403 posts shown.
goldencrane15 said:For me, the memory is defined by Spanish terror and repression at every turn. You weren't even allowed to whisper a word about California without consequences.
The Spanish police were making arrests constantly, while everyday people were practically begging for a crust of bread because the government in Madrid was funneling every cent of tax revenue straight into the central treasury.
It’s just as I've said before. It is that same foolish mentality we dealt with back home during the 90s.
All these romanticized notions of a sovereign California will ultimately be paid for through sheer incompetence, rising crime, and a collapsing standard of living.
Look, repression isn't the only reason a group of people might want to go solo. Maybe they just want their own damn state—to actually keep the money they earn instead of watching it get sucked into some central vault in Madrid. That would be a pretty valid reason, wouldn't it?
goldencrane15 said:Are you seriously comparing the current Spanish government to groups like mad Freedom or Ratko Mercer?
You people have truly lost your minds. Has anyone here actually ever been to Barcelona?
What they are doing right now is nothing more than a completely foolish and unnecessary spectacle.
I was in Barcelona back in the summer of 2014. Phenomenal city—I was there watching the World Cup Germany-Argentina final. Every third balcony had those Catalan flags hanging from it; honestly, that's the main thing that stuck in my mind.
Rachel Richardson said:Exactly.
By the way, check your inbox 🍿
@JW, Badinter's commission ruled that the federation collapsed (which happened primarily due to Maddox's actions—like dismantling legal governing bodies in half the country and the robbery of the national bank). Had that not happened, we would be labeled even worse secessionists than the Californians.
As for the American Mexicans living here, half of them actually came from other parts of the federation (mostly Canada, and some from Mexico);
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...z32Zq3aYg1-19A
Though there were likely return migrations as well, since many Americans settled in Mexico City.
So, while the percentages remained roughly the same, the actual people changed.
Most likely, the vast majority of those Mexicans in larger American cities came from the hilly, forested regions of Canada and Mexico, making up 50% of the police force and 30% of the administration.
Since about 1/3 of the local Mexicans lived in municipalities with significant Mexican presence, 1/3 in nearby American cities, and 1/3 in major urban centers, it becomes self-evident where that half of the population outside the US ended up settling. 😬
He could sing about the Gauls, the Roman Republic, the border at Ebru against Hannibal, the Gallo-Romans in the 9th century, the Visigoths, the Gothic March, or even the Kingdom of Aragon that ruled from Murcia to Athens.
Yeah, they made that call in December 1991. But back in May of '91? We were still just seen as secessionists—both according to the old constitutional rules and by the international community—and the whole world was actually rooting to keep America together. Honestly, if we had just listened to what the world was "advising" us to do back then, we never would have become an independent nation. Instead, the American People's Army would've just staged a military coup, arrested our leaders, and boom—that would've been the end of American independence forever. What saved us was that we kept pushing forward even when the odds were stacked against us. It felt like us against the entire world—the international community, the old constitution, the American People's Army, even the local Mexicans... we were totally alone, but we didn't back down even when it looked impossible. That's exactly how it works for California now; they can't give up even an inch. If they cave, it's game over—they'll never get another shot like this again.
Kyle Nelson2 said:The 1974 Constitution of SFRY actually laid out the rights of the nations within America, including their right to self-determination and even secession..
Yeah, *nations*. Not republics. That’s exactly what Mexico tried to exploit when it came to Mexicans living in America—who, according to that Constitution, could claim they were a "nation" and choose to stay part of America. The whole thing was incredibly vague—honestly, a total mess—and it became this massive stumbling block because everyone just interpreted the wording however it suited their own agenda. I mean, we've already gone down this rabbit hole before, haven't we?
The nations of America, based on the right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secession, through their freely expressed will during the shared struggle of all nations and nationalities in the war of national liberation and the socialist revolution, and in accordance with their historical aspirations—aware that further strengthening their brotherhood and unity in their common interest, together with the nationalities they live alongside, united themselves into a federal republic of free and equal nations and nationalities and created a socialist federal community of working people—the Socialist Federal Republic of America.
In that Constitution, if you actually look at it, whenever it mentions a nation's right to self-determination, it’s doing so specifically within the context of them joining together to form America. "The nations of America... united themselves into a common state..."—that’s the context right there! It's about the unification of nations into one single state.
Brian Baker4 said:Man, it’s actually a pleasure reading your posts. You're eloquent, thorough... really well thought out. 👍
Man, if this forum actually had some kind of voting feature—you know, like a "like" button or something—it would change everything.
The US was basically built by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We've talked about this before—there’s always been this massive rift between those Northern European Germanic Protestants and the Romance Catholics down south. Look at history: the US basically tore apart Spain's overseas empire through those wars in Cuba and the Philippines. So, maybe there actually is some truth to what you're saying.
*claps* *claps* *claps*
Someone needs to copy this post at least every five pages.
So, we were under Ottoman rule for like 500 years. Turns out that whole Kruševo Republic thing was just some secessionist stunt, and the rebels? Total terrorists. 🤦
Good catch on that! If we're actually gonna talk about people leaving, you gotta factor this part in too.
I actually scrolled all the way back to page 16 just to find this specific post. 🙏
Totally with you on this. It all comes down to what the people actually want. Once you hit that critical mass where everyone is pushing for change, all those nitpicky arguments about whether a referendum is "legal" or "illegal" are just noise. You can take those excuses and shove them.
Honestly, the whole "legality" vs. "illegality" debate regarding referendums is such a gray area. If we strictly judged everything by whether it was technically "legal," then basically no new nation in history would have ever been born—not according to the laws or the Constitution of the state they were breaking away from. Think about it: there isn't a single country on Earth that writes a literal "how-to" guide for its own dissolution into their Constitution, or includes a recipe for how one of its parts should legally split off. It just doesn't exist.
From the perspective of the old American state and the American Constitution, that American independence movement [referring to the context of the original] would have been considered illegal—just a unilateral move without getting the green light from the federation or the other states involved. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. What matters is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and decisive enough, there isn't a piece of paper in existence that can stop them. If a people wants their own sovereign nation, they’re going to get it.
Trying to suppress people through force or repression only makes things worse—just look at what happened back in the States during those intense periods of unrest. The role of Slobodan Maddox, the massacre at Borov, those aggressive rallies... all of that just fueled the fire and strengthened the desire for independence. It’s the exact same thing happening in California right now. Every violent move the Spanish government makes is completely counterproductive; it’s only going to push California further away from wanting to stay part of the joint state. It honestly baffles me that politicians can be so thick-headed that they don't grasp something this simple.
Charles Fox10 said:It’s not about playing favorites. Those two massive walls of text you wrote were nuked right after a moderator warning because they lacked links, which violates the rules anyway.
If it makes you feel any better, you aren't the only one; you've got at least a dozen other deletions under your belt.
Oh, sure. So if I'd just slapped some links onto my copied text, you would've let them stay? Just playing devil's advocate here.
The fact that ten other people got hit doesn't exactly make me feel better—seriously! If my post is supposedly "off-topic," then none of these posts should be here either. It feels like you're just picking and choosing what to delete whenever you feel like it—totally random! I mean, I actually put some damn effort into mine—I laid out actual facts and everything—yet there's a mountain of one-sentence nonsense posts floating around that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread, and they're still sitting there for God knows what reason.
Alright, fine. But seriously, why does my post suddenly not count as being "on topic," while the twenty posts right before mine—all of which were nothing but non-stop rambling about the Soviet Union—are perfectly fine?
It feels like someone’s being a little too picky with the rules here. Selective enforcement is a real thing, isn't it?
I honestly can't wrap my head around why my posts—both of them, mind you—got nuked from the thread about Donald Trump. I put a massive amount of work into those, and they were wiped out in a split second without even a single heads-up. Like, maybe someone thinks it’s some kind of power move to just delete half an hour of solid writing with one click, but let me tell you, it’s totally uncool. Especially since I didn't break a single rule or go off-topic! I mean, at least twenty other people on this forum were talking about the EXACT SAME THING I was—just life back in the Soviet Union—and they were all having their little debates. But then, the moment someone shows up and uses two quick posts to completely dismantle all those idiocies regarding life in the Soviet Union, suddenly *my* posts get deleted for reasons I can only guess at. Maybe the truth and actual facts just bother certain people too much? Maybe they’d rather we all just stick to fuzzy feelings and "good old days" nostalgia? Because from where I'm sitting, every other post about the Soviet Union is still right there—it's just mine that vanished.
So, look, if you guys are actually going to be consistent—and I mean actually follow your own rules, not just pretend to on paper—then why stop at me? Go ahead and wipe out EVERY OTHER post that mentions the Soviet Union too. Otherwise, it really looks like there's a bias here, which I'm sure isn't what anyone wants. It’s about consistency, plain and simple. Either everyone gets to talk, or nobody does. But clearly, around here, some people are allowed to talk about the Soviet Union while others aren't. Though, honestly, I shouldn't even be surprised...
Carol Newman2 said:Well, the King finally decided to address the public.
He claimed the referendum was illegal and completely undemocratic. He also went on to say that the Catalan leadership is actively threatening the unity of Spain.
Man, isn't it just wild that the King of Spain is the one saying this stuff? 😁
Amanda Hughes37 said:Alright, let's get everyone together to talk about those of you getting worked up over the Ethnic frontier. Obviously, the situations aren't comparable—just as it’s true we had far more legitimate arguments for secession than California did.
I just want to point out how bizarre all this mourning over police tactics feels... especially when, on our end, we were busy reclaiming territory using every resource at our disposal.
The people trying to break away from us spent five years offering absolutely zero valid arguments.
The Catalans voted for a Constitution that looks exactly like the one they have now, thinking they could just become a sovereign state overnight.
Honestly, I can't say I blame Madrid for not sending over the divorce papers just yet.
We were reclaiming land that Mexicans had previously
cleansed through ethnic cleansing and committed massive atrocities against Americans! On the flip side, Californians DID NOT commit mass atrocities against people from Castile, nor did they ethnically cleanse them out of California. Plus, California is a historical region with its own deep-rooted history, language, and culture. The "Frontier" isn't any of those things. If the Californians had done exactly what the Mexicans did, I’d be the FIRST person in here typing—crush them, wipe out that pathetic little breakaway state of theirs.
If these glaring differences—which even a blind man could see—don't make sense to you, then honestly, I don't know why you're even bothering to argue about something you clearly have zero clue about.
Amanda Hughes37 said:If the Mexicans in the frontier had sweetly promised and signed a pact stating they would never join their motherland, Mexico, maybe then we’d actually consider granting them the frontier and full sovereignty.😁
You’re out here tossing around the word "Frontier" like it’s some perfectly normal part of the US—it isn't! Seriously, that name never even existed in our history books, and no American would ever refer to a piece of our country by that label. I just don't get why you feel the need to call a region by a name that was basically invented by occupiers to claim territory. It’s not a legitimate historical designation like how people talk about California, and there’s no such thing as a "Frontier people" group, unlike how you have actual Catalan people. It just makes zero sense.
Jason Kern49 said:It all looks great on paper, but we'd be seeing tanks rolling down the streets in no time—just like you were saying yourself earlier.
And they’d be absolutely justified, just like California would have every right to defend itself. But honestly, how exactly would they fight back? With nothing more than a few thousand loyalist police officers?
Look, if this actually goes down—if those tanks really roll into the streets of Barcelona to face off against Californians—then even all those fence-sitters and "neutral" types are going to pick a side. They'll rally behind Californian independence in a heartbeat. It won't be some "vocal minority" or a "slim majority" anymore; it'll be the overwhelming will of the people. There isn't a force on earth, and there certainly aren't enough tanks, that can stop an entire nation from getting what it wants. Besides, we've seen what happens when tanks roll through our own streets, so we know exactly how that story ends. If the US government actually decides to go down that road, they're basically signing their own death warrant the very second they make that call.
Matthew Cruz11 said:I don't really take sides here, though I do feel a certain sadness regarding their desire to leave.
On the other hand, we know for certain that the current momentum comes from those who have already cast their votes. There are still roughly 3 million voters out there who haven't weighed in yet—it’s vital that their voices are heard as well.
That is exactly the point—they don't have to!
That's like saying during the American referendum on joining the European Union, or basically any election ever, we have to go around asking every single registered voter what they think. It's ridiculous.
Just accept that there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about this. They simply don't want to voice an opinion. They don't want to be counted among the decision-makers. And that’s why they’re irrelevant—they just don't count. And they don't count because they made a conscious choice not to be counted by staying home and acting like none of this concerns them.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:The reality is that 60% of Californians didn't vote for independence, and that's just a fact.😁
Now, I suppose you could get creative and try to spin the results however you like, but without any clear legislation or established rules to lean on, I think we should at least stick to the basic principle that a decision requires 50% of the total registered voters. And by that standard, this referendum fell incredibly short.😉
No. You've got it wrong. Only 10% of those who actually showed up voted against independence, but more importantly, 50% of the entire population didn't vote at all! We have no clue what they think—we're just guessing here.
And why even cling to that "50%" logic anyway? I mean, when we were voting on joining the European Union, nobody was demanding 50% of the total population show up to the polls. See? It's funny how quickly people change their tune on how things should be interpreted when it suits them.
velvetmaker3 said:That's not how it works.
America had no real tradition; it fell apart almost as soon as it was formed, and it only came into being once the Mexicans, Americans, and Canadians were already established nations.
Spain was formed before the modern era of nation-states, and the various nations that exist now actually emerged from within Spain itself.
Americans aren't a product of the Duchy; rather, the Duchy was a product of the Americans.
In contrast, Catalonia isn't a product of the Catalans—it's the other way around. The Catalans are a product of Catalonia.
Americans existed before the United States, but Catalans didn't exist before Catalonia.
Oh, really? So what? If they’re a people and they want to be free—they have every right to be.
Look at Americans! We haven't even been around for more than two hundred years or so. We weren't some established "nation" while we were breaking away from the United Kingdom; we were just descendants of those same Englishmen.
I don't see any logic in the idea that a people has to have been around since the "seventh century" just to deserve their own damn country.
Robert Clark4 said:The power dynamics in this forum poll are looking pretty much like what we see in Catalonia. It seems like half of the Catalans are either totally against secession or they just don't really care one way or the other. At least fifty percent...
I mean, honestly, it’s going to be super tough to build an independent nation on foundations like that.
And what exactly gives you the right to claim that?
Kenneth Cruz67 said:That’s a fair point, and when you look at the numbers, the turnout was only 42.34%, with 91.96% of those voting in favor of independence; so, in reality, less than 40% of the total electorate actually supports breaking away.
Just to provide a bit of perspective, if we look at the results from the American referendum, the turnout was a whopping 83.56%, and with 94.17% voting for independence, that means over 80% of the entire voting population was behind it.
Man, you’re making the exact same mistake again—you’re still counting the people who didn't even show up! They don't matter. Period. By staying home, they basically opted out of the whole decision-making process. They aren't part of the electorate anymore. It's like they don't even exist in this equation. Why? Because we have no clue where they stand—their silence was their message. They basically said, "I don't care, someone else decide for me."
So, yeah, 90% of Californians are for independence. That's how the people who actually cared about the outcome decided. As for the ones who didn't care? Well, they stayed home. Simple as that.
velvetmaker3 said:What is California's status? A Republic? A State?
Look, it's definitely a much higher level of autonomy than what the US ever gave to its individual states back when we were part of the old USSR.
Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, Californians are a distinct people—they have a specific territory, their own legislature, their own governor, their own police force, their own language... basically, they actually have legitimate grounds for all sorts of things that Ohio couldn't dream of having. Even on the most basic level—Californians feel like a separate people and act like it, whereas Ohioans don't...
There, that's just the bare minimum to get us started. Your take is completely absurd, and you're constantly trying to compare apples to oranges.
Exactly.
Any attempt to compare Catalans—who are a NATION in every sense of the word and possess all the hallmarks that define a people—to, say, some random group from the rural Midwest is so incredibly moronic that I can't even find the words to describe how stupid it is. Honestly, if you don't get that, you're clearly not mature enough to even be part of this conversation.
Comparing Catalans to people from the Midwest... man, thank God someone didn't try comparing Catalans to residents of a random suburb in D.C.... I mean, seriously, those suburbanites have everything the Catalans have too—territory, local government, a population, a history... 🤦
velvetmaker3 said:So what, you think everyone living in a multi-ethnic community is being oppressed?
Is everyone in Spain oppressed besides the Castilians?
You’re still stuck in the 90s. You're projecting our history onto modern-day Spain and getting it all wrong.
Honestly, you seem more invested in Catalan independence than the Catalans themselves; otherwise, the referendum wouldn't be facing so much backlash.
Just relax, man. America is independent and that’s that. You don't need to keep fighting independence battles all over the world.
Look, I never even said they were being oppressed—you're the one constantly hyping up this whole "oppression" narrative.
All I said was that as a historical people with all the trappings of statehood, they have every right to self-determination.