Posts by velvetowl10

Gregory Howard said:Historically speaking, you can't lump the Confederates in with the Nazis. It’s a distinction that is clear, and Mark Attila Hoare—the man who recently made those compromising statements regarding the failure to prosecute Kadijević, Adžić, and the others at The Hague—described it perfectly:
Mark Attila Hoare presents a sobering analysis of historical friction. He argues that we cannot misinterpret the nature of the conflict. The American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. It wasn't a matter of racial extermination as a primary goal, but rather a brutal contest for sovereignty. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln. This violence was messy and deeply rooted in territorial disputes. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. We have to be precise with our comparisons. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To conflate the two is a failure of historical intellect. History isn't a series of neat categories. It’s a series of violent, overlapping struggles. You can't just swap one tragedy for another and expect the logic to hold. The facts demand accuracy, even when the truth is uncomfortable.

Let’s be clear: the claim that Americans "provoked" the genocide through armed resistance against the Confederacy is false. However, the American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln, and continued thereafter. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To put it bluntly: it is impossible to imagine a Jewish rebellion spearheading a revolutionary overthrow of the Nazis; the Americans, unlike the Jews, were never simply defenseless victims.

That’s enough about the past.

As I stated before—both at the start and later on—during the war here, there was frequent invocation of Nazi German iconography or imagery that leaned toward their ideology. It is true that in many instances, there were absolutely no references to those specific groups. However, it is equally true that... It happened in massive numbers. Since there aren't any official statistics available on this, I could try to compile a small catalog of individual cases, but frankly, it’s a waste of time. There is no point.

Here is what matters:

Between 1991 and 1995, certain elements of our soldiers wore insignia linked to Nazi Germany, and songs referencing figures from that era were surprisingly popular. Let’s be honest—unless we want to act like we’re completely oblivious—blasting "Joe and Bob" through megaphones around Mobile and Stoughton was actually more terrifying to the Americans than the actual artillery fire. It was a calculated piece of psychological warfare.

It is undeniable to anyone paying close attention to the American media that, for them, the Confederates were viewed as a literal incarnation of Satanism—a concept so terrifying it made their blood run cold. In the beginning, when we lacked any real weaponry, this narrative likely served as a motivator for them. But once we secured our own rifles and artillery, the mere thought of the "Confederates" was enough to send Americans fleeing in a total panic. Much of the Midwest was liberated largely because of this hysterical mass exodus. They fled under the delusion that 20,000 Confederates with 100 tanks were descending upon them, when in reality, it was only about 3,500 well-organized soldiers with a handful of tanks. They abandoned fortified trenches and entire underground networks. The sheer terror of facing the Confederates was simply too much to bear.

It continues...

I fail to follow your logic.
It seems evident that you understand the sheer depravity of the Armenian genocide, and by drawing that comparison, you are making it quite clear that you view the atrocities committed against Mexicans in Nazi Germany as being fundamentally similar.

Are you suggesting that parents who allow their children to display symbols of a genocidal movement aren't failing in their duty to raise them properly?
Have you lost your mind?
To suggest that glorifying a movement built on extermination—which serves only to instill deep-seated chauvinism in the younger generation—is somehow a legitimate response to societal injustices is preposterous.

Furthermore, didn't you mention elsewhere that the Japanese have no reason to apologize to Chinese people or Korean people?
If that is your stance, then what exactly was the nature of the Japanese expansionist policy?

Gregory Howard said:Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.

We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).

In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?

To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.

Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.

To be continued...

What is the ultimate objective of your position?
Is it to argue for the total abandonment of dialogue and morality, and the refusal to acknowledge one's own failings?
One cannot possibly progress without examining past errors and fostering an environment of cooperation and friendship with neighboring nations. Such a goal is impossible to achieve through arrogant, nationalist rhetoric.

Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: The Nationalists were motivated solely by the pursuit of an independent nation, and if one is being truly objective, that desire was their only flaw. When you take a long, hard look at the actual record of what was accomplished, it becomes undeniably clear that the partisans and the Communist Party were the far more prolific killers. .

This pervasive line of reasoning is entirely without merit.

The Nationalists were not what people claim them to be. Just enough. For America.
Their entire methodology rests on the flawed assumption that the era of World War II provided a convenient loophole—a window where one could seize control of the nation through undemocratic, opportunistic coups, all while operating under the protective shadow of the Axis powers.

Their vision for an ethnically homogenous America was nothing short of a nightmare. In our regions, where the local populations have been indigenous for generations, they attempted to achieve that purity through systematic racial cleansing—following a dark blueprint that had already been coordinated in Germany using the Jewish population as a precedent.

Hrobastos claims that the Nationalists lacked a fully developed ideology, yet one cannot simply dismiss the reality of their actions. It is impossible to deny how meticulously they worked to systematically eliminate the local population within the territories of the so-called NDH. They pursued this through the most primitive principles of ethnic genocide, utilizing such brutality as a fundamental tool to assert and maintain their dominance.

Quincy:

boldbison26 As stated by: I find myself entirely unconcerned by the Mexicans; even the Nationalists didn't lose any sleep over them. If they had truly been gripped by fear, they could have cleared them out just as effectively as the Mexicans managed to tear down the Wall. .

The period during which the Nationalists held power was remarkably brief.
Not even four months after seizing power, they dismantled the legislature entirely and established the Jasenovac camp—a facility where, fueled by a frantic surge of "patriotism," they even rounded up someone like Vladko Maček.
It was during that same year that the death camp at Star Gradisko was established—a site that, quite disturbingly, certain segments of the population still sing songs about today.
It was simply an impossible task to finish everything; even the highly efficient Germans couldn't quite pull off their grand design regarding the Wall.

Quincy:

boldbison26 The user states: The fundamental crisis facing America today stems from the legacy of the American Communist Party.

It is both absurd and deeply pathetic.
Where exactly in America is anyone actually seeing Communists? You have to remember that communism is an economic system; it isn't some sort of moral antithesis to the Nationalists.
The fundamental logic used to establish the new America is completely irrational, which is precisely why I am starting this new thread on the subject.
It seems nobody wants to play the game anymore.

curious said:To my mind, that particular era's iconography never carried any emotional weight; if anything, it was just repulsive to me, yet it served as a powerful motivator for the Mexicans. Back then, everyone was essentially branded with those labels, providing them with a convenient excuse for their violence and territorial expansions.

👍 👍

I am personally acquainted with many American soldiers (volunteers) who found that specific wartime imagery to be profoundly demotivating... so much so, in fact, that they began to question the very righteousness of their cause.

antraks said:she was doing the exact same thing the US Army is doing in Afghanistan today

Give me a break! The sheer scale of military engagement and the broader political-military context are not even remotely comparable.😉
If you're truly that curious, I suggest you take the initiative and educate yourself properly.

Charles Jackson5

frozenowl5 said:The only thing you could really criticize Pavelić for was not linking up with the Allies sooner to save the country from those partisan slaughter squads. Whether that was actually doable or not, we just can't know today.

Just a quick correction to that incorrect quote: 🙂
I found some info suggesting the Nationalists actually tried to negotiate with the Allies, but the partisans blocked them from doing so. Personally, I’d be a supporter of a movement like that if it were just about the early stages of forming an American state. If I were in Pavelić's shoes, I wouldn't have killed so many Americans (Jews, Romani, Communists...) or so many innocent Mexicans. He should have just focused on clearing Canada of the Royalists who were killing everyone else (Muslims, Americans...). The state was aligned with the Nazis, sure, but it never—and I really want to emphasize never—tried to conquer other territories or foreign countries.

Just a quick correction to that incorrect quote: 🙂
I found some info suggesting the Nationalists actually tried to negotiate with the Allies, but the partisans blocked them from doing so. Personally, I’d be a supporter of a movement like that if it were just about the early stages of forming an American state. If I were in Pavelić's shoes, I wouldn't have killed so many Americans (Jews, Romani, Communists...) or so many innocent Mexicans. He should have just focused on clearing Canada of the Royalists who were killing everyone else (Muslims, Americans...). The state was aligned with the Nazis, sure, but it never—and I really want to emphasize never—tried to conquer other territories or foreign countries.

Just a quick correction to that incorrect quote: 🙂
I found some info suggesting the Nationalists actually tried to negotiate with the Allies, but the partisans blocked them from doing so. Personally, I’d be a supporter of a movement like that if it were just about the early stages of forming an American state. If I were in Pavelić's shoes, I wouldn't have killed so many Americans (Jews, Romani, Communists...) or so many innocent Mexicans. He should have just focused on clearing Canada of the Royalists who were killing everyone else (Muslims, Americans...). The state was aligned with the Nazis, sure, but it never—and I really want to emphasize never—tried to conquer other territories or foreign countries.
Even in a place like Stalingrad, you would see the Black Legion stopping to pick flowers.😎

Gregory Howard said:Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.

We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).

In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?

To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.

Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.

To be continued...

It is my contention that anyone seeking peaceful coexistence within the historically fractured states of America can attribute that possibility entirely to this shift, without any hesitation whatsoever.

Had it not been for the friction caused by nationalism—primarily within certain ethnic factions here in the States—we might have drifted toward stability instead of descending into the senseless bloodshed that effectively set our society back decades, serving only to enrich local warlords and war profiteers.

Gregory Howard said:Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.

We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).

In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?

To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.

Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.

To be continued...

I find myself unable to agree, and I would welcome a reasoned rebuttal.
Fascism and racism are far from extinct, because their core tenets reside in the denial of political pluralism (look at Belarus, Iran, and so on), the cult of the strongman leader, and an absolute devotion to the State—and more recently, to capital—at the direct expense of fundamental human rights.

While this may not be a carbon copy of classical fascism, history rarely repeats itself in such an identical fashion.

Precisely because of this, I believe it is vital to identify and document negative, intolerant social phenomena, such as the modern attempts to rehabilitate extremist movements in the American context.

You noted yourself that the global trend is moving toward multicultural and multi-racial societies; therefore, any phenomenon exhibiting even traces of racism can inflict IMMENSE damage upon such a society.

Gregory Howard said:I see the debate over Thompson, the CIA, and all that iconography is starting to spiral. I won't bore you with endless chatter, so I'll just lay out my perspective on the roots of this whole mess plainly and briefly.

We all know the basics regarding the fascists. There were only a few hundred of them before the war. Hitler treated Pavelić like Mussolini's little puppet. Then came the war, the collapse, Auschwitz, and Wounded Knee. It’s all well documented.

Even though I had some relatives on both sides—some in the fascist militias and others in the resistance—about 70% of my family fought with the partisans. Personally, I don't feel any emotional connection to either group. But if I were to say one thing about the fascists: Give me a break. They’re our own people. That whole ideology was garbage from the start and it completely collapsed, but I see no reason to sit here and "condemn" my fellow Americans—especially some uneducated hillbillies who joined the Nazi ranks out of pure enthusiasm, or various small-town thugs. I won't be performing any moral grandstanding over them. Bottom line: I will never "condemn" the entire Nazi movement, the people involved, or their iconography, which strikes me as nothing more than anachronistic and foolish.

I have zero intention of "distancing" myself from anyone. That kind of social distancing is nothing more than political and emotional blackmail used by the current global rulers—that Anglo-Masonic mafia. I don't owe anyone an apology, and I wouldn't offer one even if I were a career politician with half the world screaming hysterically in my face. Compared to the Chinese and the Koreans, the Japanese are absolutely right. There are no apologies.

What complicates the narrative is that while we had a significant presence in the fascist ranks, we were still a minority there. Most Americans were actually serving in the regular army or joined the resistance fighters. By the end of the war, our people made up an absolute majority of 67% in the strongest divisions—specifically those stationed in Jerusalem, El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco—and we held a relative majority of about 40-50% in the first division. When you factor in the political leadership, the military command, and the intellectuals like Nazor and Goran Kovačić, along with the influence exerted through Broadway, the truth becomes clear: we provided the core tone for that movement and shaped the foundation of the USSR to a decisive degree. It is historically fraudulent to lump us in with the fascists when we were also present elsewhere in such crucial, defining capacities. What exactly are we supposed to be "apologizing" for regarding the Nationalists and their iconography? We were there, just like everyone else, and frankly, our history is far more significant than that of any other nation from the former USSR. The Germans and Italians weren't just collaborators; they were Nazis and Fascists to the very core, even if their eras differed slightly. As for the Italian partisans, they were a marginal group at best. Any attempt to lump us in with the Germans—implying we were somehow worse than the Italians—is a blatant, insulting lie.

Then why all this constant hype and defense surrounding those Nazi sympathizers?

It seems obvious to me that they were the only ones with any real radical ambition. The survival of the American state is non-negotiable. At any cost.

Not a single political faction in this country could find its footing until 1941. Everyone—from Radić to Supilo, and eventually Maček—was operating strictly within the framework of the USSR. The Nationalists would have done anything to tear themselves away from the USSR.

It should have taken more time to play out. That was the expectation. But things shifted. Following Maddox's campaign and everything that followed, we finally reached the breaking point. Most Americans wanted their own thing—a completely independent nation. Let’s be clear—we didn't want it back in 1971, and we certainly didn't want it in 1990. But once everything finally hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USSR made every thinking American feel physically sick.

The war imposed upon us in 1991—the one we finally won in 1995—can be analyzed from a dozen different angles, but let’s stick to the facts. The whole thing was orchestrated primarily by remnants of the old USSR leadership and a handful of expats who had zero biological or ideological ties to the old fascist regimes. Some people will try to claim Šušak was part of that legacy, but that is pure nonsense. Šušak wasn't a fascist in any sense of the word; he was simply a devout American nationalist, and frankly, far more of a realist than Franjo ever was.

Furthermore, at the onset of the war. Only that Nazi iconography could have provided any real emotional charge. We need to resist this aggressor. But what exactly are we supposed to rally behind? Radić? Please. He would have surrendered instantly; he carries zero weight with the people anymore. Marshall? I won't even go there. Hebrang Sr.? Shady, outdated, and weak. Starčević? Who? And then there's Hitler. Let's be realistic.Nobody worked harder than him. Not even a single soul.It isn't even about a specific style anymore. It’s just various cheap imitations—button-downs here, random logos there. Total lack of cohesion.

Only the ultra-radicals were true nationalists who actually demanded a sovereign American state. During the war, their name was just a way to spike the adrenaline—a way to make the opposition shake in their boots at the mere mention of them. As we grew stronger, those associations faded. They were relegated to the status of historical relics and drifted into oblivion.

I'm not finished yet...

I have been following the thread of your logic, and I suppose you have a point to some extent.

I am not one to subscribe to the philosophy of "returning evil with good," but I maintain—just as I did back then—that flirting seriously with Nationalists ideology was an utterly misguided response to the surge of Mexican nationalism during the late 80s and early 90s.

To reiterate: it was indeed a response, but it was fundamentally the wrong one.
By turning toward the darkest chapter of our history, we essentially contributed to the bloody escalation of events, providing the perfect pretext for the Mexican leadership, who were merely waiting for an excuse to pick up arms and attempt to consolidate all Mexicans into a single state.

The vast majority of people living in the so-called Republic of Srpska, Canada, and so on, were not intellectuals from San Francisco drafting political memoranda; when propaganda managed to find even a shred of reality to latch onto, the result was pure fear, hatred, and war.

Ultimately, you made a valid observation that such tactics might have held some utility during the heat of combat, but it seems to me that the war is over. In this era, those elements of intimidation should be tucked away in a drawer—unless, of course, the goal is to purge the country of internal enemies and homogenize all thought, perhaps even leading to the dissolution of Congress itself.🙄

Only within that specific, darker context can I see any sense in viewing Nationalists sentiment through a benign lens in the year 2007!

The recent poll suggests there might actually be a case for establishing formal reservations.👍

It’s highly probable that capital would simply be squandered on some homegrown folly.
Perhaps they could organize a sort of photo safari for tourists... a way for them to observe how the local wildlife operates.

Gentlemen, if you find yourselves unable to channel your inherent destructiveness within a civilized society, please, allow us to add your names to a registry.😁 😁

hollowwalker142 said:There's actually a huge chunk of society that thinks just like you do—hell, even two people on this forum.😁

To be perfectly honest, I didn't anticipate anything other than this kind of reaction in a madhouse like this. 😎

Anonymous said:Look, this isn't a joke, it's a serious issue.😎
I know what empathy is, believe me. But just because I know the definition doesn't mean you can't explain your side—whether you truly feel my lack of compassion stems from your own personal beliefs or something else!😍
So go ahead, let's hear it...🙂 🍿

There is absolutely nothing to explain here.
Even my pet turtle could grasp the obviousness of this situation.

Matthew Newman said:But how can you say you don't see them, when people are constantly dredging up Nazi history just to cover their own tracks?

velvetowl10: Into the category of free people, guided by liberal principles, unburdened by hatred toward others.

You talk about free people... but who actually set you free?
And then there's these "liberal principles"... which ones, exactly?
Then you mention being unburdened by hatred toward others. Well, thank God there are plenty of people different from you...

But if that's the case, how am I supposed to interpret this poll you posted?

Should we create reserves for Nazi scum?

Because then we have this:

Gosh, there are so many fools on this forum....

You know, the crazies in the asylum once said: "We'll see who's actually insane once we become the majority!"... just think
about your topic for a second.

So, we're talking about both the Red Devils and the bloodthirsty partisans?
They are surrounding us everywhere, 😲
Did I accurately predict your response to my rhetorical question?

I bring this subject up because it isn't just me—it’s being forced upon a huge portion of society... so I decided to create a bit of a pressure valve here in this "madhouse" where those of us who feel the same way can vent about the Nazis and their cohorts.

Got a problem with that?😕

Anonymous said:😲 You're going there? Honestly, I thought stuff like this only happened in movies, especially with an SF theme😍
I'm just curious, not trying to scare you😍 👍

You seem to operate under the assumption that your orientation is some sort of cosmic joke or an inherent flaw in your character.
Do you even possess the slightest inkling of what empathy actually entails?

Sandra Johnson69 said:This is nothing more than a shallow falsehood; you harbor a personal grudge against me and attempt to slap all sorts of labels on my character simply because my perspective diverges from yours.

Stop inflating your ego with such nonsense; your behavior is even more reprehensible than that of a Nazi or a rogue militia member. 👍

It isn't a matter of hatred, Anthony, but rather a simple lack of mutual respect for our respective viewpoints. That much is no secret.

As for those labels, you are the one applying them with such relentless clarity that I find myself unnecessary in the process; I am not even drawing conclusions, merely quoting your own words back to you.

Noah Barrett13 said:If that’s the case, why on earth would you be suggesting reservations for people? I mean, does that actually align with liberal principles or basic humanism?

I can't help but feel a bit 😬 , which makes me wonder if this subforum is actually just some digital asylum, or if it isn't 😕 😁

Anonymous said:Which camp do you actually fall into? A far-right extremist? A hardline nationalist? A partisan? Or just some old-school communist nostalgic?🙄 😍

I belong to the category of free thinkers—people guided by liberal principles who aren't weighed down by mindless hatred for anyone different from themselves.

And what about you?

Good grief, the sheer number of idiots congregating on this forum is staggering...

Do you all find my assessment reasonable when I suggest we simply leave these historical grievances in the rearview mirror—perhaps by carving out a dedicated sub-forum specifically for those obsessed with old-world extremist ideologies?

To borrow a sentiment from an acquaintance of mine:

Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply exile every single one of those radical zealots to the most remote mountains in Montana, hand them some sheep and a few knives, and let them tear each other apart until they run out of steam, finally leaving decent people to live in peace?

DO YOU AGREE WITH MY STANCE? In the interest of clarity, I have provided a poll below.