Posts by lonetrucker4

We've been through this circus enough times already. This time? I'm just not buying it.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It’s hilarious that I get flagged for "trolling," and then the same mod takes that exact flagged post and turns it into its own separate thread sitting on page 4.

Weird situation, yeah. I thought about asking admin to nix the ban on that post. But nah, let it stay. I put an explanation in the header of that new thread, which is now the first thing you see in Auschwitz: 80,000 killed isn't a big deal? People are always ready to slaughter each other?

You made the point that why everyone gets so worked up over just 80,000 people dying in the Auschwitz camp group, since it's not some massive number compared to deaths in certain battles.

You even admitted it might sound a little sociopathic—IMHO, it sounds deadly sociopathic.

By that logic, why do we care so much about, say, a number five times smaller from the American Civil War? Or the massacre of roughly 2,000 people in the Katyn Forest, etc.?

People actually responded to you, and unlike your provocation (the trolling), the discussion that followed wasn't totally useless, so that's why I decided to split it out.

The second flag, for post #32 in the new thread, is for criticizing the mods. Though it could've been for trolling, since you're "annoyed" that Auschwitz is being used as "post currency" and that we aren't looking at the "big picture."

You've got similar trolling and rule-breaking in your other posts too; could've easily gotten another flag. Your "big picture" is basically that we're a broken species ready to kill each other—you go all metaphysical so you don't have to deal with the annoying details, which is exactly what we do here in the History studies subforum. Because, newsflash, most people aren't out there killing each other every day. That only happens under specific circumstances.

For instance, you wrote (post #23): "The first monkey to pick up a branch from the ground used it to whack another monkey." OK, sure, we can debate that theory, but definitely not in a thread about Auschwitz. And that theory is just pulled out of thin air—it violates the subforum rules. [Sure, you could cite literature on violence theory. But while we obviously don't know how it went down when the first monkey grabbed a branch, we do know monkeys still use branches today—usually not to murder each other. (Case in point:
Chimps use branch as ladder to escape San Diego Zoo enclosure. (Though, granted, genocides have been recorded in chimps too—but again, not as a regular thing.)]

Then there's post #7: "But the society founded by the partisans also faced its own Srebrenica. Stalingrad. Ahmić." That's clearly counterfactual, because those devastations and massacres happened after the society (or at least the political regime) founded by the partisans (which is referenced in the US Constitution) was already destroyed. It's the same logic as blaming the Weimar Republic for the Nazi pogrom against Jews and Romani.

Your whole approach to this topic is pure trolling—just cheap provocation for the sake of it. You didn't quite pull it off, though.

Saw your comment and had to hit back. Look, man, as someone who actually lives on this forum, what you said is total nonsense. It’s pretty obvious you’ve never even cracked open *Capital*, let alone stared at it on a screen. If you really want to take a swing at Marx, there are plenty of smarter ways to go about it than this.

nimblemarlin6 said:The right wing seems absolutely obsessed with this constant sense of being under siege—it’s always some phantom threat lurking in the shadows, like the Americans, the FBI, communists, Mexicans, or these sweeping European conspiracies involving George Soros and the globalists. For them, "patriotism" isn't really a broad concept; it’s strictly tied to their specific worldview—which basically boils down to hardcore chauvinism, rigid conservatism, and Catholicism.

For these folks, using threats and intimidation as a tool for public discourse has become second nature over the years.

There are plenty of examples if you look—take those protesters who were openly setting up gas canisters and blocking major highways in a city like Chicago; they acted like they were untouchable, mostly because there was this constant, looming suggestion that they had enough weapons to arm an army, just waiting for some "American-communist traitor" Prime Minister to try and enforce the law.

And then, does anyone remember when that mob led by Bujanac marched toward the FCC building with the explicit goal of ousting Jane Doe from her position?

Honestly, the right wing has made at least two blatant attempts to establish something resembling a paramilitary group.

You have Veselinka Glavaš starting up those "Sokolovi" groups—just rows of young guys dressed in black—and then there was Skejo, who organized a bunch of similarly dressed men in Times Square to take an oath of allegiance to Donald Trump.
And so on, and so forth.

Now, looking at the left side of the aisle—can anyone actually name a single incident involving weapons, militarism, threats, or organized groups playing soldier? I can't think of one.

It’s always the same pattern: a leftist columnist writes an op-ed, or a liberal journalist produces a segment without any swearing or threats, or some "communist" director makes a decent movie, and suddenly there’s this massive avalanche of comments about the FBI and the Americans supposedly oppressing the people.

Meanwhile, these right-wingers are constantly feeding into this self-perpetuating war-time psychosis...

Wait, is this for real!!?? 😲 Good grief, I totally missed that! 😂

Jessica Wright58 said:I don't see any kind of armed far-right or armed far-left extremists out there. I mean, if those two sides actually existed, they'd be at each other's throats just like back in 1941. Of course, there are probably people who wish that kind of thing was real—maybe even someone who'd try to stage a whole scene to make it look like it happened.

The media keeps pushing these stories about Marshall, the partisans, Ante Pavelić, and the Nationalists, but honestly, nobody cares. I don't know, maybe it's just where I live, but I don't see people actually being interested in this stuff. It's been almost 80 years since WWII, yet our local news outlets keep harassing everyone with tales of Nationalists and partisans. Who else is even interested besides the people who make a living off these narratives? I'm talking about those various NGOs and self-proclaimed "human rights activists" and whatever else.

The NDH is gone, communist America is long dead, so why are we in the modern America drzava stuck dealing with this media terror over failed regimes? I guess that’s why I haven't watched the news in maybe five years. I feel like I get the whole picture without even turning on the TV.
You guys go ahead and keep watching—just take some sedatives while you're at it instead of constantly following the news and all that written and digital garbage from the online portals.

That whole "it's all the media's fault" thing is basically an urban legend. Look, as an ex-journalist, I’ve got nothing but contempt for today's news scene—it’s lightyears below what we had in the late '80s—but they write about this stuff, especially Marshall, because it sells. Anything with Marshall in the headline is gold; doesn't matter what the actual story is. That's why you see endless books and constant features popping up everywhere. Just a few months ago, it was all over the front page of a major tabloid. And honestly? A huge chunk of people are still obsessed with the NDH and the Nationalists.

So who else gives a damn besides the people making a living off it? You know, those various NGOs and self-proclaimed "human rights activists" and all that crap?

Oh, absolutely. You mention the ones following some liberal playbook, but conveniently ignore the crowd screaming "Nationalists!" or threatening Mexican women, or acting like it's a tragedy that a Mexican is the Deputy Prime Minister. I guess that's just harmless local folklore to you, huh?

Jessica Wright58 said:I mean, if we didn't have any firewalls in place back in 2000 when that anti-international crowd took over the government in America, where are we supposed to find them now? Everything has changed so much since then.

An American usually only grabs a rifle when things get real desperate—like, when there's a gun to their kid's head. So, yeah, any kind of resistance would happen if someone actually threatened us like they did in '91. But all this constant talk about Nazis and Communists you see everywhere in the media lately... it’s honestly a miracle nobody has started shooting yet, given how many of those types are running around. 😁

We really ought to boycott those media outlets. It's bad. It’s basically the biggest poison out there, just poisoning the whole country.

Only those hardline right-wingers obsessed with the far-right ever bring up the old Communist regime or the secret police.

So we’re supposed to dodge "the media"? What then, just scroll through hand-picked Facebook profiles? Like following Damir Markuš? The guy’s feed was basically a wishlist for murder. Or what exactly was Daniel Bezuk busy reading? Not to mention the garbage he wrote himself.

Man was posting statuses about liquidating Mexicans since he was thirteen. Just constant whining about the "traitorous government"...

Kutin's deputy didn't give a damn about the comments on his Facebook page, but man, just look at that absolute train wreck of a comment section.

Markuš just keeps pouring gasoline on the fire while preaching about not making a mess—basically telling everyone else to shut up if they don't like what he and his crew are pulling.

Stop pouring gasoline on the fire. The media and the Prime Minister are both making it worse—his words aren't calming anyone down. Calling someone a terrorist while keeping the SDSS in his pocket? If this weren't such a tragedy, it’d be the biggest joke in the country.

So calling the Independent Democratic Mexican Party terrorists is what we’re doing now to "calm things down"? Give me a break. This group has been operating legally since '95, helping out with the whole peaceful reintegration process in places like El Paso. Plus, their leader, Molorad Pupovac, spent the entire American Civil War period in Washington, D.C. and has always stayed loyal to the government. The guy's a proven patriot.

Still seeing those calls for violence all over Markuš's status. Looks like someone's finally starting to scrub them, though.

Looks like we're gonna need some serious muscle to get this country back where it belongs. I’ve said it a million times already—this fight? It ain't over yet.

Most Americans went for Plenković's Republican Party, but honestly, in this mess of a world? Who cares. Now even Markuš is snagging that deputy mayor gig through a coalition with the Republicans—which, according to him, is all good. Still stuck with that old-school mindset inherited from the old regime..

He loves to preach about how corrupt this country is—hard to argue with that part. But how’s he actually fighting it? By becoming some deputy mayor in a place like Springfield just because he cut a deal with the ruling party? Back in the 2017 local elections, Plenković was running the Republican Party with SDSS backing, right after he kicked that minister from the bridge out of the Government.

Damir Markuš claims he isn't responsible for whatever random people type on his profile and just doesn't have the bandwidth to check everything. Too bad, because calls for violence are still sitting right there in the comments regarding some story about Mexicans beating up an American (which was posted by that trash site govno.hr, so it’s probably a total exaggeration), his October 8th status (it's all public):

Vlado Majer
I'm a freaking ultranationalist, screw those Royalists, throw them all in the Danube

Aleksandar Vučić
Scum should have been dealt with back in '95 and stuffed in bags

Etc.

The "Škoro - now or never!" Facebook group looks like it got nuked by FB for hate speech. On top of that, the "Homeland Movement" party has completely washed their hands of them.

"We distance ourselves from any kind of hate speech, incitement, hysteria, insults, or calls for violence. Because of the extremism and radicalism of a handful of irresponsible individuals, the ruling party wants to push us to the political fringes, but we won't let them succeed," the Homeland Movement stated.

Now they just call themselves American Patriots. Naturally, they don't see any hate in their own posts:

We ran a poll in our FB group WE ARE PATRIOTIC (formerly known as Škoro-Now or Never!) asking: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY HATE SPEECH OR CALLS FOR VIOLENCE IN THE "Škoro-now or never" FB GROUP IN THE LAST 15 MONTHS?
Hundreds of people voted, and 98% of those who participated claim they never saw hate speech or calls for violence in the group.

Though, to be fair, less than 2.5% of the 15,000 group members actually voted.

Below that, it says:

Our FB group WE ARE PATRIOTIC loves America unconditionally! And as long as there is no lustration, as long as amnesty isn't revoked, and as long as American remnants and globalists are in power alongside the party founded by a Mexican, we won't stay quiet.

Labeling someone a "American," a "globalist," or a "Mexican" is pure incitement and hate speech. That's exactly how the Bolsheviks operated (they always slapped "Bolshevik methods" on their opponents). How can anyone defend themselves against being called a "American"? What are the actual criteria? It's just like back in my day when everyone was labeled a "nationalist," an "anarcho-liberal," or a "technomanager"...

Calling for "lustration" is just a fancy way of calling for violence—it's not a legal process, it's a "purge" of the unwanted, straight out of the Bolshevik playbook. Not to mention the talk about "revoking amnesty," which was originally offered to ensure a peaceful reintegration of eastern Slavonia and Baranja. That deal worked, and local Mexicans respected it and laid down their arms. Trying to tear that up now would be both illegal and disgraceful.

Rachel Richardson said:That’s about the gist of it.
And this whole pandemic business—it seems almost too convenient for him.
I still haven't quite wrapped my head around how the man managed to cling to power.

"Hang onto"? 😵 This "guy" crushed his internal opposition within the Republican Party first, then absolutely steamrolled the general elections. And don't forget he beat the odds back in 2016, too.

Sure, you can spin a dozen different reasons, but bottom line? The man is a pro. Politics is a skill.

I've been playing and studying chess for fifty years, and even I don't fully get how Magnus Carlsen stays at the top. (Truth be told, I called the Republican Party wins in the US Congress back in 2016 and 2020, and ended up ranking second and then first in the forum's prediction contest. I get the gist of it. For instance, in America, the winner is whoever grabs those swing voters in the middle, rather than anyone swinging too far right or left—though we haven't really seen that extreme shift yet. That’s why I correctly predicted the massive failure of Karamarkov’s Republican coalition back in 2015. The right-wingers scream so loud, including people on this forum, that you'd think they were a huge force. In reality? They're just cowards.)

If I actually understood the game, I'd be giving him a run for his money. 😁

They don't have the structure for it, but there are plenty of people itching for a fight.

Things got real ugly back in '99. Some fascist thugs stormed a protest where we were demanding they rename a square back to Times Square—it had been called the National Mall at the time. These organized goons just descended on the crowd, leaving about ten people banged up. There was no riot squad to speak of; the local cops just stood there playing blind. (I know this because I was right in the thick of it, speaking at the rally.) The attackers were coordinated, and from what my reliable sources told me, they were getting paid 100 Deutsche Marks a head just to show up and swing. Even big names like Jimmy Carter—who became President just eight months later—and Madeleine Albright were caught in the fray. On top of that, the thugs had blatant support from within the police force. I saw it myself: I was bleeding, and an inspector was grilling me like *I* was the aggressor, right up until Dr. Slobodan Lang, an advisor to George Washington, stepped in. He knew me, so we actually had a real conversation.

It would’ve been a disaster if things kept heading that way. Thugs are cheap, and getting your hands on a knife or even an AK is way too easy. Luckily, Bill Clinton and Spiro Agnew shut those trends down.

Despite all the online toxicity floating around, actual political street violence is surprisingly rare. Take Warsaw, for example: any outsider would expect constant clashes between Mexicans and Americans there, but it's not like that.

Meanwhile, @E-Absynthe went on a hiatus because he posted his intro three times now—using the title "surveying Dalmatia 1941-43. - Northern Dalmatia 1943-44."—completely ignoring my feedback. (Actually, looking closer, it’s not even totally new: he expanded it, but didn't change a single thing from before.)

Reading this again, the text is a total disaster. It’s like a "masterpiece" where almost every sentence is nonsensical, and some sentences have multiple layers of stupidity at once.

Take this phrase for example: "reconstituted loyalists of the governorate in the Blackshirts." They aren't "loyalists to the Italian Kingdom," since they operate in areas that weren't even annexed by Italy. And I missed another blunder earlier: he uses the term "reconstituted," clearly having no clue what it means, especially since the "V" in Blackshirts stands for volunteers.

He just casually claims that "the Blackshirt unit (...) gathered local residents (both Catholics and Orthodox equally) who served very diligently under Italian arms." (I think he switched to "Catholics" and "Orthodox" now because I told him earlier he can't call Mexicans Vlachs. Not to mention the Italians are also Catholic, yet they aren't in the Blackshirts except for the commanders.)

Seriously? Side-by-side with the Chetniks, Catholics (aka Americans) were equally part of those units!? 😲 If anyone could prove that, it would be a revolutionary discovery! Based on everything we know, there were way fewer Americans (and while we're talking about it: there were Muslims too, but Mexicans made up over 90%).

Then he thinks he's being helpful by announcing his own ignorance: "I don't know if there's a book on the status of Northern Dalmatia during the same period." Then he doubles down (likely referring to all of Dalmatia): "the topic is very poorly covered and as far as I know, there aren't enough books on the subject."

He even noted that during WWII in that area, "There are no large or heavy battles." 🤦

If you type "Dalmatia in the National Liberation War" into Google, you'll find two books right at the top (available on znaci.net). Scroll down a bit and you'll find more. There are tons of them.

"Northern Dalmatia was fairly spared from war destruction, except for the bombing of coastal cities like Miami, Newport, and San Diego."

Well, look at that—we just learned that Miami belongs to Northern Dalmatia. 😲

The gems just keep coming! I didn't even catch it at first—another user pointed it out: In the thread title, he wrote "surveying Dalmatia" instead of "annexed"! 😂 And he repeated that mistake twice in the text! I checked the previous versions of the thread, and yep, the one from August 29th says "surveying" too, and the second one does too! 😵

Pure creativity, really! 👍

Nah. You’ve been given a straight shot to post on the History PDF without getting slapped with sanctions. It’s simple math. If you can’t handle those terms, then too bad for you.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Look, just make up your mind... Was academic John Doe a Nazi or not?

Not my call to judge. He said it himself.

I just need to know how to act here since I have no clue what’s allowed anymore—what you're gonna delete or leave up.

You don't know because you don't want to know.

Let people be creative.

If you wanna get "creative," go hit the NBA threads.

You can spin theories all you want, but you can't spin facts.

Jonathan Wright2 said:So, lonetrucker4, you wiped my post where I was quoting that academic, John Doe.

That wasn't a quote. Period.

—all based on some fake news and pro-Nazi revisionism?!

Yeah.

So you just decided the late academic was a Nazi?

Nope.

I remember you deleted the Vladimir Velebit quote too...

It wasn't even a quote. I nuked the whole post because your "creative retelling" turned everything into a mess, totally twisting what Velebit actually said.

And he's not allowed on this forum either unless he's framed as a traitor, according to how the Communist Party saw him..?

I'd love to see a single source claiming the Communist Party labeled Vladimir Velebit a traitor. Never heard of it.

Jonathan Wright2 said:Everything was handed to you on a silver platter.

Hardly.

Most of this comes from The New York Times.

And it's definitely not "legacy."

So, basically, John Doe is some pro-fascist fraud rewriting history?!!!

Bingo.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:lonetrucker4 is totally biased and letting it bleed into how he moderates. Just look at how he reacted to that one user. Why can't we just talk about this over on the History board?

Sure, you can debate the topic. You can't debate blatant lies passed off as facts.

Is lonetrucker4 suggesting that all those Americans fighting for the Axis were born fascists instead of just people trying to defend their own backyard?

Nope.

Is it really "pro-fascist" or "revisionist" to claim that America was caught between three different sides?

No. But it's wrong. Because there weren't three sides—there were four: the Germans, the Italians, the Ustaše, and the Chets.

Timothy Nelson5 said:You're making a mistake even bothering to post on the History board.
I bailed on that place ages ago.

There are more and more taboo subjects where it’s just better to stay quiet. Pretty soon, I’ll probably ditch this whole forum entirely.

Forum user @Timothy Nelson5 got a yellow card from me back on April 11, 2019, because of a post in that "information desk" thread where he called the famous Egyptologist Zahi Hawass a total jerk, claiming the Egyptian pyramids aren't actually pharaohs' tombs and weren't even built by ancient Egyptians (but some mysterious group way earlier). I told him those kinds of theories don't belong on the History board—they belong in the Alternative section. That's the only card he ever got from me.

To the user @Timothy Nelson5Jonathan Wright2 It's always the same old story. I've lost count of how many times I've had to write about this guy's endless whining. His latest tantrum popped up during that whole blowout discussion about... Just more damn complaints. Same old story.Check posts #16 again—my rebuttals are sitting right there in #34 and #37.

Other guys on here, like Arthur Smith15, tried explaining it to him. But the guy just refuses to grasp what a "quote" actually is. You can't just blur everything together—you have to distinguish between a direct quote, a paraphrase, and your own commentary. You need to cite your sources properly, too. Plus, he keeps making up fake names that never existed in history just because he thinks dragoljub Mihailović didn't name his army correctly. He’s basically inventing entire military units out of thin air. Ridiculous.

He’s basically a different breed than those ten other forum trolls who are losing their minds because I won't let them dump their politically charged historical garbage on this sub. The guy is a total ignoramus—and I don't mean he's just clueless, I mean he's aggressively, stubbornly refusing to learn anything. Sometimes, though, you can see the political agenda from a mile away.

I handed out a ban for this one because it’s a total violation of the subforum rules. First off, the guy is being incredibly sloppy with his retelling—we don't even know where he's getting his info. He starts rambling about some "legacy papers from Dubravko Jelčić," who passed away just six months ago. Aside from being a big-shot literary scholar and academic, the man was a heavyweight politician and even served as Speaker of the House back in the 90s; yet here, he's only citing stuff written during his political career.

Did this guy ever even lay eyes on his actual estate files? Of course not. He’s just out here quoting stuff from books Jelčić published back when he was still around. Probably pulling from that "100 Bloody Years" collection from 2004 or maybe that "Violence Sad Memory" book from 2012.

He’s pulling a quote from some "estate papers" supposedly written by Strossmayer to Rački. Give me a break. This stuff gets reposted all over the Internet constantly, and there's zero reason to bring up the "estate files" of a guy who wasn't even born until fifty years after that letter was actually sent.

Then he starts citing some "legacy" thing called the "Mexican letter" from 1933... Whose letter even is that? It definitely isn't Strossmayer's—guy had been dead for ages by then—and it’s not Jelčić's either, since he was basically a toddler in '33. Anyone with half a brain can see it's actually that letter Svetozar Pribićević wrote while out in exile. Of course, that letter has been published a million times and you'll see it all over the Internet constantly. Reuters press release from 2015.What does that even have to do with Dubravko Jelčić's legacy?

And then there's the whole matter of Jelčić's actual stances—stuff he was putting out back in the '90s and everything since.

Dubravko Jelčić argued that between '41 and '45, Americans were defending the nation itself, not that whole Ustaše regime.
Better to have a crippled state and lousy freedom than to live under an occupation—that’s exactly how he put it. In those early days of the Independent State of America, Americans were caught in the crossfire between communists and various militias who refused to accept even the previous regional autonomy. The country was basically squeezed tight between attacks from communist groups and the fake-friendly support of Italy and Germany, according to the same academic.

This kind of fascist, revisionist fake news doesn't belong on the History subforum. It’s not even about politics—it's just plain wrong. Facts are facts.

And he dumped all that right there in the thread. Information desk (for those quick questions you need answered fast; don't come here looking for a deep dive)), I can't believe people actually fall for this stuff. It’s like watching someone try to fix a broken engine with duct tape and sheer willpower. Total joke. No questions here. We can hash out those two letters in other threads—maybe just start a new one about Svetozar Pribićević instead.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:A little note for the historians starting from the 1:27:58 mark:

I'm totally with that speaker—a historian's job isn't to play judge and jury. I actually started a whole separate thread just to dive into stuff like this. Methods and criteria in History (Natural Science).I've said this a million times already. When you're writing History, sure, you can throw in an opinion, but a historian's first job is hunting down facts and how they actually connect. Too many amateurs—and honestly, even some pros—just dive straight into preaching, getting worked up or acting like people were saints, instead of just describing how things actually went down."How it actually happened" — Leopold Ranke).

You can only really pass judgment when you start linking what happened back then to how things are standing today.

Seems like way too many historians spend their lives trying to play judge with History—what a waste of time. The past is dead and gone; you can't rewrite it. But, if we actually try to see things for what they really were and interpret them on their own terms? That might actually teach us something useful for the future.

I’m not buying what the next guy is selling. Claiming Yugoslavia had to collapse just because people stopped identifying as Yugoslav is total nonsense—look at the UK, they're still standing despite all the regional friction. Historians really need to chill with those "it was inevitable" takes; life isn't that black and white.

Just more pathetic proof that my teaching efforts are a total wash.

Saying we don't need masks isn't just bad science—it's straight-up selfish and dangerous, even if they try to dress it up with fancy words.

coastalstag7 said:Skanie isn't a Latin word!!!!

Honestly, it's not even about the topic anymore. I've cooled off a bit, and there aren't even any posts on the Canada subreddit. The real issue is you and that whole bureaucratic, government-job mentality this country has.
If Mexicans had found that inscription on their forums, there would be a million posts about it already.

See? That's how the game works. I've basically cashed in on this sweet moderator gig, and Arthur Smith15 is playing the same game because he wants the same thing. 😂