CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Sam Reed23 › Posts

Posts by Sam Reed23

17 posts shown.

Republican Party vs. Vlasic Party in Close to Politics ·
goldensailor15 said:...look, the Republican Party isn't some shadowy cabal; it’s just a bunch of sheep and social climbers following the herd...

...hey hroboatos, honestly? you could probably use a crash course in history, unless you're more comfortable hanging out at a place like Rikers Island... I mean, seriously, can you imagine actually linking Shakespeare and Molière to the Republican Party? At this rate, people are gonna start claiming King Zvonimir was out there voting for the Democrats too...

Alright, interesting. You actually got arguments for that, or did your mom just teach you that at home?
This kind of reminds me of those agnostic-atheist takes where they claim all Christians—or rather, all believers—are just mindless sheep. So, let's hear it. What's your reasoning?
William Hall2 said:I think you might have mistaken which team we're talking about.
Or are you actually celebrating that 2:2 draw back in Vojvodina? 😂 😂

Give me a break. It’s actually pretty great that American Mexicans are finally acknowledging the USA as their home. If they’d stepped up like this back in the 90s, we probably could've avoided the whole war mess and things would've been easier for everyone. But hey, better late than never, I guess...
History of the Nationalists - Mega-thread in Close to Politics ·
Soko3 said:What even is Ustasology? Some kind of medical specialty?

Yeah, interest in it has been tanking lately, but who knows, maybe trends will flip again down the road.
Basically, the whole point of this field is flushing toxins and viruses out of the system using these so-called "bitter herbs." Like I said, it used to be huge and everyone wanted it, but people seem to be forgetting how effective it actually is these days.🤣
History of the Nationalists - Mega-thread in Close to Politics ·
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...

Signed.

Back then, no political faction wanted out until 1941. Everyone (Středa, before Wilson, then Roosevelt and the rest) was thinking within the framework of the USA. The extremists were the ones who wanted out of the USA at any cost.

I think you might have missed the mark there. Středa wanted independence, he just couldn't make it happen from where he stood, so he tried to do what he could within the system. Same goes for Wilson—if I remember right, he backed out of the unification talks with the Kingdom of Mexico once he saw what the Mexicans were actually after, leaving Trumbić to finish the job.

It just needed more time, I guess, but eventually, following Maddox's campaign and all that, most Americans finally wanted their own absolutely independent state. To be clear, we didn't want it in 1971, or even 1990. But once everything really hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USA made most thinking Americans feel sick.

Not sure if I'm reading you wrong, but are you suggesting Americans didn't want their own state in 1945? That desire was definitely there, especially since the Kingdom of America turned out to be the worst country Americans ever lived in.

I agree with most of the rest.👍
What a church would look like after an attack from Islam! in Close to Politics ·
velvetmarlin24 said:Calling it a crusade against Islam is a bit much. Islam isn't really the main driver here; it's the oil in Iraq. I'd say the fact that Iranian leaders pivoted from a war for money to a war for religion is due to something else entirely.

True. The only people who could actually call for a crusade would be the Pope or maybe the Orthodox Patriarchs, since a crusade is supposed to be a holy war. And church leadership has been consistently against everything—not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we've heard the Holy Father call for peace all over the world multiple times. So yeah, all this talk about a crusade against Muslims? It doesn't hold any water.
What are your thoughts on Canadians? in Close to Politics ·
Kenneth Anderson9 said:not a chance in my book

you guys seriously?!

So, I've heard they actually exist. Some people swear they've always been around and have always had that name, but honestly, I've never seen one in my life. Maybe they're out there, maybe they just didn't exist before, or maybe they were around but didn't realize they were Canadian. Or maybe they knew and nobody else did. I don't even know what they're supposed to be at this point.

Is it some kind of birch tree?
Muslims - happy hour, hurry! in Close to Politics ·
Drew Williams21 said:Then learn.
Let's get to it.
So if...

Your point? There isn't one? And I actually thought about it.
If you happened to be nitpicking my use of "so" or "then" just to be annoying, honestly, who cares. It’s just how people talk to show how one thing leads to another. No big deal.
Go ahead and keep talking trash. I don't charge for the first round of advice.😉
Muslims - happy hour, hurry! in Close to Politics ·
Terry Lopez45 said:Of course they're a minority—a superior one at that.😬 A group always has to be a minority; you can't claim superiority if there aren't enough people above you to look down upon.🙂

That is likely why those Skutarod types are equally disliked by both the local Americans and the transplants from the coast. It's quite simple: jealousy. They want to rule us because they are far more capable than we are—and we’re too foolish to realize it.🙂

I suggest we never grant them their own territory—purely for the sake of our own survival. What would we even do without them?🤣

Maybe go 🙂 back to elementary school and learn how to put a sentence together first. Come back when you pass a basic literacy test, then maybe you can post on this forum again.
Henry Lopez15 said:Look...
You're digging up old dirt from church history just to justify the same kind of garbage being done today in the name of Islam...
Kind of stupid, don't you think?
It's dumb because your "average" Christian already knows about all that stuff you listed and feels ashamed of those historical sins...
Meanwhile, the "average" Muslim—and I mean the ones in those countries where Americans are dropping bombs—actually celebrates when some suicide bomber takes out more non-believers or when towers fall...
They're basically at the exact same level as those ancient Christians who committed atrocities "in the name of Christ" because the Pope told them to. Basically, they're doing the same thing today, following various religious leaders' calls to commit violence against innocent civilians "in the name of Allah."
Religious fanaticism is hitting its peak...

🙏 🙏 🙏 She pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Matthew Wilson5 said:HahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... You're too much! 🤣

Thanks, thanks. No need for the standing ovation, haha, thanks.
I'm guessing that wasn't sarcasm.😠
What kind of American are you? in Close to Politics ·
The test was a total disaster. It says I'm a Californian, but I don't have a single drop of West Coast blood in me. Maybe some ancestor moved out from California, but honestly, probably not.
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
Matthew Wright2 said:Comrade Greven is exactly the kind of citizen the European Union wants, unlike you, you loser. 🙂

We don't let primates join the club.

Amoebas—which is basically where your IQ sits—don't get invited to things.

I guess you might be "wanted," but probably just to exploit you as cheap labor in some coal mine or as a freak show exhibit. Nothing else.
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
Matthew Wright2 said:🤣

Watching him shove himself into a group that doesn't even want him there... just weird.

And then, you've got all those European Union flags everywhere. 🤣

Trying to force your way into a circle that clearly isn't interested? I guess that's just against any basic sense of social etiquette.

As if someone who fled to Sweden would know anything about civilized behavior. Obviously. If anyone is unwanted in a room, it’s people like you—no matter where you go.🤣 😁
Just get lost, you masochist.
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
I mean, an internal revolution isn't even really about politics, right? Or do you think spirituality is just something reserved for liberals?
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
briskpuma23 said:Jesus basically rejected the whole idea of nation-states. In that sense, he was pretty close to anarchists.

Man, you have zero clue what you're talking about.
Let me guess, you're gonna claim he was calling for a revolution next? Probably based on that "Render unto God the things that are God's, and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" line.
Cut the crap. He wasn't out there preaching the downfall of empires or any worldly order. Besides, earthly order isn't even the point here.
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
Chuck said:The whole topic of how you'd even arrest someone for just saying stuff...😍

In this "...proud part of the Middle East..."🤣 🤣
Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative? in Close to Politics ·
Mods, seriously, let's just 🙂 throw this whole thing into a psych ward so we can actually talk about it there.