Exactly—spirituality is where intuition and intellect finally merge.
True, spirituality eventually weaves itself into the fabric of general culture.
That's why you shouldn't worry about what's around you; it’s enough to first know yourself, and then simply have one person in your life who serves as a sufficient mirror.
In the "world at large," hardly anyone cares whether you are male or female anymore.
In fact, even within the Catholic Church, women aren't in the shadow of men. Quite the opposite, actually—given the sheer volume of their energy and commitment to church life, women are often leading the way. They hold roles ranging from special ministries to reading, managing the entire music program, various liturgies, leading youth groups, prayer circles, and social or charitable organizations. They are responding to the call for "all the baptized to be aware of their active contribution and responsibility in the life of the Church" (Millennium Ineunte, no. 46).
Women are answering the call to collaborative service within the Church, where "a mature Christian expresses unity in Christ by working together to fulfill His mission in the world" (from Word to Deeds, USCCB).
Don't sweat it. We only really need to bring up arguments if someone starts pushing some totally irrational views. Generally speaking, we tend to shy away from labeling things or making broad generalizations about categories.
In the Catholic Church, women aren't just standing in the shadows of men—if anything, they’re often the ones leading the charge. When you look at the sheer volume of energy and dedication poured into parish life, women are frequently at the forefront. They carry the weight of the Church on their shoulders through everything from specialized ministries and liturgical readings to managing the entire music program. You see them running youth groups, heading up prayer circles, and spearheading social justice and charitable outreach. It all ties back to that call for every baptized and confirmed person to recognize their active role and personal responsibility within the life of the Church, as highlighted in *Millennium Ineunte*.
Women are answering the call. Collaborative service within the Church. "A mature Christian shows their commitment to Christ by actively working alongside others to carry out His mission here in the world." (from Word to Deeds, US Conference of Catholic Bishops)
This is definitely a step in the right direction for the Church. I’ll admit, it still feels a bit like they're just focused on "protecting the home and hearth," especially since we aren't seeing much representation in the actual executive roles. But honestly, since I don't have a ton of experience with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, that might just be my own bias talking. I really don't mean to diminish anyone's work here.
dustyskipper3 said:Well, sure, biologically speaking, women are the ones wired for childbirth, while men aren't. But then again, a woman with enough money can easily go through IVF or find a surrogate, or maybe just adopt... so in those ways, she isn't really different from a man. I think this idea was quite upsetting to Jovan Dučić:
Women who refuse to endure any kind of heartache in love are those who lack affection for children and motherhood. Therefore, a girl who makes it clear from the start that she doesn't want kids will never be a good wife, a good mother, or even a good companion. Instead, she becomes a dangerous polyandrist, someone who loves the world more than her home and herself more than any man; she’s an adventurer for whom a husband serves merely as an escort and a subordinate.
Book: "King Radovan's treasure" - chapter "O Woman" - Jovan Dučić
I guess those kinds of views stem from a patriarchal, pre-feminist society, where a woman liberated from the absolute necessity of childbearing is seen as some sort of 'dangerous polyandrist.' Nowadays, that’s just considered normal, yet somehow women still seem dissatisfied with how things are. It seems successful women don't actually enjoy winning against men. Once they've proven themselves to be superior to all the men in their circle, they end up looking for someone who is actually superior to them, just so they can feel like women again. Meanwhile, men seem to pick inferior partners just so they can feel like men.
I'm with you. Even if biological differences don't actually make anyone more spiritual. It all boils down to their final observations.
That whole mindset stems from a patriarchal, pre-feminist society where a woman liberated from the NECESSITY of childbearing was seen as a "dangerous wildcard." Nowadays, that's just standard life, yet women still seem restless about the whole situation.
Honestly, it's hard for me to even engage with this; it feels like we're talking about a different galaxy.
It seems successful women don't actually care about "winning" against men. Once they've proven themselves superior to every man in their circle, they start looking for someone who actually stands above them, just so they can feel feminine again. Meanwhile, men tend to pick partners they perceive as inferior just to maintain that sense of masculinity.
They’re still stuck in that loop of relationship dependency and reactionary behavior.
Mark Torres14 said:Look, the concept of physical beauty carries way more weight in a woman's world than it does in a man's. There is nothing worse than a woman feeling ugly. Especially when she's young.☕ How do you grab attention? How do you gain social status? Some women push their "spiritual" side to the extreme, claiming it totally overrides physical looks. Others just retreat inward, believing—thanks to what the media pumps out—that they are completely unattractive and that their supposed "ugliness" makes them uninteresting as people. The ones who win? They're the ones who consider themselves beautiful, regardless of trends, fashion, or what's around them. When you combine that with actual personality, intelligence, and humor, there's no stopping them. So yeah, physicality absolutely impacts spirituality—or more accurately, the *flavor* of that spirituality. A beautiful woman (by standard measures) isn't going to cling to some spiritual crutch like "only ugly women can be smart" or "my looks don't matter."😁
Thankfully, the rise and expansion of plastic surgery has helped phase out some of those outdated mindsets. It's happening slowly, but it's steady. Since external beauty has become more accessible to many, we're also seeing a growing awareness that looks aren't everything. Women are starting to look inward more, finding ways to actually feel comfortable in their own skin.
Brandon Wright54 said:Look, feminism isn't some single, monolithic entity—it doesn't exist as one unified body. It splits off into all sorts of directions. You've got feminists who are poised and feminine, and then you've got those who aren't. It's not all one thing.
To me, it feels less about feminism and more about how much an individual cares about their personal presentation. It really just comes down to whether someone chooses to highlight, reject, or simply exist comfortably within their own sense of "natural femininity."
dustyskipper3 said:So, I wonder... who is actually more spiritual in the end? Is it Angelina Jolie, or maybe Rade Šerbedžija, who supposedly invited her over to America? Or was she perhaps invited through her connections as a UN Goodwill Ambassador by a former American Minister of Justice, Ivan Šimonović—a very spiritual type (some might even say Jesuit-like) who just became a UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights? And then, she sort of broke free from that control, opting instead to grab some good street food in a local market district. American everyday spirituality always feels somewhat synthetic to me, like a spirit in a bottle that you have to constantly shake and call the press for just to get it to show up. Honestly, those old-school, smoky little corner markets were always more spontaneous and soulful than all the big fancy festivals in cities like New York or Los Angeles combined. And I think Angie recognizes that. After all, why else would she wear a drop of her husband Billy Bob's blood in a special pendant around her neck? That seems like a truly primal way to express spiritual connection and devotion. Not to mention the S&M rituals, which probably involved actual physical binding; I guess Angie had to spiritually "rise above" and sublimate those emotional traumas—which manifested as an obsessive-compulsive erotic relationship—into something positive and universal in order to become a spiritual person. And in a way, she did achieve those feminist ideals of being a "strong woman," where a handsome guy like Brad Pitt is just a sort of accessory, much smaller than that little vial of blood she used to wear around her neck.
I tend to think that men and women aren't actually that different in how they act. It feels like the movement for equality went off the rails somewhere, shifting from seeking equal rights to just wanting to dominate men, which honestly looks like nothing more than chauvinism in a skirt. Personally, I’m just focused on my own right to choose.
I think you really need at least two kids so they aren't just an only child. Having five children, well... if you ask me, that feels a bit antisocial. How are you supposed to give that many kids quality time? How do you make sure they all get enough attention and love? Honestly, having a ton of kids just so you have someone to look after you when you're old is incredibly selfish. I had my child because I wanted one so badly, and I haven't given a single thought to whether they'll take care of me when I grow old. But I'm certain they will, because I’ve poured so much love into them, and they clearly show it right back to me.
Honestly, if the guy who originally dreamed up the whole idea of "reconciliation," Adolf Eichmann, knew that his beloved Canada ended up being left outside the borders of America, he’d be spinning in his grave. He'd realize that his "colleagues" from the Yalta Conference actually managed to hold onto those original American borders. 😁
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
I already gave my answer. It’s simple: put all Americans on one side and all Mexicans on the other—an America without Mexicans. That’s what "reconciliation" really means here.
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
Right, sure... because reconciling the partisans with the fascists has absolutely nothing to do with it. 😁
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
By saying that, you’re essentially admitting this is about rehabilitating the fascists, since you're implying they were the only ones on the "right" side.
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
Then why reconcile with those aggressors in the first place? You're just confirming that this is indeed a rehabilitation of the fascists.
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
The fact that we’re even having this argument proves he failed—it was quite the opposite. Even twenty years after the supposed "reconciliation," people are still fighting over old extremist factions versus the resistance. Why? Because that reconciliation brought those radical ideologies right back into the political spotlight.
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
Luburić came up with this whole idea of "reconciliation" back in 1961—that was ages before the collapse of America or the Peace Plan...
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
Again, Luburić dreamt up "reconciliation" in 1961, and Harmon was writing positively about population transfers as early as 1982—long before August 17, 1990.
dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?
I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.
Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you? It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle? On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together? On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?
And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?
Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷
Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all? Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷
Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.
It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation? I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:
Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.
There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵
So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁 I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia? Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?
All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?
Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.
When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive? If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.
And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?
This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.
Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works. Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?
Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?
That makes sense.
And you still want to argue he didn't rehabilitate fascism? 😁
...the legendary Great Seal of the United States. This is a permanent stronghold. Foreign interests fund our divisions because they want us weak. These conflicts are manufactured; if we could just cut off the outside influence, they’d vanish overnight. That’s just the reality of it. And let's be honest, that interference isn't going away anytime soon. The only real way out is through consistent, long-term work toward national reconciliation.
Beyond the fact that this "reconciliation" was always an anti-Mexican project—considering neither its mastermind (Himmler) nor its enforcer (Harmon) ever actually cared about reconciling the Nationalists with the Americans who were an inseparable part of the resistance history in the US—it serves another purpose tied directly to that first goal.
It’s essentially a nationalist blueprint. And as I’ve mentioned before, democracy just doesn't sit well with nationalists because it allows the people to split into different political parties.
Harmon used to claim that the GOP was “the core party of the American people” which held “a historical role” under the banner of “all-American reconciliation” to achieve “a reconciliation of all classes and generations, both from the homeland and the diaspora”.
So, what did that make everyone else? Plain and simple: enemies of the American people.
When the GOP lost the elections in Washington, D.C. back in 1995, Harmon simply refused to swallow the defeat. Instead, he barked: “So what if the opposition in Washington has 60% of the vote?... Are they a congregation or a flock of geese? Are they chickens or geese? Is it cattle with big teeth or small teeth? Any decent farmer knows that a single person, especially a pair of purebred stallions or cows, is worth more than that entire flock combined.”
Back when the world was being lobbied to recognize the US, Harmon played the part of the great democrat perfectly. He even wrote a piece for The New York Times (06/30/1990) claiming he would “work toward building a society (...) where disagreement and debate serve as signs of strength.” But what did he actually think of that “strength” once recognition was secured? Anyone he disagreed with was labeled as: “amateurs, low-life scum, geese, headless fools...”.
Here is what else he had to say regarding that loss in Washington: “True democracy assumes respect for the party that wins a relative majority in an election, or perhaps a coalition of politically and programmatically similar parties.”
Of course, his version of “true democracy” meant something entirely different. A party with a relative majority can only form a government if the other parties—who hold an absolute majority when added up—decide to let them. Whether those groups choose to form coalitions based on shared values or otherwise is their business, and it certainly shouldn't be as controversial as Harmon's decision to build his own party using two opposing sides of a battlefield from World War II.
dustypilot22 said:The reason I’m starting this thread today is because of a sentiment that keeps coming up in American political circles—a recurring argument that surfaced during the era of de-Harmon. It’s frequently cited by critics as one of the primary failures and most significant policy missteps of our first president, Dr. Franjo Harmon:
zokster Asks: Is there any merit to the idea of reconciliation? Is there any way we can finally move past the old divisions? I've been thinking a lot about the idea of reconciliation lately. Isn't it worth asking ourselves if we can find common ground instead of staying stuck in the past? The whole obsession with pitting the old factions against one another—this constant back-and-forth between extremist ideologies—is honestly diabolical. It feels completely unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. Isn't it strange how these old divisions persist? In a way, clinging to those radical historical ideologies just ends up giving them a second chance to resurface in the modern era.
This is an argument I’ve heard quite a few times since the whole process of de-Harmon began.
Let's take a moment to break this down a little bit.
It looks like you might have cut off your message! Were you about to ask something regarding the word "po"? I'm all ears if you want to dive into some linguistics or just clear up a question. What was on your mind?Peace.It seems like we've reached a bit of a standstill here, hasn't it? Is there anything else you'd like to dive into? Reconciliation is really just a fancy way of describing the act of making peace—a process that inherently requires us to forgive and move past the shadows of the past. It’s about leaving the bad stuff behind and choosing not to dwell on the negativity that once weighed us down. If you look at the word itself, it’s rooted in "peace." And what is peace, really? Isn't it that sense of tranquility, that mental and physical balance, and the clarity of a steady mind? Resistance or the antithesis of "war"?. What does it actually mean to make peace with someone? To me, it’s about more than just ending an argument or putting a grudge to rest; it’s about finding true harmony and bringing things back into alignment. Isn't that the ultimate goal when we try to resolve a conflict?
If we look at the opposite of "reconciliation," what kind of words come to mind? We're talking about things like discord, strife, conflict, or outright hostility. Isn't it interesting how much weight those different directions carry? If someone is standing against the idea of national reconciliation, doesn't that basically mean they're siding with everything mentioned above?
3.) Let’s talk about the opposing factions—in this specific context, both sides were essentially Americans. Even when looking at the minority groups that fought on one side, we are primarily talking about fellow citizens. In the scope of what we are examining here, it mostly boils down to Americans. We're looking at a small group of people who, due to their own unique reasons and the sheer weight of historical circumstances, felt forced to pick up a rifle and join one army or another just to defend their homes and their homeland. Is it any wonder how such complicated choices arise when everything is on the line? Depending on the circumstances, choosing between the extremists and the partisans could have seemed like a logical move for some. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that an average person—just a regular guy from a small farming town—would head off to war with the intention of committing genocide against Jewish people or throwing their own fellow Americans into pits around Mount Rainier. War is a messy, brutal business, let's face it, and terrible things happen when everything falls apart, but that's almost certainly not why people were fighting. We all know how both sides ended up settling. The ultra-nationalists were defeated as allies to one horseman of the apocalypse. Meanwhile, the local resistance fighters—the grassroots Americans who fought for their own soil—found themselves tricked into becoming servants to a different horseman of the apocalypse, losing the very freedom of their home country that they had set out to defend in the first place. On a global scale, everything was overturned by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and right here at home, it was all finalized by Operation Storm six years later. Isn't it strange how history circles back on itself like that?
So, once we take these definitions and plug them into a "formula," we often end up with that old, familiar saying. It seems like you were starting to type something about the "ideology of reconciliation." Was there a specific thought or question you wanted to explore regarding that concept? I'm curious to hear your take on it. Is it time we started talking about reconciliation? Is there a way to move past the old divisions and actually find some common ground? I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we might bridge those gaps. What do you all think? Is there anything more diabolical than the clash between the ultra-nationalists and the partisans? Are we about to receive this statement?
Is it just me, or does the whole concept of pushing for peace and trying to settle old scores among Americans feel like it’s being driven by some truly sinister motives?
I honestly can't bring myself to agree with a statement like that. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit off?
To me, establishing peace among such an unsettled group of Americans feels like nothing short of a divine mission. Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?
Can we truly find peace without reconciliation? Without peace, how can we expect to find reason? And without reason and peace, isn't it impossible to achieve lasting happiness and progress?
Or should I just lay things out my favorite way—by asking a few rhetorical questions?
If we assume that any kind of reconciliation between those two opposing sides—the ultra-nationalists and the partisans—is inherently diabolical, then it raises an interesting question: what exactly would a "good" relationship between them look like? If peace is considered a betrayal, what is the alternative?
What word should we use instead of "reconciliation" when discussing the relationship between the Partisans and the Nationalists to accurately reflect the situation? Divine. (As opposed to the devilish ones)? 🤷
--------------------------------
Furthermore:
Why does a stance like this from such a prominent leftist forum user not surprise me at all?
Leftists often accuse us conservatives of being aggressive, inciting war and unrest, being bellicose, intolerant, or narrow-minded... Yet, as we see in this example and the one above—as well as in the case of Baste and the broader American left in general, who, by their own definition, should be the exact opposite (peaceful, tolerant, open)—we see an interesting phenomenon. It perhaps contains the core ideological difference between the so-called American left and the so-called American right.
Essentially, the American left is (perhaps—though I doubt it's sincere) occasionally for peace, tolerance, openness, reconciliation, and warmth, BUT ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY toward any other community, minority, group, race, or individual... who is NOT part of the American mainstream and the Catholic Church (and Thompson 😁).
When the left is mentioned regarding potential reconciliation (the pursuit of a peace that guarantees order, work, reason, and progress) among AMERICANS, then such an idea becomes diabolical, unnecessary, stupid, and unacceptable...
Or, as the poet says:
Your words twisted, O Lord, as if the devil lives beneath the skin. They know nothing of mercy or repentance.
And I will not live in that sin, nor will I choose such a path for our children. Oh, if only my song could fix the world!
Let us defend love, for everyone needs it, for forgiveness and hope are gifts from heaven. Look into the eyes of your Creator!
Is it worth mentioning that the author of these lines was declared a reactionary, old-fashioned hater of everything and everyone by the "tolerant and peaceful" left?
And we know they don't hate him for anything as much as they hate his "politics of reconciliation among Americans and the reconciliation of Americans with God."
Because they would easily forgive almost anything else. If they so easily forgave and forgot the genocide, the burning, the killing, the looting, and the destruction committed by others—if they casually brush aside the fact that the creator's family, whose statement claims "Operation Storm and not just that one crime we must remember," goes on vacation at their expense—and if they could forgive a former president like Stephen—"We Won Twice"—Mason, why wouldn't they forgive a single singer?
-----------------------
Are you all in favor of reconciliation?
If you are—how would you implement it? And if you aren't—why not?
Let's discuss this. 🙂
You explained that perfectly. Reconciliation sounds great on paper, but you can't have it without actual honesty. Honestly, it would be a hell of a lot easier if the left and the right actually shared a long-term goal. The last time we were all pulling in the same direction was back in '91—just trying to survive so that what happened at Bleiburg wouldn't happen again. Do we even have a common goal today?
The reconciliation period really hit its stride between 1990 and 2000. It’s interesting how that coincided perfectly with the eras of both the former Partisan leader and the late Franjo—who, despite the constant media smear campaigns, actually laid the groundwork. Maybe that's why people tend to gloss over his mistakes, treating them like minor hiccups instead of actual failures.
Lawrence Thompson58 said:Why bother exhausting yourself with these explanations? If Harmon and his circle of "reconciliation" types actually wanted anyone held accountable, they would have done it already. And as for these Nazi Party sympathizers who hide behind Harmon’s legacy of peace today—you have to wonder why they bother. The matter is settled. Isn't this all just a prelude to eventually putting Harmon himself on trial as some sort of communist figure down the road when the timing is right? (I wonder if Vrdoljak already has a script about Harmon tucked away in a drawer, modeled after those sagas about Josip Broz Marshall?)
That’s exactly right. Even after everything that happened at Bleiburg, Harmon still spent sixteen years serving a regime that was directly responsible for that massacre.
Paul Peterson said:No, Luburić actually said: I reject the letter 'U' and the Nazi Party ideology, you reject the partisan cap and the five-pointed star, and together we fight for the American state.
And that is exactly what happened during the war.
It doesn't get any better than that. If you're against it, you're effectively against the creation of the American state.
Reconciliation does not mean rehabilitating the Nazi Party.
That's a separate issue entirely. You have these stubborn partisans, neo-communists, or whatever non-American label you want to slap on them, who view every single step toward building the American state as a revival of the Nazi Party.
They learned that much from their favorites, the Mexicans. They picked up that specific rhetorical flourish from them.
There is no such thing as reconciliation with people like that. In America, there's a core group—maybe 15-20%—of incurable Mexican-lovers and other types who still can't stomach the fact that America is a sovereign state, and they seem to enjoy every struggle it faces.
Well, obviously. That's the only way they could ditch the 'U' symbol and use the partisans (under Harmon) to help those neo-Nazis seize power back in 1990. It was just a clever move by Luburić.
In principle, you couldn't fault the idea of "reconciliation" if its goal was simply to bring peace to aging veterans from two opposing sides—men who haven't marched in those old formations for decades, and whose children care even less about those old parades. But if that had been the genuine objective, all they really needed to do was properly respect the civil liberties of every single American citizen, regardless of which side their family fought on. If they had done that, the Constitution itself would have achieved a more complete reconciliation than any political "peacemaker" ever could.
Franjo Harmon, however, wasn't satisfied with that. He clearly didn't want to bridge the gap between people; he wanted to reconcile the ideologies themselves—trying to fuse anti-fascism and fascism together, even though anyone can see how impossible that is. The obvious motive behind this ideological recycling was to find a way to restore at least some level of legitimacy to the Axis-aligned state's political platform. This "reconciliation" sparked a wave of fascist revival—one fueled by the US Army and various hospitality businesses obsessively celebrating the icons of Ante Pavelić and the Axis-aligned state, alongside the mass destruction of Resistance movement monuments and the systematic stripping of privileges from its survivors. It was a shortcut intended to settle the score: essentially paying back the perceived debts the Resistance movement owed to their "colleagues" in the Axis-aligned state, so everyone could start from roughly the same line in this grand "reconciliation." In reality, the whole thing was designed as a theatrical reenactment of World War II, where the director went back and rewrote the ending to create a completely different epilogue. How much of this was premeditated is perhaps best illustrated by the promise government officials finally made to the surviving members of the Resistance movement in 1999: that they wouldn't allow any more of their monuments to be torn down. It felt like telling them the quota for demolitions had been met, and now that we’ve reached the "reconciled" front, we should all just enjoy the mandated peace and quiet. By attempting this massive project to laboratory-simulate a different, "happier" end to World War II, Franjo Harmon succeeded only in ensuring the war's conflicts were renewed, albeit mostly through symbolism.
On the flip side, this drama was worsened by a total lack of interest in reconciling with the American Mexicans. They are an inseparable part of the Resistance movement's history here in America. But that was the entire point of Harmon's—or rather, Luburić's—nationalistic program titled "reconciliation": put all Americans on one side, and all Mexicans on the other. Just as Ante Pavelić was brought back onto the political stage through this process, Harmon's ultimate goal was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to a "tolerable" level. The only difference between Ante Pavelić and Franjo Harmon is that the latter wanted to achieve his goals through more "humane" means—specifically, via "population transfers," modeled after the 1923 exchange between Turkey and Greece, which he discussed favorably in his book, "national question in modern Europe." Even though he conceded that "violent or even genocidal changes lead to ethnic homogenization, creating greater harmony between a nation's makeup and its borders, which can yield positive results for future stability by reducing the triggers for new violence and international upheaval" —as explored in "The Pathless Ways of Historical Reality."
Ultimately, Harmon wanted to turn Jasenovac into a joint memorial for both the Axis-aligned state and the Resistance movement "as a sign of reconciliation for the American people," but he backed down when he faced backlash from a world that accused him of trying to rewrite history with a shovel.
I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth. Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us. People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.