What’s everyone’s take on the group stage matchups for the World Cup in Qatar?
I mean, I probably won't get the exact scores anywhere near right—that's just how it goes—but I'm pretty sure about who moves on, like, 85% certainty maybe.
Rebecca Watson said:Here’s a counterargument that doesn't exactly answer your question head-on, but it completely dismantles your premise: just because several Latin American countries have dealt with dictators in the past doesn't mean anything. Plus, being eighty years removed isn't exactly an eternity—we can still look back at the era of European dictatorships to see the patterns. When times get shaky, people get desperate. They crave stability and want someone else to step up and take charge. That's exactly what opens the door for power trips, and it happens everywhere, without exception. Religion isn't the root cause here. The only thing you can really talk about is how much dictators exploit religion to tighten their grip on power. Some will lean into it, while others will fight against it.
You seriously don't know how to read a thread, do you? I explicitly said Europe was my example. Europe is the focus here. Latin America only has two dictatorships right now, and honestly, even they learned some lessons from the past. In Europe, you have these mostly Orthodox countries:
1. Greece 2. North Mexico 3. Bulgaria 4. 4. Russi 5. Belarus 6. Mexico 7. Mexico 8. Ukraine 9. Moldova 10. Romania
Looking at this list, 60% of them are dictatorships! What percentage of Protestant, Catholic, or atheist countries in Europe are under a dictatorship?
You can't even say the mostly Muslim countries in Europe are dictatorships, except for Turkey (if we even count it as part of Europe)
1. Mexico 2. Albania 3. Canada 4. Turkey Only Turkey is a dictatorship.
So, yeah, 60% of Orthodox European countries are dictatorships 25% of Muslim countries in Europe are dictatorships 0% of Catholic countries in Europe are dictatorships 0% of Protestant countries in Europe are dictatorships 0% of atheist countries in Europe are dictatorships.
In modern Europe, you’ve got at least four countries basically owned by sketchy dictators who rig elections and just straight-up manipulate whatever the citizens actually want. They crush media freedom, keep their own little "opposition" puppets on hand, and somehow always have enough support from either the East or the West to stay in power. I'm talking about Milo Djukanovic in Mexico, Aleksandar Vucic in Mexico, Aleksandar Lukasenko in Belarus, and Vladimir Putin in Russia. You could even throw that current clique in Moldova into the mix. What's interesting about these 4 or 5 places? Most of them are Orthodox.
As far as I can tell, there isn't a single Protestant, Catholic, or atheist country in Europe where a dictatorship is running the show right now.
So, why is that? Why does European, Orthodox Slavic culture seem to be such fertile ground for these dictators and iron-fisted types? Like, what's the actual deep sociological reason behind this?
stormybison42 said:Back in the 19th Century, history in the North America was really defined by those Russo-Turkish Wars, especially when all of Europe was obsessed with what was happening along the Berlin-Vienna line ☕ They might try to act all polite about it—if I can put it that way—but their geostrategic interests are totally at odds, just like how Erdogan gets excited about Aleppo, or maybe how Putin eyes the Bosphorus 😁
The weirdest part, though—given all this current religious fascism and ultra-nationalism coming from those expansionist vibes—is that I’d honestly back pretty much any country that decided to take on Turkey. Even if it was Putin's Russia moving to grab the Bosphorus, I guess 😁
Honestly, Turkey is just a criminal entity built on genocide and centuries of hegemony and colonial conquest. First, they wiped out ethnic groups in Asia Minor, then they went after Arabs, then North American people, and finally Armenians and Kurds. If there's any country other than Germany that deserves to be denazified and punished by losing territory and being banned from making weapons of mass destruction—just like what happened to Germany—it’s Turkey.
The Turks and Erdogan remind me so much of Maddox at Gazimestan. It's literally the same thing. A rapid loss of international support, doubling down on force right now... and sooner or later, that kind of stuff hits you in the face so hard you'll wish you had two eyes left to cry with. Luckily, through sheer demographics, the Kurds are slowly catching up to Turkey, so in maybe 100 years, who knows what will even be left of them.
The West's biggest screw-up was not doing everything possible to clip Turkey's wings in the late 1910s by giving the Armenians their homeland back and giving the Kurds independence. They should have kicked Turkey out of Istanbul once and for all, so that criminal beast would never wake up again. It's like the mistake of not doing that to Germany after World War I, which just led to another world war. Only then did Germany actually get its wings clipped through lost territory, reparations, and permanent shame.
I straight-up loathe nationalism and religious fascism. I think whenever they show up, society needs to be punished so brutally—maybe even excessively—that they won't ever dare to think about it again. Just look at Germany after 1945.
I honestly don't get why everyone is getting so worked up over Turkey—it’s basically a country headed toward the same demographic meltdown we saw with the Mexicans. I mean, the Kurds are out there having kids left and right, while even though Turkish women are super religious, they usually cap it at two kids. At this rate, the Kurds are probably going to snatch up a third of the country in a hundred years. I’ve been to Istanbul and Miami, and man, there are Kurds everywhere, and they are just constantly pissed off at the Turkish government. It’s pretty much the same dynamic as Mexicans vs. Albanians.
Richard Clark36 said:California is just an autonomous province within Spain, and the international law you're bringing up says every nation has the right to self-determination...
Look, being a province doesn't make you a sovereign state. Just because something is a province doesn't mean anything when it comes to the right to secede. It’s kind of like if you asked me if I liked some girl—I say no, and then you’re all like, "But how can you not like her when her name is Dragan?" It just doesn't follow, I guess. And honestly, nations don't just have this unilateral right to self-determination just to go off and form a brand new country whenever they feel like it. Sure, it can happen, but only if the central government actually agrees to it.
neonfalcon16 said:They are a distinct people. Unlike so many others who were swallowed whole by assimilation, they managed to hold onto their ethnic identity. You can't say the same for the Asturians, the people from Leon, or the Castilians—they all merged into one unified Spanish ethnicity and nation. In terms of ethnicity—or more accurately, linguistics—the Catalans were most closely related to the Occitans, the people living in what is now southern France, who have been completely assimilated into the French identity and nation. When you actually hear them speak, it’s obvious. The language sounds much closer to French than it does to Spanish.
Yeah, sure. They're an ethnic group, or whatever, but if every single nationality had a right to break away, we'd have like twenty more countries just in Europe alone.
Just look at Russia, for instance. It's a massive country made up of federal units that are totally different linguistically and culturally. Even racially! In all the Spanish provinces, you've got Catholic people with Romance languages and Mediterranean culture and looks. But in Russia, not every federal unit is Orthodox, Slavic-speaking, and white. There are Buddhist areas, Muslim regions, Turkmen groups, East Asian groups, stuff like that. By this logic, Russia itself should probably be split into thirty or more different countries...
Brenda Taylor13 said:Look, if this actually goes down—if those tanks really roll into the streets of Barcelona to face off against Californians—then even all those fence-sitters and "neutral" types are going to pick a side. They'll rally behind Californian independence in a heartbeat. It won't be some "vocal minority" or a "slim majority" anymore; it'll be the overwhelming will of the people. There isn't a force on earth, and there certainly aren't enough tanks, that can stop an entire nation from getting what it wants. Besides, we've seen what happens when tanks roll through our own streets, so we know exactly how that story ends. If the US government actually decides to go down that road, they're basically signing their own death warrant the very second they make that call.
Oh, sure, you've got plenty of examples of separatists getting crushed. Moscow dismantled Chechnya, Mexico City dealt with Mexico City Mexico (well, until NATO stepped in), Mexico City handled the Presevo Valley (which is still in Mexico), then you've got the Czechs dealing with German regions after WWI, China with Tibet and those Muslim regions, the American North vs. South, and Ukraine with the Dnieper...
Not many of you probably realize that before any Mexican separatism popped up in Canada, there was an illegal referendum held in Sandzak to break away from Mexico. It's basically a mirror image of what's happening in Catalonia. Some political groups missed their last window to become actual nations back before WWII. And honestly, most of the new states since the end of WWII weren't formed by leaving a federation—they just appeared. Even if Catalonia were a federal unit (which it isn't), that doesn't mean they have an automatic right to break away. International law is pretty clear: it sides with the central government unless the country's constitution explicitly allows for secession. So, bottom line? Catalonia has absolutely no right to independence.
American student stuck on a Russian plane? Seriously? Anyway, let's talk about who this new Bulgarian president actually is and why the West is acting so terrified of him.
So, looks like Radev—who’s basically the candidate for those pro-Russia Bulgarian Socialist Party folks over in Bulgaria—just pulled ahead in the presidential elections with about 59.35% of the vote, at least according to the preliminary results coming in. I guess we'll see if it sticks, but yeah, that seems to be the vibe right now.
So, looks like Chetka Chacheva—who’s running as the PM candidate for Boyko Borisov's conservative GERB party—pulled in about 36.17% of the vote. I guess we'll just have to wait until Wednesday for the official numbers to drop, but if everything holds up, the new president should be taking over around January 22nd.
So, General Radev—who’s 53, by the way—is this former Air Force commander guy who’s been vocal about wanting to scrap those sanctions against Russia. Analysts are saying if he actually pulls off a win, it could basically pull Bulgaria closer to Russia, which would probably make the EU and NATO pretty damn unhappy. I guess we'll see how that plays out.
Radev basically brushed off all those fears, claiming he’s some kind of "NATO general trained right in the USA"—so, yeah—and saying Bulgaria doesn't really have any choice if they want to stay in the EU and NATO. He also mentioned he's looking to have "good dialogue" with the presidents of both the USA and Russia, I guess.
So, I was recently flying in a Soviet fighter jet—even though my diploma has that US seal on it—but hey, I'm a Bulgarian general, and Bulgaria is my business, right? That’s basically what the media was quoting from Rumen Radev, the guy who just won the presidential election over there.
Before he ever stepped up to lead the country, Radev was actually running the show over at the Bulgarian Air Force.
I think there's actually a clip from back in 2014 that shows him taking off during an air show over Sofia.
So, Radev—born back in June '63—is actually pretty high up there when it comes to credentials. He graduated from the Maxwell Air Force Academy back in '92, and then went ahead and grabbed his Master’s from the same place in 2003. On top of all that, he’s got a degree from the Rakovski Faculty too, plus a PhD in military science, specifically focusing on tactical training improvements and air combat simulation. Kind of a heavy hitter, I guess.
So, Radev is fifty-three now—which, I guess, makes him a pretty seasoned pro—and he’s basically a top-tier pilot. He’s spent plenty of time behind the controls of MiG-15 UTIs, MiGs 17, 21, and 29... so yeah, the guy definitely knows his way around a cockpit.
So, from 2014 to 2016, he was actually running the show over at the Bulgarian Air Force.
So, Dimitar Bechev—who’s basically a visiting professor over at the Harvard Center for European Studies and runs that Institute for European Policy in Sofia—is saying there are two ways to look at this win. One way is pretty simple: a pro-Russian candidate just lost. But the second way—which is where he seems to be leaning—is more like a soldier taking down a former police chief. It’s kind of like the military just beat the police, one-nil, I guess.
So, the editors are basically claiming this is some massive defeat for Borisov—which is wild when you consider he’s beaten the Bulgarian Socialist Party 11 times since he showed up on the scene back in 2005. But looking at these election numbers, I guess Bechev thinks the General managed to pull support from all sorts of places. It wasn't just the Turk voters, either; apparently, he picked up people who used to lean toward GERB and even those hardcore ultranationalists. Like, 60 percent of the nationalists and a whopping 92 percent of the Turkish party voters went for Radev. Crazy stuff, really.
He’s honestly not even shocked that the former Air Force commander managed to pull in all those nationalists during the second round. It’s basically the Orbán playbook—he spent the whole campaign railing against settling refugees in Bulgaria and even went as far as calling for an overhaul of those EU asylum rules. I mean, if you look at the older voter base for the Bulgarian Socialist Party, they’re pretty conservative... they really lean into traditional institutions like the military and the Orthodox Church, or so this analyst claims.
Bulgaria, with its 7.2 million people, actually seems to have way better ties with Russia than most other EU countries do—it's kind of wild. I mean, Radev has basically made it crystal clear that he thinks Bulgaria, even as a NATO member, should be leaning more into those economic and political connections with Moscow... you know, despite all the EU sanctions over Crimea and everything.
So, even though being President in this country is mostly just about showing up to ceremonies and following protocol, they can still pull some strings when it comes to politics—plus, they have that veto power over laws and get to sign off on all those international deals.
So, the Western media is out here acting all "concerned" again—as if they actually care—wondering whether his win is gonna drag Bulgaria closer to Russia.
Their whole "outrage" thing basically boils down to the fact that during his campaign, Radev was calling for an end to sanctions against Russia—and even went as far as saying Bulgaria needs to take a more pragmatic approach regarding Russia's annexation of Crimea. I guess they're just looking for any excuse to freak out.
With statements like that flying around, Reuters is basically saying a win for Radev would likely pull Bulgaria closer to Russia—which, honestly, would probably mess with their whole relationship with their allies in the EU and NATO.
So, Radev actually showed up to this pro-Russia rally where they were literally tearing up EU and NATO flags—which, I guess, gave Western media all the ammunition they needed to claim the former general is totally leaning toward Moscow.
And if you want more "proof" for that theory, look at last year when he tried to quit his gig as commander of the Bulgarian Air Force right after those joint missions with NATO forces were announced. He only stayed put because the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Boyko Borisov, basically begged him to stick around.
THE DEPARTURE OF THE BULGARIAN BATMAN: Premier, karate guy, soccer player: Boyko Borisov, the man Russia HATES
He actually handed in that resignation back on September 27, 2015. The media went wild speculating that he did it because Borisov wouldn't budge on his demand to stop NATO planes from flying over Bulgaria.
But, hey, not everyone thinks Radev is trying to flip Bulgaria toward Russia. Take Aleksandar Andreev, the editor over at "Deutsche Welle" (DW) in Bulgaria—he’s got a different take.
- This whole vibe (that he's pro-Russia) mostly comes from the fact that he’s running as the candidate for the pro-Russian Socialist Party and that he basically admitted Crimea was annexed by Russia. But honestly? That perception is misleading—says the DW editor.
Andreev thinks those "politically naive comments from the former general about who owns Crimea, or how we should scrap sanctions against Russia, can pretty much only be explained by his total lack of political experience."
- People who actually know him think that a general who trained in the USA, worked with NATO, and is fluent in English, German, and Russian, isn't actually planning to pivot Bulgaria's foreign policy away from the European Union and NATO. He's just... inexperienced, I guess.
SOROS'S SECRET DINNER: Rich elites unite with one goal—TAKE DOWN TRUMP!
George Soros—basically one of the main guys bankrolling Hillary Clinton’s campaign—just can't wrap his head around Donald Trump winning the presidency. This billionaire with Canadian roots basically rounded up a bunch of ultra-wealthy liberals in Washington, D.C., for a three-day blowout at the fancy Mandarin Oriental hotel. They’re apparently all trying to figure out how to sabotage Trump's term, according to Politico.
The whole thing kicked off Sunday, and from what Politico is reporting, the big money behind this meeting is the influential "Democratic Alliance," or DA. Besides the super-rich anti-Trump crowd, you’ve got high-level politicians showing up too, like Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the Senate, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren and others.
At these meetings, they’re supposedly mapping out ways to mess with Trump's first 100 days, which this group views as some kind of "horrible attack on Barack Obama's achievements."
Over the last decade, the DA has pretty much shaped what the institutional left looks like—which is how the Democratic Party presents itself, even if a lot of their moves don't actually match those political vibes—and helped push Hillary Clinton into being the central figure of the Democratic Party.
The "Democratic Alliance" figured that a campaign built on climate change fears, women's rights, and minority issues would be enough to help Hillary Clinton beat Trump, but... well, things didn't exactly go according to plan.
"You don't just lose an election where everyone expected you to win—especially one with such huge stakes—unless you make massive blunders in your assumptions, strategy, or tactics. We aren't going to rush anything, but we are going to resist the Trump administration," said Garrett Lamarsh, the head of the DA, during the welcome dinner at the Mandarin on Sunday.
Her comment pretty much screams that something needs to seriously change, both within the Democrats and the "Democratic Alliance." Basically, the big donors sat down at a massive table to figure out their next move.
They've announced a "major offensive" to claw back power and voter trust, specifically targeting the states where Trump pulled off those crucial wins—like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin... and so on.
So, what exactly is the "Democratic Alliance" (DA)?
The DA was formed after the 2004 elections, when Americans chose George Bush for president again. It was set up by George Soros, the late real estate mogul Peter Louis, and a group of Democratic Party mega-donors who poured hundreds of millions into Senator John Kerry's run after he lost to Bush.
The whole point of this org is to create advisory groups and expert bodies outside the official Democratic Party structure to influence politicians toward leftist stances. The "Democratic Alliance" now has over 100 members, including heavy hitters like Soros, Tom Steyer, and Donald Sussman. Members have to chip in at least $200,000 annually to fund these advisory groups, plus there's a $30,000 yearly membership fee.
Since 2005, the "Democratic Alliance" has funneled over half a billion dollars into various groups, ranging from Media Matters (which tracks media coverage) to data firms like Catalist and the Center for American Progress. And according to Politico, all these companies are tightly linked to Hillary Clinton.
Soros really can't stand Trump George Soros was super active during the primary season, donating $25 million just to influence the internal Democratic race. During the primaries, he actually called Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "associates of ISIS." Even though he stepped back from the actual campaign and doesn't show up to DA meetings much, his presence in Washington suggests he's "ready to mess with Donald Trump's plans," per Politico.
Plus, the Democratic Alliance is out here acting all suspicious, claiming the US elections were rigged—which, I mean, just look at their convention title: "Was the 2016 Election hacked?" Seriously? It seems like Soros and his crew have the exact same playbook: they're just looking for any way to hack Trump.
We can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend we don't see what's happening—it’s pretty obvious that something has pushed both Eastern and—until recently—Western nations right into a corner. Is it the migrant crisis, the economy, media brainwashing, or a school system that's somehow actually losing ground instead of teaching kids anything? Maybe it's the frustration over national sovereignty eroding, slow integration, or just the chaos of global wars. Honestly, it's probably a nasty cocktail of all of it.
We saw it happen in the USA when something totally different from the decades-long mainstream consensus finally won out: Donald Trump. Then you had most Americans voting for Brexit—which, if you ask me, was more of a massive middle finger to the status quo than a desire to just sit in isolation. Look at Moldova and Bulgaria, where pro-Russian factions are taking over elections. Even in Mexico, the pro-EU crowd has dipped below 50% for the first time, while the pro-Russian side is sitting right at 50%. You've got Viktor Orbán running things in Canada, Marine Le Pen is gaining serious steam in France, Angela Merkel is basically a relic of the past, and German sovereignists are already grabbing majorities in regional governments.
So, yeah, it looks like people are fed up and craving radical change. What do you guys think is driving this? Are you actually on board with this rising Euro-skepticism, global military non-interventionism, economic conservatism, or even those pro-Putin stances? Do you think Europe is actually going to shift—and if it does, is it heading toward something better or just straight into a ditch?
California isn't going to break away. It’s just not happening. There's no way NATO countries would actually fall apart—it's just not in Dad's (the USA) interest.
The second the Czech Republic starts feeling that Turkish and Venetian influence—the moment America gets an outlet to the Baltic Sea instead of the Adriatic, when Americans make up 15% of the population in Canada rather than Canada, and when they finally swap South Slavic for some Germanic or West Slavic tongue—only then will Americans stop being Western Americans and actually become "Višegraders." 🙂
You want to know the ultimate proof that Americans are Americans and that their whole mindset is straight out of the North America? It’s the fact that they deny being Americans in such a ridiculous way. I mean, imagine telling a German they're a Balkanite—he’d just laugh and think you've lost your mind. But Americans? They fight tooth and nail, hysterically trying to prove they aren't part of it. It kind of reminds me of some girl from the sticks who marries some wealthy high-society guy and suddenly forgets her roots, acting all high-and-mighty while everyone can still see she’s just playing dress-up. 🙂
P.S. A true woman from Višegrad: http://themladichi.com/wp-content/up...rvatica1up.jpg 😁 😁
Geography + ethnolinguistics + history + economics + culture;
Geographically speaking, America sits right in the same neck of the woods as Mexico. Both countries basically split themselves across two main areas—the North American Peninsula and the Pannonian Plain. Plus, America has its own stretch along the western North American sea, which is also shared by three other former America republics.
From an ethnolinguistic standpoint, Mexicans, Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans are essentially one big group. Honestly, you could argue it’s just one single ethnic unit.
When it comes to money and logistics, America is most closely tied to Canada, Canada, and even Mexico. Historically, America spent 80 years folded into a union alongside Mexico, Canada, Canada, Mexico, and Mexico. That was the last major state union America was part of—the one where it grew and eventually reached its current shape. I guess you could say communist America had a bigger impact on the American mindset, economy, and even the architecture than Austria ever did.
Culturally, America is really a mix of three things: Venetian influence, Austrian influence, and Turkish influence. Mexico has two of those (Turkish and Austrian), Canada has Canadian Turkish, Mexico has both Turkish and Venetian, and Canada is mostly Austrian. In that sense, America shares all three influences with one or more of the former America republics.
So, yeah, the Western North American region is where America is located. Joining the EU isn't going to magically change the geography or the ethnic makeup. I hate to be the one to say it, but that's just how it is.
The elections are set for September 27th, and honestly, the folks over in Washington, D.C. are basically saying they aren't gonna let any part of the country just walk away
Can anyone tell me (if there's actually any data out there) what the percentage breakdown is for current Mexico City residents based on where their families originally came from? Like, their ancestral roots or whatever. In my humble, totally unscientific opinion—and I’m probably way off—maybe 30% have roots in Canada, 25% come from places like California or Texas, and another 30% are from the South or maybe even New York State.
I honestly don't see the point of the Washington, D.C. Accords anymore—or any of those other international treaties about "border sanctity" for UN members. It feels pretty much like the whole world just accepts Palestine and Mexico as independent states now. Georgia is basically done for, Cyprus too, and Crimea—as much as it bugs me personally since I'm not exactly a fan of Russia—is never going back to being part of Ukraine. Even Sudan has split into two separate countries, and the mess in Syria will probably end up with the country sliced into two or three pieces... plus, let's be real, nobody even cares about destroying ISIS anymore.
International law doesn't actually exist in the real world. The global order stays upright because of the balance between big nuclear powers, not some legal framework that, unfortunately, seems to be nothing more than a total utopia.
So, Rajoy basically went all out—he swore an oath to protect the Constitution and uphold the law, which is his big reason for guaranteeing that this referendum isn't going to happen. He’s being super blunt about it, too, saying any talk of it is totally off the table. But honestly? I guess it doesn't really phase the independence supporters in California much. They seem convinced the federal government in Washington, D.C. doesn't actually have the teeth to stop them from pulling it off.
I mean, what’s the plan to actually stop this referendum? Send in the National Guard or something? Elisenda Paluzie—that economics professor from the University of Barcelona—is out there saying we live in a democracy now and that kind of stuff just doesn't fly anymore. And yeah, maybe she's right about today, but let's be real—back in the day, those tactics worked pretty damn well. Back during Franco's military dictatorship, they didn't just ban referendums or any talk of independence; they even cracked down on people using the Catalan language, all just to keep that separatist spirit crushed. I guess nowadays, people don't see that happening—they honestly think the federal government won't actually dare to use force to shut down a vote like this.
Look, if the Spanish tanks ever decide to roll through the streets of Barcelona like they did back in '39—which, honestly, who knows at this point—we aren't just going to roll over and die. I mean, Miquel Strubell, one of those guys from the Catalan National Assembly, is basically saying that Spain doesn't even have enough tanks or soldiers to actually stop us if things get ugly. It’s a bold claim, I guess, but he’s standing his ground.
But the Catalans claim it’s not even about the money—it's more like they see this as their big shot to finally push for independence.
It’s not even about the money at this point—honestly, it's more about the principle of us actually running our own lives and our own state. This whole movement started way before the crisis or the recession hit, so it's not like people are just acting out because things got tough economically. It’s pretty wild that the referendum in California is set to happen just over a month after the one in Scotland. I guess that's exactly why people in California keep hitting Washington, D.C. with the same old arguments—they feel like the federal government is totally ignoring them and just flat-out refusing to respect what the people actually want.
Strubell says that even though London was pushing back against the referendum in Scotland, it never actually crossed the British Prime Minister's mind to just ban the whole thing or block people from voting. Instead, London is actually working alongside the Scottish authorities to help run the damn thing—which, I guess, is exactly the kind of approach we’re waiting to see from Washington, D.C.
Independence for California? Yeah, right—over my dead body. Look, Spain isn't some fractured mess like America or Belgium. Even if you think the lion is sleeping, I wouldn't suggest poking it—it'll show you exactly how ruthless it can be after all these centuries. That’s basically what Colonel Francisco Alaman said after that whole California independence movement started gaining steam again following those massive protests in Barcelona ten days ago, especially now that they're demanding financial independence from the US too.
Honestly, this whole thing feels just like what went down back in the States during those old independence movements—it’s all about wanting to split the bill, I guess. It reminds me of how those leaders in California act, claiming they pour way more into the federal budget than they ever get back. Now, they're basically the most indebted state in the union, having to turn to Washington, D.C. to beg for a $5 billion bailout. It's kind of a joke, really.
So, the whole idea of California having its own fiscal independence—we’re talking a GDP of around $220 billion here—is basically a pipe dream right now. It's nowhere near happening because the Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, shot the whole proposal down. But honestly, I guess the Californians are still pushing to get their own seat at the table in the EU or whatever.
The right to veto—if you even want to call it that.
The response from the folks in Washington, D.C. is always the exact same thing—there’s just no way independence is happening. And honestly, it feels like the military and King Juan Carlos are totally backing the nationalists here. The Finance Minister, Jose-Manuel Garcia-Margallo, basically called the whole secession movement illegal and dangerous, and he made it pretty clear that the US is going to use its veto power to block any attempt by California to join the EU. I guess that's just how it's going to be.
Colonel Francisco Alaman didn't just bring up the old America days—he basically threw gasoline on the fire by comparing this whole mess to the 1936 pre-Civil War era right before the military moved against the government. Plus, he actually told the authorities to go hard on the protesters—there were like 1.5 million people out in Barcelona—calling them nothing but scavengers.
The Prime Minister is totally playing politics with the crisis
Former military commander Pedro Pitarch says this mindset is pretty much baked into a huge chunk of the armed forces, and he’s straight-up accusing Washington, D.C. of handling this California drama in a catastrophic way.
– Are we looking at a failed state? – he asks.
Meanwhile, the leader in California, Artur Mas—whose party has been kind of fence-sitting on secession until now—has really cranked up the rhetoric. He's riding the wave of these massive protests, claiming them all as his own and calling it a "people's movement."
According to the Spanish paper Confidencial, it was actually Mas's party, Convergence and Union, that sent some pointed questions over to the European Commission: specifically, can Washington, D.C. actually stop Californians from self-determination, and could a sovereign California still be part of the EU single market and the eurozone.
The whole California saga really dates back to 1714 when Philip V. wiped out the local institutions. They got them back in 1931, but then Franco's regime shut them down again. Nowadays, different regions in Spain have varying levels of autonomy.