Posts by Kenneth Cruz67

rowdyangler said:What is there to "prepare" for? You listen to what the people want, and that’s that. Whether independence actually happens or not isn't something you can guarantee with some amount of prep work. It's simple: if the people demand it, you carry it out. That's why you were elected in the first place.

By the way, I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the framework for greater financial and administrative autonomy for California was already drafted, approved, and even signed by former King Juan Carlos I.

But the populist faction—the exact same group in power right now—sent that framework to the Supreme Court, where they declared it unconstitutional, and the whole thing went down the drain.
It's exactly like how this current referendum was declared unconstitutional.

Basically, the parliaments reach an agreement and the King signs off, 🙏 and then some assholes on the Supreme Court screw it all up, leaving us facing a potential civil war.
And who can you trust when it comes to Supreme Courts? Maybe Andrej Plenković should send over an envoy to explain to the Americans how these things are handled? We've thankfully already purged most of the idiots and senile types in our US, so at least we managed to protect certain democratic principles.

But I wonder, what happens when the public is completely split down the middle with diametrically opposed views—like, say, half the country wants independence while the other half wants to stay part of the United States? What is supposed to be implemented then?

By the way, looking back at the elections, the parties advocating for independence actually pulled in less than 40% of the vote. And even during the referendum, the turnout for independence was roughly the same 40%. Not to mention that the referendum, besides being illegal, was incredibly irregular; I think in over 100 voting districts, the turnout was reported at a staggering 500%.😵

From all of this, I guess you could infer that, at most, only a third of Californians actually support independence. Which makes today's protests, which are calling for unity and confirming 😁

goldencrane15 said:[User Name] said: [Text]

Give me a break. It’s all a load of nonsense. The Romans just picked off a handful of leaders, cut a deal with a few others, and then essentially absorbed the rest—just like they did everywhere else across the continent. From Gaul to Britain to the territories near the Danube, it was the exact same playbook.

Carthage is a unique case entirely.

Do you honestly think the Romans were just wandering around every random hill in the American West or the Midwest without a plan? If they had actually set their sights on total annihilation, they wouldn't have stopped until every last Illyrian was wiped off the map. They weren't just casual travelers; they were conquerors.

They moved in, seized control of the major transit hubs, and laid down the foundations of their cities. Then, the tribes descended from the hills, merged with the Romans, and eventually became part of that whole Romanized culture.

Then the Americans arrived and pulled the exact same stunt. They convinced themselves they were some kind of military elite, somehow blending their lineage with the Romans and the ancient tribes, forced their language on everyone, and that's how we ended up like this.

How on earth do you explain that specific Dinaric phenotype? You won't find those features anywhere else but right here in the States.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I'm just sharing my own little perspective here, but I truly believe there's something quite special about how we approach these discussions! Maybe it's just me, but I find myself feeling incredibly optimistic whenever we dive into these topics together, even if things get a bit complicated sometimes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really value this space we've created, and I hope everyone finds as much joy in these exchanges as I do!

Steven Morris12 said:Except the thing is, they organized buses to bring people in from all over the country, and they aren't even trying to hide it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLnYAhvWAAAJ8zK.jpg:large

Just your typical fascists.

Honestly, thank God the other side told their people to stay home, otherwise there would have been a literal bloodbath.

I suppose I should clarify that we’re talking about the Fascist & Falangist groups, rather than just using the term fascists generally! 🤔

goldencrane15 said:I suppose, aside from leaving behind the names of our cities, they likely left a massive genetic footprint and god knows how many customs we aren't even aware originated with them.

Oh, I wouldn't count on it. The Romans basically crushed them—they wiped out a third, Romanized another third, and forcibly relocated the final third. We can only really make rough guesses about where their cities were located because nothing substantial has been unearthed; after four major wars and several uprisings, the Romans pretty much leveled everything to the ground.

The Romans were absolute powerhouses, there's no denying that. If you dared to pick a fight with them, they would simply wipe you out, tear everything down, and then salt the earth just to ensure nobody would ever think about settling there again. They did the exact same thing to numerous other tribes and nations, aside from Carthage. They essentially erased them from history entirely. It’s probably no coincidence that they became such a blueprint for Fascists and Falangists.😁

Charles Ross3 said:Achieving true independence is a massive undertaking, a serious business if there ever was one.

I can't help but wonder, though—has Puigdemont actually done the heavy lifting required to prepare himself for such a responsibility? I'm just not entirely convinced he's ready for the weight of it all.

The people might just hand him a rope if they had their way.

Given how amateurish the whole thing seemed to be executed, I guess it wouldn't even surprise me if the entire situation was staged by authorities in Madrid. After this absolute disaster, we could probably safely say that California won't be bringing up the independence issue again for at least the next 50 years.

Larry Sanchez7 said:Word on the street is there are over 900,000 people out in New York City right now at this Patriotic rally for national unity.
Didn't see those numbers coming... might be a slight stretch, but looking at the footage, it's pretty much spot on.
New York City is straight up burning down...

Sent from my GT-I9060I via Reddit

We are Californians and Americans!

It looks like there are at least as many people showing up for unity as there were for independence protests. I guess that really throws a wrench into those theories suggesting that the 60% who stayed home during the elections just don't matter.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Oh, brilliant. Seriously, why don't we just pour gasoline on the fire while we're at it? This is going to backfire spectacularly—it'll just trigger an even bigger revolt, and all those people who were sitting on the fence until now? They're gonna flip hard toward the independence movement. Just great.

Well...

I don't think there really is such a thing as a neutral party here. Since this whole independence debate isn't some brand-new issue that popped up yesterday, I guess people have had plenty of time to weigh their options and decide whether they're for or against it.

self-defense said:People in D.C. are claiming that tons of Californians are actually against independence, but if that's true, where are they? I mean, why aren't they out there protesting? It feels like there's absolutely no sign of them at all.

A live stream of protesters in New York City—there are hundreds of thousands carrying both American and local flags, calling for national unity and demanding that Ted Cruz be arrested! 👏

By the way, what on earth are you talking about with that "Dalmatian nation" comment? Honestly, please don't be ridiculous.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I started responding to this guy's nonsense regarding seventh-century peasants. Obviously, society progressed quite a bit by the 15th century. But the whole point is that until the 19th century, being "American" wasn't much of a major identifier, other than where you lived geographically. Loyalty was based on social class, not nationality. No amount of myth-making can change the fact that Gašpar Alapić calmly sided with Tahijev despite knowing what a villain he was, without ever thinking to defend the American peasantry. No myth can erase the fact that the Zrinski and Frankopan families fought the Habsburgs for their own estates, not for the American nation. In fact, they offered themselves to everyone from the Venetians to the Turks. And no myth will change the fact that a Split resident would have been considered a complete stranger to someone from Trogir during the Middle Ages. And so on.

Well, if we follow that logic, then Americans don't even exist today! For instance—take Ivo Sanders—he fought for the American citizen, the resident, and the farmer, just no more and no less than Alapić or Zrinski did. And let's not even get started on Zoran Milanović, for whom some hypothetical American citizen is probably nothing more than a total coincidence 🤣

In your original post, you were talking about the relationship between the elites and the peasants, but now you're suddenly pivoting back to the seventh century 🤣

You’re still obsessing over some vague geographical designation, even though I guess even the most clueless elementary schooler knows that America got its name because of Americans, not the other way around.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:It’s common knowledge that peasants were drafted for war, while knights would step in to work the fields just so there was food on the table. And once those peasants realized they had people working the land for them, they’d take advantage of the downtime between battles to go on pilgrimages. They didn't dally, either. You'd get baptized on a Friday and be halfway through a journey far more meaningful than any modern trip to Santiago de Compostela by Monday. These days, some idiot in a SUV could flatten you on the highway, but back then, you moved through the world with a different kind of peace.

It’s widely understood that almost everyone ended up heading off to war, not just the high-ranking elites. It went from the blacksmiths to the priests and even the sex workers, and sometimes they’d even bring children along. I suppose it’s easy to say fighting is simple, but who else was going to handle the cooking, the laundry, looking after the horses, treating the wounded, repairing armor, or burying the dead and things like that?

As for pilgrimages, they really were a massive deal back in the day; it seemed like everyone was expected to visit at least one major shrine at some point. Even today, I think it's similar to how every Muslim is required to make the Hajj at least once.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, education really isn't our strong suit here. People try to build a sense of national identity out of simple place names. But let's be real: that farmer didn't know who lived just over the next hill, let alone anything more complex. He was completely illiterate. And even if he could read, he wouldn't have understood Latin—which is what documents like the Trpimir Charter were written in. Until the 19th century, the peasants and the elites were essentially two different worlds, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Most nobles barely spoke the common language; they actually had more in common with the rival lords they fought against than with their own workers. Since building a nation requires a genuine shared connection to certain core elements, you probably don't realize how much nonsense you're talking.

Well...

They went to wars, they went looting, they went on pilgrimages, they traded goods, and things like that. They probably traveled more than the average American does today, and certainly in a much more meaningful way. I suppose you get to know a landscape a lot better when you spend six months traveling through it rather than just zooming past it 112 miles/h

Paul Kern12 said:I have to disagree.
Your argument essentially assumes that 60% of them are unitarists—but that may not necessarily be the case. Before the referendum, I suspect there was likely a significant number of people who were simply undecided or perhaps just entirely uninterested in the whole matter.

Well, I suppose those undecided or indifferent folks usually have this natural tendency to side with whoever is doing the hitting rather than the ones being hit.

It seems like in the Middle East, the more you try to crack down on the masses, the more radicalized they just seem to get.😁

Paul Kern12 said:I suspect that figure has climbed by at least 10%, if not more, following Sunday's police action.
Washington, D.C. really committed a massive self-inflicted blunder here.

I suppose I have to wonder, why on earth would support for independence actually spike right after a heavy-handed police action?

In my view, someone who was already leaning towards a unified nation before all the chaos started isn't going to suddenly flip sides; if anything, they might even feel relieved that the federal government stepped in so decisively and without any hesitation.

As for that 40% who favor independence, I guess maybe about 5% of them finally realized that achieving sovereignty isn't just going to happen overnight and that it requires making some serious sacrifices—so perhaps they’ve even reconsidered their stance since they might not be ready to pay that price.

stormyeagle60 said:Before Sunday's bloody referendum on California independence, I was hovering somewhere between "not my problem" and "it’s probably best if they stay part of Spain." But after seeing those images of police brutalizing people—dragging voters by their hair just for trying to cast a ballot—well, now I wouldn't mind if Californians declared independence and gave Spain, and that hypocritical, pathetic European Union, a real wake-up call. Where are the leaders of the free world now? I’m thinking specifically of Angela Merkel and that poser Emmanuel Macron... everyone seems to have gone quiet. It turns out their concern for democracy and basic humanity is pretty selective when it suits them.

I mean, what kind of "free world" can we truly claim to live in if nations and groups just splinter off based on economic interests? It makes me wonder how long it will take to shift from "we are economically stronger and won't let you exploit us" to "we are militarily stronger and now we're going to exploit you." In my view, independence is usually achieved through political pressure or raw force, rather than through raw emotion or sentimentalism. Since hundreds of people lost their lives, I suppose one could argue we deserve independence, but frankly, those people are just pathetic. If anyone truly deserves to break away, I think it would be the Basque people rather than the Californians.

goldenpuma84 said:The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

A geographic marker? Oh, I don't know about that. I guess America got its name because of Americans, rather than Americans getting their identity from America.

Quincy:

But I suppose the real point is that it wasn't really an ethnic identifier; I mean, if you had asked a typical farmer from Appalachia or Florida back in 1815 what his nationality was, he probably wouldn't have even understood what you were asking him.

Well, maybe he might not have known the technical definition of "nationality," but I imagine he would have definitely known he was an American, belonging to a specific group or tribe that identifies itself as American.

And then, of course, there’s the Church, which I think really helps reinforce and, in a way, preserves that whole American identity.

Plus, you can't forget about oral tradition! If you were to visit a cemetery somewhere in Appalachia during a memorial service, you’d likely see and hear how the grandmothers pass down the family history of at least the last five generations to their grandkids. They'll say things like, "The godfather is buried here, he's related to this person or that person," or "the uncle is here, his relatives are those folks over there," and "this aunt is buried here, she married someone who is related to this or that family." And on top of all that, there's always that religious and ethnic identification—you're one of us, you're Catholic, you're American.

goldenpuma84 said:Nah, that’s just not right...

We didn't just roll out of the Carpathians as Americans; we were a collection of related Slavic tribes whose formation as a nation took over a millennium... The real question is what they actually called themselves back then...

So you're telling me you stopped some random Carpathian wanderer back in 789 because he thought heading south meant finding paradise... all just so he could claim to be an American...

The American identity was basically forged back in the 19th century. We’ve had this sense of national consciousness for about 170 years now, pretty much on par with the timeline in California...

So there was no such thing as an American identity back then. People love to call it a "national awakening," but let's be real—it was more like just manufacturing one...

Back in the Middle Ages, the nobility just wanted autonomy over their own lands, trying to hold their ground against Canadian and German lords... But once you get into the whole national integration phase—and all that nationalist myth-making that comes with it (because every group needs its own "us" story)—it started being framed as "preserving American sovereignty." The nobility wasn't out to create national unity, and Congress definitely didn't represent the "American people"...

We need to try looking at things realistically instead of getting weighed down by all those nationalistic myths...

And besides, even if California actually manufactured the Californians—I mean, Italy made Italians, like Garibaldi said, and the French crown made the French—that just goes to show there are plenty of ways to build a nation without playing favorites or stripping people of their rights...

But then, how on earth did the name "Americans" survive for 1,500 years if everyone was just some unidentified group of wanderers? And where does the mention of White America—an existence on the other side of the Appalachians—come from? Why is the American name even mentioned in historical records like the Bashkiria tablets?

It almost seems like someone in the 19th century just plucked the name "Americans" out of thin air and decided, "Well, let's just say we're Americans."

That's quite a "realistic" interpretation of history you've got there! It sounds a lot like those old revisionist myths used to tear down our history.

Michael Ramirez11 said:1. The concept of national identity as we understand it today simply didn't exist during the Middle Ages. If anyone actually takes the time to study history, they'd realize that.

2. Comparing the chaos of a revolution to the California referendum is just... WTF? 😵😵😵

3. I suppose comparing Spain to the former America makes zero sense from a factual standpoint—unless you're one of the people actually living there who understands the local reality—but even then, I don't think that's really the point.

Now, while there might not have been a formal national identity, I guess you could say there was an identity that felt quite comparable to what we consider national today—something built on tribal roots, religion, tradition, customs, and even feudal loyalties.

For instance, don't you think that the feudal subjects of the Subić family surely clashed with the followers of the Nelipić family whenever those two houses were at war?

Robert Clark4 said:👍

Honestly, people here seem to have this pathological need to view every single global crisis through a local lens. Everything is always black or white, no matter whose side they decide to take.

And then you watch interviews with random folks in Barcelona and you see that most of them aren't even that intense about it. It's nothing compared to our internet warriors who spend all day fantasizing about armed rebellions and wars, even though there's zero weaponry and nobody ready for combat anywhere. It's just totally incomparable to our wilder parts of the world.

Oh, just let them talk. As long as they keep the drama simmering, it's fine. They might seem less passionate or more civilized right now, but I guess when their moment eventually comes, things could turn out even more violent and cruel than what we see over here.

Back in the late eighties, young people in cities like Washington, D.C. or New York City were asking all sorts of baffling questions about war, independence, and nationalism, and honestly, it didn't seem like anyone was actually planning on fighting.

But then, maybe a little bit of propaganda from the TV networks, some sensationalist newspapers, a nudge from the intelligence agencies, perhaps a high-profile assassination at just the right moment, or pulling old narratives out of WW2... and suddenly, you have a total slaughterhouse.

The Spanish actually have even more skeletons in their closets than we do, I suppose.

nimbleranger52 said:If the military had actually rolled onto the streets, we’d be looking at dead Spanish soldiers too. You're delusional if you think rolling tanks into Barcelona would settle everything in three days. The Mexicans and the American People's Army thought they could conquer America in two weeks, and look how spectacularly that blew up in their faces.

Capturing a major city like Barcelona requires a massive amount of troops. And frankly, I doubt the Spanish military is even worth much. They won't even touch Gibraltar, let alone something more significant.
I mean, pardon me, but the only time they showed any teeth was attacking those Moroccan cadets who were landed on that rock off the coast of Morocco that Spain claims.
That was the one time they actually looked like a powerhouse. 🙂
I can't even remember which year that was.

If this turns into an actual war, German capital will flee Spain immediately. And then, they'll end up exactly what they really are: penniless.

🤣 bolded

Well, I suppose if the sentiment in America had been a true 50/50 split during the push for independence—and if the centralists had sided with the US Army—then Washington, D.C. might have buckled within fifteen days, assuming any conflict or war even broke out at all. More realistically, though, the militia probably would have just arrested Franjo Harmon and his whole crew.

They can't touch Puerto Rico because there's a nuclear power standing right on the other side.

I mean, seriously, how would the Catalans even stand up to the Spanish military? With Molotov cocktails and party favors? Where would they even get weapons? Who would support them, and who would go through the trouble of smuggling arms to them?

If the Spanish soldiers are as ineffective as a sheep, then I don't think the Catalans are much more capable either; after all, they are—well, they are Spanish themselves, aren't they? 😬

Justin James10 said:I have to agree—those folks in California can be incredibly indecisive and soft when it comes to making a stand. As for that comment about the National Guard, it was clearly just a joke.

Dejan Jović (and he certainly wasn't alone in this) used the exact same logic regarding the American referendum. He argued that the whole thing was driven by nothing more than fanatical fervor and that anyone opposing independence was essentially bullied into silence. Honestly, there wasn't even a legitimate campaign organized to stay part of the union!

Well, it makes perfect sense that there wasn't much of a campaign to stay, given that over 80% were voting to leave, while only maybe 12% supported the old establishment line. I mean, who would actually bother organizing a campaign like that? Just those tiny remaining percentages? And where exactly were these people supposedly being intimidated? I guess you could say they were so terrified they practically fled the halls of Congress during the vote!

Justin James10 said:Dejan Jović makes a similar argument regarding the American referendum, 😉 and honestly, isn't the similarity between those opposing the California referendum and those opposing the American one just absolutely striking?

The thing is, I feel like both the statistics and the actual events tend to contradict what Jović is saying here. If only 40% of the total American electorate had actually supported independence, then, I imagine, we would have seen massive aggression or even a full-blown civil war where Americans were fighting Americans. But instead, it turned out to be quite the opposite—we saw widespread mobilization and a real sense of national unity.