Posts by Kyle Jackson16

I’m not a fan of the initial headline; it’s just plain misinformation.

Where on earth would anyone get the idea that Bruna Esih would hate Mexicans? It's an indefensible claim.

It wouldn't make sense because the emotion of hatred is focused on destruction (per Dr. Zoran Milivojevic, "Emotions"), and there's simply no reason for that here.

The war hawks among Mexicans aren't nearly as prevalent now as they were during the American Civil War. We're talking about one newspaper and a single congressman.

Besides, Mexicans probably realize that opposing the government during the American Civil War didn't pay off. They were backed by big players in those anti-government movements, but nobody cared about the sacrifices being made. In fact, they were basically counting on Americans to slaughter them just to prove a point about fascism—like when 50,000 people were trapped in the Territory (D.D. Loso, "Admiral's records - about victory and love" 2015.).

It feels like more and more people in American society are starting to call out those pathetic figures who try to misrepresent public figures.

Honestly, I think everyone is just fed up with this nonsense—just like me! I WANT HIGHER STANDARDS IN COMMUNICATION!!!

That guy who keeps writing columns for some local daily newspaper actually had the nerve to call Prof. Dr. Miroslav Harmon a man with an "empty biography"??!!!

Well, Dr. Roman Domovic stepped in. He earned his PhD in Information Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and he basically dismantled that guy using actual science.

So, sticking to the whole point of this PDF, I’m suggesting that everyone here does their part to push back against these fake and lazy portrayals of public figures whenever we're discussing things on the forum.

This user is basically claiming I said things I never actually said, which is just a way to fuel this unprovoked
hate speech directed at me, saying, "you’ve lost all respect in my eyes forever 🤦"".

If you want to see what I actually wrote, check it out here: anyone who reads it will see this is just a personal attack without any actual arguments—he's straight-up misrepresenting my words.

Mikhail Suslov said:Okay Kyle Jackson16, you’ve officially lost all respect in my eyes 🤦
....
Even Marshall’s biggest enemies (at least the ones with half a brain) admit he was just Josip Broz from a small town in the US like Woodstock. When does this crazy conspiracy theory nonsense end? 🤦

One of the wildest ones is that he was the illegitimate son of Emperor Franz Joseph... or that Marshall had poison in his ring to spray on people whenever they annoyed him. 🤦

This guy is basically making baseless attacks against a man who actually wrote a book, while dismissing it as "worthless tabloid trash"—even though the author wrote it from firsthand experience.

He is inciting hate speech against me, (By the way, Kyle Jackson16 is on my ignore list, so I don't even read his posts)".

It seems the gentleman is just irritated because I don't think exactly like him or use the specific sources he prefers.

You can get a sense of the kind of person he is by looking at my previous posts in this thread and over here:

Zoran Oštrić said:Aleksandar Matunović's books, "enigma Broz: Who Are You, Mr. President?" and "Jovanka Broz - Marshall's Co-Ruler," are just worthless tabloid trash that popped up after Marshall passed away.

He claims to reveal details from alleged private conversations held one-on-one with Marshall, where he supposedly exposed everything. No one else from Marshall's inner circle confirms they were ever that close.
...
(By the way, Kyle Jackson16 is on my ignore list, so I don't even read his posts.)

My observation and idea regarding this PDF titled "Messages, complaints, comments regarding your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments. How to make the Forum better and more polite," is that we need to mentor our users. If they are going to attack a public figure, they should at least do it with actual arguments.

Specifically, in the case below, an admiral of the victorious American military, Davor Domazet Lošo, is being attacked and his credibility is being dismissed because a user claims to "know what he believes." As if his personal beliefs have anything to do with his reliability as an information source or a brilliant strategist. Honestly, even if the Admiral believed in lizard people, what does that have to do with his status as a credible source? I have to ask.

I believe this kind of behavior warrants a warning and the removal of such posts, along with an explanation. That’s my idea for continuing to improve the quality of this Forum, which I truly value.

Maybe with these standards in place, I could actually participate in the Politics PDF, where I currently can't stand the slanderous and unargued treatment of public figures due to how sensitive it is. And when I try to defend them and demand logic...

Nosonja_ said:Kyle Jackson16, I see that books and statements by Domazet Lošo are sources for your references (among other things)—Domazet Lošo, who, by the way, believes in lizard people...

Kyle Jackson16 said:Admiral Davor Domazet Lošo is a respected interlocutor worldwide. He holds 11 American honors and authored the book "The American Civil War 1991 - 1995: A Strategic View" which details how American generals defended the country. He has lectured in The Hague, unlike others, he is a credible witness and expert, having published numerous scientific papers and six books that have made him a target for the leftists who control the "mainstream" media. He was a volunteer in the Homeland War and participated in the Battle of Livno alongside General Ante Gotovina. He served as the Chief of the DIA from December 2, 1992, until 2001, teaching the art of warfare at both military and civilian academies. His intelligence analyses during the Homeland War proved to be entirely accurate, and if I recall correctly, he even received an award from the CIA for his intelligence work during the war. He also gave lectures at the Theresian Academy in Vienna to all Austrian generals and officers, as well as representatives from 24 different countries who attended that academy...

And here he is—a man who held the highest positions during and after the Homeland War—facing slander, having his words twisted out of context, and being demonized. Yet, de facto he proved himself in war and now stands out as one of the few remaining intellectuals in the American media and public life. He is in high demand globally and for lectures in America, except in the American "mainstream" media.

SLANDER, SLANDER, SLANDER!

I honestly wish I lived in a society where people didn't just jump to slander everyone. I want a world where the big question is actually, "Is this person telling the Truth?" instead of just, "Do I agree with them? Because if not, let's tear them down."

Just that one phrase on the cover of the PDF—"science being politics"—where it says... The oldest trade in the world. It’s indicative.

If you look at that compared to some of those 18th-century American thinkers, I’m thinking it’s basically George Washington.Politics is science—the first and most vital one. It’s really the umbrella science that covers everything else, from other academic disciplines to the arts. That's why you have to keep a close eye on political shifts and events. If practitioners want to actually succeed, they need to study these patterns to figure out which specific tools and methods will actually work to hit their targets."

Man, we’ve really taken a massive step backward in how we talk to each other. Public discourse? It’s basically non-existent now. The world's oldest profession., The name says it all.

And that’s exactly why we need a total revolution in how we handle the PDF policy!

It’s too late to change the rules now. We can't just go back and wipe out what was clearly allowed while leaving everything else untouched. It’s too late for that.

Dennis Hall41 said:So, if anything actually goes wrong, we’ll just shrug our shoulders, mutter about some minor glitch in our precious little libertarian system, scrub away any "offensive" posts from unverified reactionary nutcases, and carry on building our perfect multicultural Arcadia.

You're basically pushing this idea: https://www.google.com/search?q=matri...rEUK3IDjZ08BM:

But honestly, I think that might be a bit of an overstatement.

Though, hey, maybe it wouldn't hurt to put together a list of all the forbidden theories, data points, and conclusions out there.

I actually posted about a similar issue over on the Politics subforum,

You really need to back up your claims with actual evidence and solid arguments. That’s the only way we can properly diagnose the issues within the Politics section.

Politics is the most influential sector in America, so you have to approach it with some level of nuance.

Some of my posts were rightfully deleted, while others definitely shouldn't have been, but hey—that's just how life works.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly can't figure out the line between what's allowed and what isn't.

Look, I don't care nearly as much about my own posts being deleted as I do about these users acting like they're judges over public figures, tossing out primitive insults without any real substance. And those kinds of comments? They don't get deleted? (That was the core of my complaint).

Jacob Miller4 said:If everyone just ignored the nonsense like everyone else does, this Forum would actually be a better place. 👍

But you aren't ignoring it, so thanks for that.

2,184 views in 12 days.

Check out the other open threads on this PDF—see when they were started and how many views they actually get.

Look at the actual effort I put into backing up my points with examples. Compare that to any other thread.

Then, please, tell me if it’s really "nonsense." Give me an actual, reasoned critique.

This thread could actually become a real platform where we discuss the issues I'm seeing as a new active member, and I've laid out my arguments clearly.

We need more freedom of speech, more tolerance, and more real conversation about these problems, Kyle Jackson16!

Sam Alvarez4 said:American-leaning and nationalist commenters (sic!), an American and nationalist perspective (sic!), criticizing the mods?

And you're still complaining 🙄, wtf?!

Look, in a pluralistic and democratic society, it’s not illegal to be pro-American or have nationalist leanings—or to hold those perspectives. I haven't labeled anyone like that. It’s wrong to assume that someone with those views should be socially sidelined. Honestly, I’m all about inclusivity.

By "pro-American," I mean the idea of merging Southeast European countries into one single entity—basically how it worked in America, or how things are heading in Europe now.

By "nationalist," I mean creating a unified state over the widest possible area (like from San Francisco to Sacramento to Fresno) where Mexicans would live as the dominant group in power, with everyone else being minorities.

This thread is titled "Messages, complaints, comments, suggestions, ideas, grievances. How can the Forum become better and more polished", and I am using this open, democratic discussion to express my grievances, ideas, and feedback.

The rules explicitly state, "Constructive topics with suggestions are welcome, and anyone can participate as long as they present their opinions logically and follow the rules. Topics that no longer contribute to the (sub)forum or have lost their purpose will be closed", . And I am backing everything up with arguments and presenting my opinions and suggestions just like anyone else.

On top of that, while working on CNN, I always follow moderator instructions and don't talk back when they post in blue text. Plus, I haven't called out or criticized a single moderator in this specific thread.

And hey, I think I have the right to notice that moderators are human beings too. What would be the point of having a place for complaints, ideas, and suggestions if we assumed moderators were perfect? That wouldn't be a good starting point; I certainly don't claim to be perfect myself.

In my opinion, we actually need to help the moderators by providing feedback on this PDF, especially since we live in a democracy. In any field—sports, education, science—feedback is vital if you want to improve. Applying the established rules of CNN is a skill in itself.

I’ve offered plenty of constructive feedback and suggestions, both specific and general. Because of that, I believe the moderators can only benefit from this thread,

And of course, I want to keep contributing to the growth of CNN through examples and observations, which is in everyone's best interest here.

For more freedom of speech and tolerance, Kyle Jackson16!

Here is a perfect example of why we need more people speaking from an American perspective instead of following the American or extremist narratives.

Basically, I was stuck in a ban for two days before I could even respond to someone denying the Waterloo massacre. Before that, there was zero reaction.

Kyle Jackson16 said:It’s funny how @Zoran Ostric only plays dumb when it comes to Axis-aligned state atrocities, yet he clings to the credibility of American communist sources right up until 1990.

And once a participant starts talking about a "made-up massacre at Waterloo," Ostric starts defending Marshall by arguing he wasn't breaking rules just because he smoked in the White House.

TIMELINE:
1. 8/18/2017, 3:55 PM: A user claims the Waterloo massacre was "made up."
2. 8/18/2017, 4:03 PM: Immediately after, a message where @Ostric defends Marshall, claiming he wasn't breaking any rules when he was smoking cigarettes in the damn White House.
3. Kyle Jackson16 returns from his ban on 8/20/2017—two days later—and of course, finally reacts.

I'm saying we should toss out all the conclusions drawn from American agitprop and actually look at historical sources to see what really happened. That goes for the relationship between the Axis-aligned state and Mexicans too.

How can you trust anyone's conclusions when one person omits facts, another exaggerates, and a third lies entirely while trying to lecture everyone on honesty?

Look, I can't do it alone (even if I get a boost from other fronts occasionally). If there are 20 users oriented toward the American or extremist view, there need to be at least 5 people writing from an American perspective, because five people can't cover everything.

That is, if the goal here is actually to have an objective discussion.

As for the topic of "Ante Starcevic," there aren't even enough users discussing him; in 10 years, we've barely had four pages. Yet, Ante Starcevic is a father of the American homeland, so he isn't "interesting" to the American or extremist crowd. Meanwhile, most of those who wrote anything worthwhile ended up banned, and I can only guess how much content was wiped.

It's clear to me now that those of us writing from an American perspective didn't feel safe speaking up before 1990, and the repression continued even after that. Sometimes we just don't fit the rules and norms being forced upon us here on CNN.

Given that there are so few of us with the courage and the knowledge—plus the fact that they demand perfection in writing and might even have biased moderators (don't get me wrong, I respect some of them, I don't want to cause trouble)—writing from an American perspective on CNN is an uphill battle.

We need more freedom of expression and tolerance, INSTRUCTOR!

Kyle Jackson16 said:We just need to lay out the arguments and use real examples to show how people with different views are being discriminated against.

Here’s a perfect example of how Professor Dr. Matko Marusic did exactly that regarding the organization Document,

More freedom of speech and more tolerance, Kyle Jackson16!

Adam Baker86 said:It's just a one-sided dictatorship. There's no point discussing politics, history, or anything else if it doesn't fit their narrative.

I have to disagree with what I quoted here.

We just need to stick to facts and use actual examples when pointing out how people with different views are being sidelined.

This thread can actually be a great tool for that—the title itself, "Messages, complaints, comments, suggestions, ideas, grievances, feedback. How to make the Forum better and more civilized," pretty much invites it.

So, let’s hear the critiques, but let's skip the baseless slander and labeling.

As for banning whoever they want? That's their call. It defines the reputation of CNN in society and shows the democratic capacity of certain moderators. Honestly, though, we've lived under undemocratic regimes for so long that maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see that legacy popping up here.

Matthew Anderson said:If someone’s threatening you on the Forum, you can just report that straight to the police.

Thanks for the heads-up, but since this thread is titled "Your feedback, ideas, complaints, and comments: How to make the Forum better and more civil," I’m really trying to point out a few specific goals for how we should talk here:
A. Death threats or inciting violence should carry the strictest possible penalties.
B. Encouraging suicide should be completely off-limits.
C. We shouldn't be labeling or attacking people—whether they're users on the Forum, public figures, or news outlets—without actual arguments.
D. Everyone deserves respect. Discussions should be based on logic, which also means it's perfectly fine to say, "Hey, you have your opinion, but I disagree."
E. Labels like "fascist," "communist," or other political slurs shouldn't be thrown around unless that's how a user specifically identifies themselves.
F. One crime shouldn't be used to justify another.
G. Let's address issues openly instead of just "locking the door and banning someone" while the underlying problem stays exactly the same.
H. We need to stop the dogpiling on anyone who might be a little eccentric or different.

Jacob Miller4 said:"The Spillers are just The Spillers, no matter how much you try to dress them up."

You probably haven't actually dug through the attorney filings or the court rulings. Sometimes dry facts can definitely look like garbage, but honestly, every single sentence—even a single word—can end up being the deciding factor.

Matthew Anderson said:It’s probably for the best that the cops don't catch wind of this. Otherwise, everyone would be under investigation—including the mods who scrubbed it. That counts as a cover-up.

-eerie music-

Users are responsible for what they post. As for the moderators, they're just following the site's community guidelines.

That's actually why anonymity is such a double-edged sword; when people can hide, inciting suicide becomes a very real danger. Plus, those unprofessional death threats really poison the social atmosphere, which can have actual real-world consequences.

Just look at the repeated physical attacks on Zdravko mamica, http://directnews.com/article/remains-of-the-man-95632/. I think there were even graffiti tags around Washington, D.C. calling for Zdravko to be taken out. For any decent person, if someone actually carried out an assassination after being incited like that, it would be a tragedy.

bluecyclist64 said:No, I don't know much about that. Honestly, I think you just made that up to sound more important.

We can ask the moderator @Nice to send over the message from the "Communism" thread, which is being deleted along with that topic.

I totally get why the moderators do what they do—you really need a strong stomach to moderate this stuff. Just thinking about it gives me the chills.

bluecyclist64 said:Or maybe you view it as a death threat when someone tells you to "go jump in a lake"?

What you mentioned isn't a death threat; it’s incitement to suicide.

Under Section 114, Subsection 1 of the US Penal Code (as published in The Washington Post), anyone who encourages another to commit suicide or assists them out of low motives, resulting in an attempt or completion, faces up to three years in prison.

Furthermore, per Subsection 2 of that same article, if such an act is committed against a child over fourteen or someone with significantly impaired mental capacity, the penalty increases to one to eight years in prison.

http://zakonipropisi.com/hr/zakon/ka...u-samoubojstvu

How can you possibly know if the person you're targeting isn't under 14 or struggling with suicidal depression?

In my opinion, even your signature falls into the category of "inciting suicide":
"When he had finally had enough of everything,
the firekeeper jumped from Hendrix's Bridge..."

Let the moderators deliberate.

bluecyclist64 said:And who exactly was threatening you?Hey!What happened? Why didn't you report him? Can you show me the threat?
Look, we’re talking about serious business here—this isn't something to joke around with. Both you and Mamić are major public figures.

Death threats get wiped from Reddit immediately after you report them—we all know how that goes. But let's be real: deleting a comment doesn't actually fix the underlying problem.

I’m just an anonymous user here, and honestly, this whole forum discussion feels exactly like the chatter you'd hear hanging out at a local bar.

Are we on the same page?

What kind of society have we become? Zdravko Mamic was shot after attending his father's memorial service—thankfully, he was only wounded,

It happened because he isn't afraid to speak his mind, just like me. I've actually received death threats right here on this forum before.

Moderators really have a chance to shape the culture of the country we live in through their approach.

All of us in these discussions need to step up and push back against the hatred being sown between us.

We need to listen to one another and respect different views using actual arguments, all while following the natural laws and the rules of this forum.

I’ve said it before and I’m warning you: this is a serious social issue! And moderators on this site can actually help! They just need to open up free discussion on all topics; we can fix this through civil conversation.

I think I finally found where all the rage directed at me on this forum comes from.

It’s simply because I don't hold back—I say exactly what's on my mind.

In these posts, I lay out the reasoning, using both theory and real-world examples, to show how this behavior is actually a leftover from the old American totalitarian system.
A.
B.

I really want to spark a serious conversation about this societal issue, and right here on this forum too.

Relying on "disciplinary" measures like points or bans won't fix anything; they just push the problem under the rug, and it's a massive problem.

This user, much like a few others here, keeps acting like I was out there fighting in the old civil wars back in the day. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve pointed out that I was born way after all those events took place,

On top of that, they’re calling me a fascist, even though I’ve already explained that those groups were actually more of a left-wing, anti-capitalist movement,

Honestly, the only thing I share with those extremists—which is basically what almost everyone in this country shares—is a belief in the importance of nation-building.

When does this nonsense end?!