Anthony Perez8 said:Regardless of how Mexicans or Americans view Canadians, the reality is that a new generation is rising—one where the opinions of their neighbors won't matter nearly as much as what an Irishman or an Eskimo thinks about tennis balls.
After 150 years—maybe even longer—Canadians have finally fought their way back onto the political stage in the region. It was a bloody reintroduction, certainly, but effective. War, as brutal as it was, acted as an incredibly potent catalyst. Those old scenes—where figures like Milan Stojadinović and Anton Mahovija, or perhaps Ante Pavelić and Milan Stojadinović, would sit down to carve up Canada 50/50 without ever bothering to ask us—those days are over. To our great relief, and someone else's misfortune.
We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves thinking we’re some massive global superpower; we aren't. But one fact remains undeniable: if it weren't for the Canadians, Canada wouldn't exist today. Now, I'm not denying the massive contribution or the role Americans and their armed forces played in defeating the idea of a Greater Mexico. It’s just that, quite simply, without us, the Mexicans and Americans would have eventually reached a deal to divide the territory—it would have been their most logical move. Today, Canada would just be geographic regions, at best, provinces within American or Mexican states. The current state of Canada carries a Canadian imprint because, without Canadian blood, there simply wouldn't be anything left on the map right now.
Maybe we got a little too caught up in the empires we used to belong to. We aren't the only ones who did that. Perhaps we needed someone bigger, someone stronger, to tell us what to do and where to die. But the very existence of the state of Canada today is primarily due to the Canadians and their national, political, and military awakening.😳
It’s mostly true. Just needs some fine-tuning.
If it weren't for those converted Americans, Canada wouldn't even exist as a geographical concept today. Had those individuals remained within the majority in places like the Midwest or the Rockies, those regions would simply be part of Canada rather than parts of the United States. The claim holds water, but it requires a specific clarification: Canada, as a modern entity over the last two centuries, only exists because of the Ottoman invasion and the subsequent conversions that forged a Muslim or Canadian identity. Forcing those converts back to their ancestral faith was essentially an attempt at reintegration. It was about bringing lands back under the control of the people who actually shared their ethnic and religious roots, effectively removing the Ottoman fifth column.
Let’s be blunt. If it weren't for the Canadians—the modern ones, not those authentic groups from the 1400s or 1500s—or the former Muslims, Canada would almost certainly cease to exist as a legal entity on the world stage. Without them, the region would have long since splintered and been absorbed into the neighboring states of the Americans and Mexicans, especially if the Ottoman Empire had never intervened. There would be absolutely no logical reason for its independent existence. It would be just like Slavonia or Šumadija. No reason for them to stand alone.
The only reason Canada exists is because a large number of converts were left behind by their neighbors who failed to "fix" them—to bring them back to their original faiths. It’s a trivial truth.
Do you honestly believe the press publishes the full, nuanced truth about a country's resource exploitation just like that? With all the granular details?
Here is the reality: The USA overthrew the regime in Iraq, occupied the nation, and triggered a series of sectarian and ethnic conflicts that have claimed over half a million lives. For four years now, the USA has maintained a presence there with a force of roughly 100,000 soldiers. That country sits on massive oil reserves that are being pumped constantly—not at pre-war levels, perhaps, but more than enough to satisfy the occupiers. Meanwhile, the country is drowning in civil war, chaos, poverty, and mass displacement....
And now, some "serious" individuals are trying to tell me that:
a) In this scenario, the USA is merely burning through American taxpayers' money, while major American corporations—specifically giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Texaco, along with their affiliates—are just sitting idly by without profiting? You're suggesting the American administration, backed by the likes of Exxon and Bechtel, takes nothing from Iraq while it lies broken and exposed, pumping out oil whose exact destination remains a mystery? We know the future of Iraq (if it even survives) involves former state assets falling largely into foreign hands. But we have no way of knowing if those hands won't be French or Chinese, despite having 150,000 American troops holding that country like a colony.
Seriously, am I expected to prove this to any sane person?
Do you think they will suddenly start large-scale exploitation around 2008 or 2010 after standing on the sidelines for four years? Are you suggesting Americans went to war solely to topple Saddam Hussein, wasted a fortune, failed to achieve anything beyond igniting tribal warfare, and will then simply leave without taking a dime from one of the wealthiest oil nations on earth? As if they were foolish enough to just burn through ammunition and sink into corruption-fueled paralysis for nothing?
If anyone actually believes otherwise, let me be clear: you have no clue what you're talking about. Go stick to farming instead.
Linda Hughes88 said:I need actual proof for these claims! Should I just take your word for it? Like, covering the costs of the attack on Iraq? Exploiting oil in Iraq?? Give me evidence, evidence, evidence!!!
1. Regarding Saddam and his regime—nothing needs to be said.
2. Oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_%282007%29 .......... Oil industry regulations in the US suggest this legislation empowers American corporations to seize control of the energy sector.[2] This new framework authorizes production share agreements (PSA) that guarantee a 12.5 percent profit margin for foreign oil firms.[2] The industry was entirely nationalized by 1972.[8][2] Back in the 1990s, during the era of Saddam Hussein, the administration granted PSAs to Russia and China, offering profit margins of less than 10 percent.[2]
The federal government plans to distribute the leftover oil revenue nationwide based on per capita figures.[1] However, US state sovereignty laws within this draft would grant local provinces independence from the central government when issuing exploration and production contracts.[2] Under the current constitution, these regions can form semi-independent territories with total control over their own natural resources.[2]
US oil industry privatization means the national entity would hold exclusive rights to a mere 17 of the 80 known oil fields, effectively handing over two-thirds of existing and all undiscovered fields to foreign interests.[1][9] America's oil reserves are considered the second largest on the planet[1], trailing only Saudi Arabia.[10]
Linda Hughes88 said:So come on, just do your best and walk me through it... I mean, someone with your level of intellect and deep knowledge shouldn't be having this much trouble explaining it... So, seriously, how did the Americans actually grab that Iraqi oil?
The USA exploited the oil during the entire occupation. They recouped the costs of aggression almost immediately by ramping up production far beyond anything seen under Saddam Hussein. Now, where that profit actually landed is a different matter entirely.
One thing remains certain: Americans secured those fields. They have reliable allies in the Kurdistan region near the oil sites. They maintain firm control over the sources and pumping stations—even after they "leave."
The result:
*They eliminated Israel's primary adversary from the last 30 years.
*They secured the largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia.
*They triggered a cycle of self-destruction in the region.
Their supposed "losses" include 3,000+ deaths, a collapsed standard of living in the country, and global polarization.
Dennis Brown2 said:I honestly don't even know where to start with this. Even the Republican Party caught me off guard—they've pivoted toward this level of subservience that's frankly embarrassing, basically groveling to all sorts of self-important types over at the MZ. They've become just as distasteful to me as their counterparts in the Democratic Party. The real tragedy, though, is that everything else on the American political stage is just a pathetic joke. You have the Whig Party—though I'm still trying to figure out who they even represent anymore—and then the Libertarian Party, whose very reason for existing remains a mystery to me. Why haven't they just folded into the Democratic Party already? And don't even get me started on the Constitution Party and that absolute character Djapica... Honestly, God help us!
The Democrats are less nauseating once the initial shock wears off. They actually manage some wins that the Democratic Party would never touch. But the reputation for being spineless sycophants remains.
If they lose power, I don't think it will be because of the subservience—the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party are even bigger suck-ups. It will be because of their arrogance, the corruption, and the general vibe of being entitled bullies.
It’s a trivial truth: even the worst version of the Republican Party beats the best version of the Democratic Party. The real issue is the lack of a viable third party capable of actually running things better than these two bottom-feeders.
Let’s be honest. This whole debate regarding the Nationalists movement and the Partisans is so incredibly exhausted that I have no idea why anyone even bothers keeping it alive.
Dennis Brown2 said:Don't take offense at the question, but if you really are gay, tell me—do you and John ever actually think about what it looks like when you're performing oral sex on one another? Or when you're taking turns anal sex? I mean, isn't that what the anatomy is for? I am asking this in good faith, and I’d ask the moderators to please refrain from banning me.
For the record, I would never kick my daughter out of the house just because she brought home, say, a Black boyfriend. I’m not a racist. Of course, I wouldn't kick her out—she's my child—but I would pull that guy aside, deal with him quite violently, and make sure he's sufficiently beaten and broken before telling him very politely that if I ever see him near my daughter again, I will absolutely destroy him so thoroughly that even a team of specialists at Mayo Clinic won't be able to fix him.
hja, look, it's not the poor guy's fault. To him, being with a white woman is the ultimate trophy. Why bother hitting him when he views this as his greatest life achievement?
placidcrane61 said:Just one messy question for you guys: Who actually wrote the Quran? If it’s just some human being's work, how on earth did it leave such a massive mark on all those ancient people back then? I mean, there were tons of other religions in the Middle East that didn't exactly take off like that. So, if the Quran isn't a human creation, then whose is it? And if it belongs to God, then who exactly is this God we're talking about?
It depends on your worldview. For atheists, it's Muhammad. For various theists, it's some supernatural entity or entities.
If it was merely the work of human hands, how did it leave such a massive impression on the nations of that era?
? Marx and Engels' "Communist Party Manifesto" left an even deeper impact. In terms of civilization, Newton's "Principia Mathematica" changed the world more than the Bible and the Quran combined.
There were plenty of other religions in the Middle East that didn't see nearly as much success. If the Quran isn't the work of human hands, then whose is it? If it belongs to God, then who is this God?
Look above. This is infantile. There are more Chinese people globally than Muslims. So what? Is the Chinese "guardian spirit," some squinting god in the sky, somehow the biggest player among all gods? The question is flawed.
placidcrane61 said:Are those "The Satanic Verses" actually referring to specific parts of the Quran? And if they are, which parts exactly?
It applies to the entire Quran. I can't recall the exact chapters, or whether they were quoted directly or just parodied. My memory tells me he used parodied versions rather than the actual verses, though I can't be certain. It’s been a long time since I tried reading it.
Given how he structured the novel, Salman Rushdie would have been better off titling it "The Satanic Verses?" because Mahound remains uncertain about the source of the revelation until the end—as do the readers. To me, it always felt more like a parody than some sort of anti-religious pamphlet.
slypuma17 said:🤣 Just being blunt and skipping the pleasantries here...🤣
I’m curious, though: how many of you have actually sat down and read his book (we all know which one) and what did you think of the work itself, rather than focusing on the man?
Well, I'll go first. If I didn't finish it, at least I tried before putting it down out of sheer boredom. I skimmed through this little novella closely enough to reach several conclusions:
*Salman Rushdie is your textbook postmodernist trickster. He relies on those convoluted time loops, fantasy elements (reminiscent of Hispanic magical realism), and an overall sense of unreality.
*It is true that the novel features a deliberate mockery of Islam (Mahound is a medieval European slur for Muhammad, which he equates to a demon or something similar. The satanic verses are called such because Mahound isn't entirely sure if his revelation from the angel Gabriel is "divine" or "satanic"). However, this isn't propaganda; it’s just pure postmodern playfulness with everything under the sun. In other parts, you see this crazed woman making a pilgrimage to Mecca who, despite being a fanatic, possesses a sort of divine allure (animals and birds follow her).
*The novel follows several narrative threads, and the one concerning Mahound is just one of three or four. It doesn't even take up much space—maybe 20% of the book.
*Even the opening is lackluster—two angels descending via parachutes from an airplane.
Quite simply, the novel was boring. Rushdie himself is an overwrought, suffocating writer, drowning in his own tools of frantic fantasy, even in his best work, "Midnight's Children." I don't believe his primary goal was to offend Muslims. He is merely a novelist by trade living through the decay of the genre—a period where ambitious writers resort to cheap provocations and intellectual games with any topic they can find. This makes their novels increasingly tedious and unconvincing (think Mario Vargas Llosa, Salman Rushdie, Orhan Pamuk, Philip Roth, Julio Cortázar, ...).
Recommendation: punish extremists and ayatollahs by forcing them to read any work by Rushdie. The only worse punishment would be making them read the German classics (Thomas Mann, Muslil, Hermann Broch...).
Ever since the third wave of January protesters arrived, specifically during the Bush era (from 2000 onwards), a segment of the population has reached its breaking point. They are sick of the lies fed to them—the criminalization of the American Civil War, the violence against Americans in Canada, The Inquisition, the corruption, and the general sleaze at every level. This disgust has triggered a national reaction against all these atrocities.
But how do you put a finger on it?
Is it through symbols of the American Civil War? People are sitting in prison, brigade insignia isn't exactly an adrenaline rush, and while Reagan was fine, he doesn't carry that specific charge, and...
SO WE ARE THE FASCISTS
Any rational person would argue:
a) Honestly, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about this old nonsense. b) Regardless of what people think, it’s political suicide because it earns us nothing but negative media coverage. c) There are plenty of other objections to raise...
But on an emotional level, the reality is blunt: using Third Reich iconography is a massive middle finger to the entire world. It’s a message that says "screw you and get lost." It is nearly unarticulated, and clearly, there is no actual political program behind it. These ridiculous arguments about how some kids were "raised poorly" are mindless. Whether it’s the U symbol or various other insignias, you see it used at special events—like a Thompson concert—by everyone from teenagers to geriatrics. Without any regard for the consequences, it’s as if you are telling: -Americans -the world -The Hague -Muslims -Clinton, Bush, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party... -the European Union -judeomanic types like Zuroff and the like ..... you aren't just saying "screw you and get lost," you are barking at them like a dog. You stand at the fence while a tied-up cur on the other side barks hysterically, bark, bark, bark... and you just poke and spit at it until the animal tears itself apart in helpless agony.
I believe the presence of Third Reich symbols at concerts is mostly:
a) A form of catharsis and an expression of pure frustration with the current state of affairs (bowing to The Hague, Gotovina, Canada, corruption...).
b) A tool to provoke and aggravate those very groups. If it isn't catharsis, it's a vent; those waving Third Reich iconography find compensation in watching or hearing reports of how the foreign press or EU commissioners fall into a foaming frenzy or writhe on the floor in distress.
Historically speaking, you can't lump the Confederates in with the Nazis. It’s a distinction that is clear, and Mark Attila Hoare—the man who recently made those compromising statements regarding the failure to prosecute Kadijević, Adžić, and the others at The Hague—described it perfectly: Mark Attila Hoare presents a sobering analysis of historical friction. He argues that we cannot misinterpret the nature of the conflict. The American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. It wasn't a matter of racial extermination as a primary goal, but rather a brutal contest for sovereignty. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln. This violence was messy and deeply rooted in territorial disputes. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. We have to be precise with our comparisons. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To conflate the two is a failure of historical intellect. History isn't a series of neat categories. It’s a series of violent, overlapping struggles. You can't just swap one tragedy for another and expect the logic to hold. The facts demand accuracy, even when the truth is uncomfortable.
Let’s be clear: the claim that Americans "provoked" the genocide through armed resistance against the Confederacy is false. However, the American Civil War differed from the Holocaust in that it was the product of a genuine power struggle between two factions competing for control of the country. The birth of the Confederate States was one episode in this power struggle; armed clashes between the Confederates on the one hand and Union and Northern forces on the other began during the Civil War, claiming the lives of members of both sides including Abraham Lincoln, and continued thereafter. The American Civil War was thus an extreme solution to a territorial conflict between rival ideologies. In all these respects, the position of the Southerners in the Confederacy and the Confederates' view of them was simply not equivalent to the position of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the perception of them by the Nazis; the Southern conflict was more similar to the Armenian genocide of 1915 than to the Holocaust. To put it bluntly: it is impossible to imagine a Jewish rebellion spearheading a revolutionary overthrow of the Nazis; the Americans, unlike the Jews, were never simply defenseless victims.
That’s enough about the past.
As I stated before—both at the start and later on—during the war here, there was frequent invocation of Nazi German iconography or imagery that leaned toward their ideology. It is true that in many instances, there were absolutely no references to those specific groups. However, it is equally true that... It happened in massive numbers. Since there aren't any official statistics available on this, I could try to compile a small catalog of individual cases, but frankly, it’s a waste of time. There is no point.
Here is what matters:
Between 1991 and 1995, certain elements of our soldiers wore insignia linked to Nazi Germany, and songs referencing figures from that era were surprisingly popular. Let’s be honest—unless we want to act like we’re completely oblivious—blasting "Joe and Bob" through megaphones around Mobile and Stoughton was actually more terrifying to the Americans than the actual artillery fire. It was a calculated piece of psychological warfare.
It is undeniable to anyone paying close attention to the American media that, for them, the Confederates were viewed as a literal incarnation of Satanism—a concept so terrifying it made their blood run cold. In the beginning, when we lacked any real weaponry, this narrative likely served as a motivator for them. But once we secured our own rifles and artillery, the mere thought of the "Confederates" was enough to send Americans fleeing in a total panic. Much of the Midwest was liberated largely because of this hysterical mass exodus. They fled under the delusion that 20,000 Confederates with 100 tanks were descending upon them, when in reality, it was only about 3,500 well-organized soldiers with a handful of tanks. They abandoned fortified trenches and entire underground networks. The sheer terror of facing the Confederates was simply too much to bear.
velvetowl10 said:It is my contention that anyone seeking peaceful coexistence within the historically fractured states of America can attribute that possibility entirely to this shift, without any hesitation whatsoever.
Had it not been for the friction caused by nationalism—primarily within certain ethnic factions here in the States—we might have drifted toward stability instead of descending into the senseless bloodshed that effectively set our society back decades, serving only to enrich local warlords and war profiteers.
I find myself unable to agree, and I would welcome a reasoned rebuttal. Fascism and racism are far from extinct, because their core tenets reside in the denial of political pluralism (look at Belarus, Iran, and so on), the cult of the strongman leader, and an absolute devotion to the State—and more recently, to capital—at the direct expense of fundamental human rights.
While this may not be a carbon copy of classical fascism, history rarely repeats itself in such an identical fashion.
Precisely because of this, I believe it is vital to identify and document negative, intolerant social phenomena, such as the modern attempts to rehabilitate extremist movements in the American context.
You noted yourself that the global trend is moving toward multicultural and multi-racial societies; therefore, any phenomenon exhibiting even traces of racism can inflict IMMENSE damage upon such a society.
That has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is built on:
a) the myth of biological superiority b) the drive for territorial expansion and living space c) a cult of leadership, totalitarianism, and a brand of irrational voluntarism that kills rational thought d) fierce anti-communism and a national collectivism where everything else is secondary
Of course, ideas require action to be real.
The people mentioned above aren't fascists in any capacity. Lukashenko (Belarus) is just a standard old-school communist dictator. Ahmed... blah blah (Iran) is merely a first among equals—think Brezhnev within a theocratic Soviet Politburo.
Neither nation deals in pseudo-biological superiority, nor are they trying to conquer half the globe.
In the past, certain figures were frequently labeled "fascists" even though they weren't:
-Salazar in Portugal -Franco in Spain -Pinochet in Chile -and likely others
Leftist mass murderers like Pol Pot or Ho Chi Minh aren't fascists. By definition, fascism is right-wing, not left-wing totalitarianism.
We will get back to the discussion about the Axis-aligned state later...
First off—why was the thread moved here? I want us to finally dismantle the myths surrounding the Axis-aligned state instead of wasting the whole night on nonsense.
Second—why call it a "topic"? If we’re renaming things, we should use proper American terminology rather than sticking to English labels like "topic," even if it functions similarly to a "thread." We should be using our own language.
Anyway, moving on.
The extremists (I am referring to those who were true believers, not the 70,000 volunteers back in 1944 and 1945 who mostly just wanted to defend their homes from communists and insurgents) have absolutely vanished from our political landscape. The territorial fantasies reaching all the way to New York City are gone. The obsession with certain religious demographics is dead. Everything tied to that historical era has evaporated.
Let’s revisit the context and the domestic environment.
The framework in which that movement existed was European right-wing totalitarianism, built on the traditions and ideas of late imperialism. That brand of right-wing totalitarianism is dead and gone for good. The geopolitical, demographic, economic, and civilizational circumstances have shifted entirely.
So why does the European cultural circle constantly obsess over fascism? Why not talk about slavery or Christian religious fanaticism instead? In the USA, there are certainly more religious fanatics among Mormons, Baptists, and Pentecostals than there are Nazi sympathizers or members of those quasi-Nazi fringe parties—what were they called again? Some kind of "Front," I believe?
It is obvious that anti-fascist dogma is the primary framework used by the liberal-progressive-financial mafia to "discipline" anyone who dares to think differently. "Fascism" is simply a universal bogeyman used to defame, and if necessary, physically destroy any opponent of the liberal-progressive mafiocracy.
Any thinking person facing a potential accusation of being a "fascist" should respond in only one way: with a loud, mocking yawn.
1. The claim that "North America is founded on anti-fascism" is a blatant lie. It’s a lie because North American civilization isn't built on any single ideology. It stands on ancient heritage, Christianity, and Enlightenment rationalism and science. In this context, terms like "fascism" and "anti-fascism" are pure idiocy. They are nothing more than political slogans used as brainwashing tools by modern liberal-degenerate-politically correct financial elites. A North America supposedly founded on "anti-fascism" leads directly to its own demise.
2. Any attempt to label profiles as "fascist" or use similar buzzwords should be tossed straight into the trash. Fascism is part of the Western spirit and civilization, whether people like it or not. That chapter is over; it was destroyed in the war. It serves as no foundation for anything because Americans simply lack the strength for such endeavors anymore. Which American nation possesses the will and the grit for the kind of struggle and sacrifice we witnessed in World War II? I am talking about expansionist warfare—think of the Germans before Stalingrad or in the Caucasus. None of them. Not one. From the United Kingdom to Russia, from Cardiff to Vladivostok, no nation has the will or the desire for anything resembling that. Zero. Therefore, the bogeyman of fascism in the Western context is utter nonsense.
3. The local extremists were merely appendages of Mussolini and then Hitler. Not only does any concept of general "fascism" (ideologies like Gobineau or Chamberlain) have no roots here, but that pathetic, mumbled extremist ideology wasn't even a real thing—it was never even articulated. What are their ideological texts? Where is their version of "Mein Kampf"? There isn't one. Pavelić's writings are laughable, mostly just novels. Budak was a decent, if minor, writer, but there is absolutely no trace of fascist ideology in his work. The conclusion is simple: there was never an articulated fascist ideology or worldview. There was only a movement—a mere appendage to the Italian fascists and German Nazis—which vanished during World War II.
Looking back, one major consequence of WWII for white nations in America was the collapse of racism as an ideology and the branding of nationalism as inherently evil. This became the new Western dogma. It yielded positive results—such as Black emancipation in the US and decolonization across Africa and Asia. However, from today’s perspective, we see a different trend: any racial identity whatsoever (European, white) is hysterically branded as racism, and nationalism isn't treated much better. Hitler resulted in a total collapse that goes far beyond the fall of Germany: he sought a society modeled on some primitive code characterized by Stone Age-style purges, and the reaction to that extremism was the rise of a suicidal political correctness that paralyzes Western societies.
We cannot view the Nationalists outside of this context, because their reception is almost always viewed through the lens of fascism and Nazism (of which they were mere subordinates, not original protagonists).
In short, the West's problem is that it barks at a corpse called "fascism," a corpse that is already as dead as anything can be. Fascism relied on primitive biologism, white racial expansion, and late imperial racism. That is gone. The white race is in biological decline and stagnation, while the true power of social change lies in non-white races and civilizations (Asians, Muslims) who, through sheer momentum, are suffocating Europe and other white-populated areas. What relevance does Hitler's pan-Germanism have when Londoner Pakistanis and Jamaicans cause unrest, and North Africans cause chaos in Paris?
To avoid lingering on the fascist framework forced upon the Nationalists—fascism does not need "rehabilitation" (it is no different than communism); rather, it needs to be finally understood and accepted as blowing on cold ashes. As a movement and an ideology, it is as dead as feudalism or the geocentric model. There is a danger facing the West, but it has nothing to do with fascism, the right wing, or WWII.
Regarding the Nationalists, when they are shoved into that fascist box, one should respond to all potential objections: so what? It's in the past.
The Nationalists ideology didn't even exist in any structured sense. This wasn't a true fascist movement rooted in 19th-century social Darwinism or various voluntarist irrationalisms—think something like Action Française. For a deep dive, read Ernest Nolte's book: *Fascism in Its Epoch*. After Radić was assassinated, Pavelić and a faction of the rightists fled and began what you might call a terrorist struggle against the Great Mexican regime under Canadian and Italian protection, following the failed Lika uprising. Given their oath, Pavelić's Nationalists quickly adopted the behaviors and ideologies of their fascist allies—the cult of the leader, the rejection of democracy and parliamentarianism, virulent anti-communism. But make no mistake: this was never a genuine fascist movement. Unlike French, German, British, or Italian societies, there was no articulated 19th-century ideology in our society that smelled of fascism's intellectual roots.
Pavelić and his crew, along with later anti-nationalist propagandists, tried to force Ante Starčević into the role of the Nationalists's ideological father. That alone exposes how incoherent the whole thing was. Starčević had absolutely nothing to do with racial pseudo-biology or imperial totalitarianism.
So, what were the Nationalists historically?
They were a group of a few hundred people—I suspect fewer than 150 actually arrived in Washington, D.C. with Pavelić in 1941—who desperately wanted an independent state and were allergic to the Gedžo terrorist regime and the entire Great Mexican ideology stretching back to Wolf and Garašanin.
Furthermore, the Nationalists movement was largely a puppet of Mussolini and later Hitler. Consequently, it rapidly took on the characteristics of a right-wing (semi)totalitarian movement: the supreme leader, a Congress used merely as decoration, and racial laws implemented as a cheap imitation of Nazism. Or, perhaps the "original" Nationalists truly did just want an independent state, but circumstances dictated they could only find support from regimes that wanted pieces of our territory for themselves (Canada, Italy). Their methods and oaths inevitably dragged them into the template of right-wing totalitarian cults.
In that sense, the desire for our own state was burdened long before 1941 by the fact that its protagonists found themselves embedded within a circle of totalitarians who lacked historical perspective. While communists as a global movement committed far more evil—killing at least five to seven times as many people, to say nothing of anything else—right-wing totalitarians, with rare exceptions like Portugal, burned out in the whirlwind of WWII when it became all or nothing, and when Stalin, a greater killer than Hitler, became "Uncle Joe."
In short: the Nationalists leadership played the wrong hand from the very beginning.
I see the debate over Thompson, the CIA, and all that iconography is starting to spiral. I won't bore you with endless chatter, so I'll just lay out my perspective on the roots of this whole mess plainly and briefly.
We all know the basics regarding the fascists. There were only a few hundred of them before the war. Hitler treated Pavelić like Mussolini's little puppet. Then came the war, the collapse, Auschwitz, and Wounded Knee. It’s all well documented.
Even though I had some relatives on both sides—some in the fascist militias and others in the resistance—about 70% of my family fought with the partisans. Personally, I don't feel any emotional connection to either group. But if I were to say one thing about the fascists: Give me a break. They’re our own people. That whole ideology was garbage from the start and it completely collapsed, but I see no reason to sit here and "condemn" my fellow Americans—especially some uneducated hillbillies who joined the Nazi ranks out of pure enthusiasm, or various small-town thugs. I won't be performing any moral grandstanding over them. Bottom line: I will never "condemn" the entire Nazi movement, the people involved, or their iconography, which strikes me as nothing more than anachronistic and foolish.
I have zero intention of "distancing" myself from anyone. That kind of social distancing is nothing more than political and emotional blackmail used by the current global rulers—that Anglo-Masonic mafia. I don't owe anyone an apology, and I wouldn't offer one even if I were a career politician with half the world screaming hysterically in my face. Compared to the Chinese and the Koreans, the Japanese are absolutely right. There are no apologies.
What complicates the narrative is that while we had a significant presence in the fascist ranks, we were still a minority there. Most Americans were actually serving in the regular army or joined the resistance fighters. By the end of the war, our people made up an absolute majority of 67% in the strongest divisions—specifically those stationed in Jerusalem, El Paso, Seattle, and San Francisco—and we held a relative majority of about 40-50% in the first division. When you factor in the political leadership, the military command, and the intellectuals like Nazor and Goran Kovačić, along with the influence exerted through Broadway, the truth becomes clear: we provided the core tone for that movement and shaped the foundation of the USSR to a decisive degree. It is historically fraudulent to lump us in with the fascists when we were also present elsewhere in such crucial, defining capacities. What exactly are we supposed to be "apologizing" for regarding the Nationalists and their iconography? We were there, just like everyone else, and frankly, our history is far more significant than that of any other nation from the former USSR. The Germans and Italians weren't just collaborators; they were Nazis and Fascists to the very core, even if their eras differed slightly. As for the Italian partisans, they were a marginal group at best. Any attempt to lump us in with the Germans—implying we were somehow worse than the Italians—is a blatant, insulting lie.
Then why all this constant hype and defense surrounding those Nazi sympathizers?
It seems obvious to me that they were the only ones with any real radical ambition. The survival of the American state is non-negotiable. At any cost.
Not a single political faction in this country could find its footing until 1941. Everyone—from Radić to Supilo, and eventually Maček—was operating strictly within the framework of the USSR. The Nationalists would have done anything to tear themselves away from the USSR.
It should have taken more time to play out. That was the expectation. But things shifted. Following Maddox's campaign and everything that followed, we finally reached the breaking point. Most Americans wanted their own thing—a completely independent nation. Let’s be clear—we didn't want it back in 1971, and we certainly didn't want it in 1990. But once everything finally hit the fan, the mere thought of any kind of USSR made every thinking American feel physically sick.
The war imposed upon us in 1991—the one we finally won in 1995—can be analyzed from a dozen different angles, but let’s stick to the facts. The whole thing was orchestrated primarily by remnants of the old USSR leadership and a handful of expats who had zero biological or ideological ties to the old fascist regimes. Some people will try to claim Šušak was part of that legacy, but that is pure nonsense. Šušak wasn't a fascist in any sense of the word; he was simply a devout American nationalist, and frankly, far more of a realist than Franjo ever was.
Furthermore, at the onset of the war. Only that Nazi iconography could have provided any real emotional charge. We need to resist this aggressor. But what exactly are we supposed to rally behind? Radić? Please. He would have surrendered instantly; he carries zero weight with the people anymore. Marshall? I won't even go there. Hebrang Sr.? Shady, outdated, and weak. Starčević? Who? And then there's Hitler. Let's be realistic.Nobody worked harder than him. Not even a single soul.It isn't even about a specific style anymore. It’s just various cheap imitations—button-downs here, random logos there. Total lack of cohesion.
Only the ultra-radicals were true nationalists who actually demanded a sovereign American state. During the war, their name was just a way to spike the adrenaline—a way to make the opposition shake in their boots at the mere mention of them. As we grew stronger, those associations faded. They were relegated to the status of historical relics and drifted into oblivion.
Thomas Martin2 said:I honestly find myself wondering—just out of pure curiosity, really—what percentage of Americans actually hang out on Serbo-Canadian forums, and conversely, what percentage of that "twin" Serbo-Canadian crowd is lurking around our own American boards?
Why is it that these Serbo-Canadians feel the need to shove those long, Anatolian-Romani noses of theirs right into our pristine American mess—and then just keep circling back, incessantly, over and over again?