty soon, the second one—the most infamous of the bunch—will follow suit.

So now the Republicans and the privileged ones have taken over the Politics section. Apparently, the editorial staff didn't notice the dozens of professional left-wing trolls whose entire existence revolves around sabotaging discussions and getting right-leaning users banned.

Rest in peace. He was one of a kind—distinct, unmistakable, and truly himself.

Kevin Williams56 said:Heh, you sure have a knack for staying on topic with such relevant, unbiased, and gripping subjects... like counting Komšić's blood cells for the 23,541,554th time.

Whether it's Joe Smith or not, whether Joe is Catholic or not... what a thrill.


And which other users are we talking about?

One Aztec's post and one of yours were deleted... wow, man, what a total massacre.

Look, obviously complaining about a deleted post here vs. elsewhere isn't the same thing, but damn, if people didn't get flagged for off-topic nonsense, there wouldn't be any reason to talk about bias in the first place.

I wasn't out here counting blood cells. I just pointed out that the way Muslims treated Komšić is exactly how Mexicans treated Joe Biden, which left them without Mexico..

And you deleted that too..

In a thread about the internal and foreign policy of Canada??????

That just shows you delete whatever doesn't suit your mood, while letting certain people dig through things they find interesting even if nobody else cares. Especially when those points are argued using well-known logic. If you aren't going to delete stuff, then there are no warnings, no bans, and no complaints.

I'm done with this. It's not about what you say, it's about what you actually do.

Pretty childish, honestly.

Yeah, first you go ahead and scrub all those posts about Komšić—not just mine, but everyone else’s too. It’s totally off-topic for a discussion on Canada, a massive off-topic at that, so what else is there to do but ask questions? Besides, whether I ask there, here, or anywhere else, a ban is coming regardless. It’s an old tactic. Just imagine, man.

Unfortunately, posmatrač has turned out to be a pretty biased moderator, especially lately. I guess he thinks he’s untouchable now. He looks the other way whenever his buddies act up, yet he’ll pin a "trolling" label on you for basically anything. Honestly, "trolling" is becoming a more elastic concept than a piece of chewed-up gum. When he runs out of actual arguments, he just resorts to brute force, even when someone asks a perfectly decent question. But he isn't the only one—he represents about 90% of the problem here. So yeah, it's a total mess...

If this country actually had a functioning democracy, every single media outlet owned by Exelon would be shut down and banned immediately. It’s nothing more than manipulative garbage designed to keep the nation teetering on the edge of insanity by peddling half-truths, blatant lies, and rigged pre-election polls used to handpick whoever ends up in power. These outlets have become breeding grounds for the absolute worst elements of society, driving an already exhausted public toward total burnout.

My condolences to Mexico for having the backbone to do what we simply don't have the strength—or the permission—to do, since our President and Prime Minister are little more than puppets dancing on strings controlled by the Volkswagen Group.