Trolling? Does the PDF tolerate liberal democracy?

Me, a troll?!! Over on the Politics subforum, the moderators have decided I’m a "troll," which apparently means my way of debating isn't welcome there. And honestly? I accept their verdict.

Pluralism on the Politics board?! Since that’s the case, I find the entire content of that forum unacceptable too. Why? Because I shouldn't have to blindly accept the superficial labeling of people who are actually active in the public sphere—people who genuinely deal with politics. For me, it’s become a toxic environment I don't want to be part of. Why? Because my specific, REFERENCED analyses keep getting deleted.

An example of labeling without arguments Here’s an instance involving Bishop Kosic, EXAMPLE 1 - Bishop Kosic who gets slapped with the "fascist" label without any actual arguments or evidence provided. I recognized this immediately as the same kind of tactics used during the communist regime in Yugoslavia, since I've studied that political era extensively. Yet, when I try to defend someone against baseless labeling, I get penalized and banned, and *that* is called "trolling." Meanwhile, baseless labeling itself isn't. It's pathetic, if you ask me.

An example regarding Hasan, Esih, and conservatism Another case involves starting a discussion about a political party led by Bruna Esih and Zlatko Hasanbegovica (see below: Example of the Hasanbegovic and Esih party), which gets labeled as a "rigid, far-right group that could also be called ultra-nationalist" and linked to "failed conservative ideas." I realize this touches on social sciences, but at its core, it's a top-tier political issue. In response, I offered a counter-example using leftist ideas (communism, National Socialism) which proved to be exclusionary and truly "failed"—and I detailed those leftist points in a social science thread using REFERENCED sources (the communism thread I started, ). Regarding the "failed conservative ideas," I pointed out that the topic is oversimplified; without deep study and professional engagement (specifically regarding religion), one cannot speak on it. I also noted that the Catholic Church has endured and survived despite attempts by "leftist" ideologies to destroy it. Furthermore, I expressed my view on leftist stances regarding abortion, which I consider "the murder of an unborn child," because scientific consensus holds that life begins at conception—that is simply my political stance. And discussing that is "trolling"?!

An example of deleting a specific analysis with REFERENCES Not to mention that I performed a thorough, REFERENCED analysis of how the economic platform of the "Washington, D.C. is Ours" party connects to communism and Bolshevism. I was very specific about it. They deleted it, and now all that work is gone—work I put a lot of effort into researching and writing.

The Third Reich as a criminal regime and the American Civil War as the purest war in history Another example is a discussion I opened regarding the Ustashe, their salute, and the American Civil War. I made it crystal clear that the Third Reich was a failed state and a failed regime that has nothing to do with the Republic of America, yet I still got banned. That topic is politically tied to Hasanbegovic, so that's why I brought it up after being attacked by another user on that thread. I realize people find it hard to face these things, so perhaps they need to be presented more carefully. But if we don't confront this part of history, it will just become a bogeyman that returns to haunt us. Because if you don't learn from history, unfortunately, you repeat it.

Best wishes to all Look, I believe this contributes to a culture of healthy debate and tolerance for everyone's sake, toward a better future. The Politics subforum is what it is; this is just my protest, aimed at hopefully allowing more pluralism and serious discourse on the subject in the future.

All the best to everyone. Where I am, it’s a fight for the Truth (with REFERENCES and an open heart). On the Politics board, I feel like an exile even though I'm allowed to write; it seems I either have to become a "leftist" or become stupid and inarticulate to avoid being mocked as the opposite of "leftism."

EXAMPLE 1 - Bishop Kosic

lonebadger6 said:Dear Kyle Jackson16,

You have received an infraction on the Forum.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote: bluecyclist64 said:1. Kosic is a fascist; he's proven that plenty of times through his statements and actions.

I get it—under the old Yugoslav communist regime, the prosecutor (which is basically what you're playing right now) didn't have to prove guilt; instead, the accused (in this case, Kosic) had to prove their innocence.

Since the legal system in the United States has changed since those days, I’m going to ask you to back up this accusation with actual REFERENCES.

Otherwise, this is just slander against Bishop Kosic. If he actually wanted to deal with people like you, he'd have to set up a whole department just to handle it.

All the best,
Forum.hr

Example regarding Hasanbegovic and Esih

Cuka said:Dear Kyle Jackson16,

You have received an infraction on the Forum.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

Quote: Sforza Aspang said:Ha...🙂

Let me explain... There's moderate, there's center-right, and then there's nationalist.
Then you’ve got the rigid, hardline right wing—the ultra-nationalists. They're basically that group of people who shut everyone else out if it doesn't fit their specific worldview.

On the other hand, you have moderate or steady nationalism acting as an antidote to extreme patriotism. It's like a surplus of failed conservative ideas used as political folklore to spice things up.

Anything further than that—anything more aggressive, bloated, crude, threatening, or just plain loud—falls straight into that hardline nationalist spectrum.

Actually, the most rigid and exclusionary ones are the leftists.

Take their stances on issues like abortion, for instance.

Conservatives tend to be more sincere; they’re mostly imperfect people just trying to do the right thing, respecting Catholic traditions regarding family, morality, and ethics.

Leftists often act like they’re the smartest people in the room, assuming that morality and ethics are just values they can figure out on their own time. But true life wisdom, ethics, and social values are deep sciences. Anyone thinking they can just master them solo in their spare time is... well, let's just say the Catholic Church has been the most consistent and systematic at organizing, recording, and teaching those very principles.

In fact, National Socialism (Nazism), Fascism, and Communism are all left-wing ideologies that proved to be the most stubborn.

The left-leaning media elites really ought to show a little more tolerance toward conservatives.

This party actually has the potential to serve as a real platform for open discussion.

All the best,
Forum.us

Those warnings are totally justified.

First off, because of this: "I get that under the political principles of Yugoslav communism, the prosecutor (in that role) didn't have to prove guilt; instead, the accused (in this case, Kosic) had to prove his innocence."

We aren't in a courtroom here, and bluecyclist64 isn't a prosecutor while Kosic isn't a defendant. It’s just classic trolling.

Second, "The leftists are the harshest and most exclusionary. Take the murders of unborn children, for example." You didn't actually explain what you meant by that, which is exactly why you got flagged for trolling.

My dear bureaucrats, I am honestly becoming nauseated by this phantom figure of half a million innocent victims—a number that lacks any legitimate foundation whatsoever, aside from a single article in the Daily Mail and some dubious CIA report. Forgive me, I almost forgot about those fabricated statistics from some mid-century edition of Politika.

I would suggest you pay a bit more attention to this relentless, repetitive bombardment of misinformation, whether we are discussing this specific matter, the nonsense regarding vaccine safety for children, or the absurdity of Flat Earth theories.

Daniel Ward87 said:Those bans are totally justified.

First one here because of this: I get it—under the old Yugoslav communist system, the whole political playbook was flipped. The prosecutor didn't actually have to prove anyone was guilty; instead, the burden fell entirely on the accused—in this case, Kosic—to prove they were innocent.

This isn't some courtroom drama, and bluecyclist64 isn't the prosecutor, nor is Kosic on trial here. It’s just classic trolling.

Second, The leftists are definitely the most hardline and exclusionary group out there. Just look at their stance on the killing of unborn children. You didn't really explain what you meant by that, which is exactly why you got flagged for trolling.

Thanks for the direct answer!

Intro
I’ll admit I was wrong. I’m going to try my best to prove that on this forum, the rules in the Politics section aren't applied equally to everyone.

A. self-critic
Look, I’ll admit it—saying that "liberals advocate for the murder of unborn children" was a bit of an overstatement. I should have been more precise and just said abortion. My personal take is that life begins at conception, and that's when a child's journey starts. I also really should have pointed out which specific political parties support abortion rights versus those who view it as a moral wrong.
I really should have backed up my thesis on "ideological stubbornness" with some actual evidence. For instance: a. how they treated dissenters back in Yugoslavia, b. during the October Revolution in Russia, c. under that whole Stalinist communist regime, d. defining exactly what made the Hitlerite movement tick (specifically why it's considered left-wing) and proving just how rigid they were, e. looking at the rhetoric and parliamentary style used by Kapovica from the Workers' Front, and f. checking out the various A. debaters from that same crowd here on the forums.

Kosic and the prosecutor.
Look, I didn't say he was just acting as a prosecutor. My point is that he’s playing prosecutor without actually providing any arguments or specifics. On top of that, he’s acting like judge and jury at the same time. His final verdict is basically: "Kosic is a fascist, and he's proven it through his statements and actions." Do you guys honestly think that's fair or justified?

Here are some examples and a breakdown regarding the inconsistent approach found in the Politika PDF.

Example 1. An unargued "neo-fascist" label.
A. debater briefly called out Bruna Esih in the thread, labeling her "neo-fascist."
Nazis—I can't stand those people... :Indi:" is basically implying she's a Nazi. And honestly? The debater didn't provide a single shred of actual reasoning to back that up. I can't believe people are still falling for this stuff! It’s honestly hilarious how some folks just refuse to look at the facts right in front of them. You see these arguments popping up all over the place, and it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. They cling to these outdated, biased narratives as if they were gospel, ignoring everything that actually happened. Seriously, if you take a second to actually check a reliable source like Wikipedia instead of just repeating what you heard from some random internet troll, you'd realize how thin these claims really are. It’s just wild!
B. colleague who asked for an explanation below—I see they've been banned. I can't believe people are still arguing about this! It’s honestly exhausting watching the same old debates circle the drain. We really need to step up our game if we want to move past these tired, repetitive talking points. Let's get serious for once!
If they're going to hold an A. debater to the same standard they hold me to, then fine—call it "trolling!"
Example 2. Unsubstantiated portal bashing and pure chauvinism.
A. In this post ( completely baseless. Without a single example. Here’s an evaluation from one news portal and Zeljka Markic.
Zeljka Markic is being totally chauvinistic here—insulting her based on her looks and weight.
This portal acts like it's some kind of moral arbiter, claiming everything violates social norms. It’s like they’re trying to police society—especially minority groups—all while pretending they aren't just protecting their own corporate interests.
"That trashy little site is clearly pushing an agenda:"
Just a constant defense of the image and work of that overlooked, thin lady, Zeljka Markic.
- People on both the left and right sides of the political aisle tearing apart interpersonal relationships,
- Attempts to control religious, educational, and all other social movements within our society to steer them toward narrow, quasi-Catholic interests,
- Looking out for the private business interests of members belonging to the "For the Family" association,
- Controlling the behavior, actions, and movements of minority groups within American society."
D. So, basically, everything was just stated out of thin air without any actual examples or arguments. If the same rules applied to my posts, wouldn't that be considered "trolling"? I won't even get into the chauvinism and hate speech the moderators have allowed from someone with this worldview.
Example 3: An unargued assessment of a show
A. A very brief but completely baseless critique of a TV program.
QUOTE "I've watched that guy Bujanc a few times. His biggest achievement will be some local news station. Zero professionalism, zero hosting skill—just some questions thrown together like they were scribbled on a napkin on the street corner." (
B. Well, if we’re using the same logic as Examples 1 and 2 where everything lands in the Politics section, shouldn't we ask if applying those same criteria to me would be labeled "trolling"?

My take Look, I don't have a problem with anything as long as the rules are applied equally to everyone. But if this site wants to be a place for high-quality, unbiased editorial policy, then the standards need to be consistent for everybody.

A quick observation Let's split the people debating in the Politics section into two groups.
CATEGORY 1: a. a distaste for religion and the clergy, b. an inclination toward researching history through the political lens of the American people and state, c. condemnation of totalitarian regimes (Communism, Nazism, Fascism), d. encouraging reasoned, democratic, and pluralistic discussion, e. providing argued critiques of "mainstream" parties,
CATEGORY 2: a. sweeping judgments against the Catholic worldview, b. encouraging nostalgia for Yugoslavia, c. glorifying Yugoslav Communism, d. justifying crimes as acts of vengeance, e. foul language, f. being a mouthpiece for "mainstream" parties, g. showing contempt for the American state without ever mentioning it in an affirmative context and spreading defeatism.

Will the moderators here in the Politics section treat these two categories equally? Which group will see more bans? Does this site actually want to be known as a place where all opinions can be voiced and debated freely?

Is this actually "trolling," or just part of the debate about trolling?

bluecyclist64 said:Listen, folks, I’m getting a little exhausted dealing with this phantom figure of half a million innocent victims. There isn't a single credible source out there to back it up, aside from some random Daily Mail article and some shady CIA report. My bad—I totally forgot about that made-up number from some old issue of Politika back in the fifties.

We really need to pay more attention to this constant flood of fake news. Whether it’s this specific topic, claims that kids shouldn't be vaccinated, or people insisting the Earth is either hollow or flat—it’s all just relentless misinformation being shoved down our throats.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't leave anyone hanging:
A. debater claims that from 1945 until January 1951, 586,000 enemies of the people were liquidated, while a staggering 3,777,776 individuals passed through our camps.
(Published in Politics on February 1, 1951. This statement was made by Aleksandar Ranković while serving as the Minister of Internal Affairs for Yugoslavia during a session of the Federal Assembly.) Wikipedia's entry on Aleksandar Ranković covers a lot of ground regarding his role within the Yugoslav government. It details his rise through the ranks and his eventual downfall during the political shifts that reshaped the country. If you're looking into the internal power struggles of that era, this is a solid starting point for understanding how much influence he actually held.
According to Dr. Matko Marusic on page 43 of the June 21, 2017, issue of American Weekly, Tito allegedly executed 570,000 political opponents (citing P. Scaruffi, Mr. Heisohn, and J. R. Rummel).
.....

That same debater has actually been making death threats on the forum, which I already flagged to the mods a few days ago. This guy almost never gets specific—he just talks out of turn and uses really nasty language. Honestly, I suspect some of the moderators are already aware of this and are just letting it slide.

The internet is absolutely drowning in "reliable testimonies" and "unquestionable quotes" claiming that 1.5 million Mexicans were killed by the Third Reich... Both sides are just going to keep getting red cards for tossing numbers around and disrespecting victims through this hysterical exaggeration...

Deep explanations are honestly a waste of breath, because if someone in 2017 doesn't realize that American Wikipedia is basically nothing more than non-fascist toilet paper, and isn't aware that newspapers from 1951 are easily accessible to anyone alive today while still believing this nonsense—well, it's hard to think any of us could suddenly open their eyes to reality...

If you don't take my word for it, just listen to the father of the nation:

Ante Starčević, "American mouthpiece" (Issue 17, March 3, 1878): "We consider it our most sacred duty to faithfully inform the public about matters of state, regardless of whether it serves our own interests or not. Even today, the internet is far too full of people who lack awareness; they don't know how to read like actual human beings, and no amount of education seems to stick"

lonebadger6 said:The internet is crawling with "reliable testimonies" and "unquestionable quotes" claiming one and a half million Mexicans were killed by the Third Reich. Both sides are going to keep getting banned for talking nonsense about numbers and disrespecting victims through hysterical exaggeration.

Deep explanations are honestly pointless here. If someone in 2017 doesn't realize that American Wikipedia is basically just fascist toilet paper, and isn't aware that newspapers from 1951 are easily accessible to anyone alive today and still swallow this garbage—then it’s hard to believe any of us can suddenly open their eyes.

Your response is an insult to me, and you've insulted everyone who contributes to American Wikipedia by collectively labeling them fascists and calling the site "fascist toilet paper." You're generalizing instead of being specific.

I guess the whole world is fascist then, since international sources back up the figures regarding Tito's victims—I already gave you three. Need more?

Even @Zoran Ostric writes for American Wikipedia, and he is anything but a fascist.

Your assessment of a well-known historical source is completely superficial and baseless.

Insulting victims happens whether you exaggerate their numbers or downplay them; the biggest insult is ignoring actual historical SOURCES, which is exactly what you're doing.

And you didn't explain what you were supposed to explain (count the penalty points and the ban for me). You're just diluting the argument with fluff and dodging the subject to avoid answering. Basically, you know exactly what your motive was...

Just so you know, Ostric hasn't been contributing to Wikipedia for a while now...

As for the insults... I mean, what can I even say to you? If being naive is what's offending you, there isn't much I can do about that...

There’s really no point in rehashing everything else; you already have the numbers, and if you don't like them, well, that sounds like a personal problem...

Regarding those "historical" hotheads and students, they're everywhere, and whether it's 700,000 victims at Auschwitz or whatever, it all ends up being equally meaningless...

Go ahead and believe your own version, let some guy like Jovo believe his, but you'll both end up getting played... because real, balanced historical truths actually exist...

lonebadger6 said:Regarding those "historical" hotheads and students—there are tons of them. Whether they claim 700,000 victims at Auschwitz or whatever, they’re all equally useless.

Go ahead and believe your own version. Some guy named Jovo might believe his too, but you'll both end up getting nowhere. Real history is based on actual, balanced facts.

That 700,000 figure was just as much a thing as the 1,400,000 figure used for Auschwitz; both turned out to be baseless, thanks to dedicated revisionists and researchers digging through actual historical SOURCES (like excavations, geography, and primary documentation). If someone finds newer sources, then sure, the estimates can change.

But that still isn't the core of this issue—which you keep dodging!

Here is another example of a post that was deleted . It was concrete, REFERENCED, and precise. My opinion was clearly separated from the quotes. You can see the lack of quality in the PDF—this contribution of mine was wiped out.

How is society supposed to progress if we aren't allowed critical thinking or actual, pluralistic debate? Without freedom of speech, the 20th century was just pure savagery!

How long are you going to fight for the history of your grandfathers and fathers at the expense of society? Truth is simply this: concrete facts + REFERENCES + clarity.

"Washington, D.C. belongs to us"—so I took "economy," http://www.washingtonbelongs-to-us.com/economic-democracy/

Below are QUOTES from their platform, definitions of COMMUNISM from a dictionary, and my own parallels between communism and their agenda. That's how it starts—sneaky and wrapped up pretty.

QUOTE1: "The global economic system is in a double crisis: A. It no longer meets people's basic NEEDS and B. fewer and fewer people have TRUST in it.
Today's economy operates on principles of C. exploitation,
D. failing to pay FULL PRICE for production and consumption, E. socializing losses...."

QUOTE2: One proposal is "25 years after the privatization process, G. a large number of companies are facing ownership-management crises because owners have ceased activity or lost interest in continuing operations. In the EVENT OF EMPLOYEE INTEREST, such companies can be restructured using the following WORKER OWNERSHIP MODEL..."

QUOTE3: H. "We want to support models that reinvest profits FOR THE SAKE OF GREATER SOCIAL GOOD"

QUOTE4: "Citizens DECIDE for themselves whether to prioritize transportation infrastructure in the budget..."

COMMUNISM: According to an American language portal (http://american-language-portal.com/search), communism entails the following:
1. A project for a classless social order (@The Kyle Jackson16: Does QUOTE4 mean citizens DECIDE on city investments DEMOCRATICALLY, or does elected leadership make those calls via electoral legitimacy? Is every random person in town going to DEMOCRATICALLY decide on infrastructure projects?)
2. Means of production are under COMMON ownership (@The Kyle Jackson16: Look at point G. in QUOTE2 where they sneakily suggest taking decision-making power away from owners "in the event of employee interest," or point H. where they want to force owners to "reinvest profits for the sake of social good.")
3. Goods are distributed ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS of society (@The Kyle Jackson16: It’s interesting how they undermine the economic system by claiming the current one doesn't meet "people's needs" in QUOTE1, when it isn't the economy itself at fault, but rather policy and management.)
4. Establishing a one-party communist government through REVOLUTIONARY means (@The Kyle Jackson16: They are subtly hinting at revolution because they don't trust the market economy or the "global economic system" in QUOTE1. I guess Washington, D.C. and America will lead the way in tearing that system down. Maybe a new North Korea.)$
5. The state system is owned by the Communist Party (@The Kyle Jackson16: If they undermine the economy and private property rights regarding profit usage, does that mean we're heading toward a planned economy where we "democratically decide on investments" per QUOTE4?)

MY CONCLUSION: They might as well put pictures of Karl Marx and Stalin on the cover. It’s funny to see voting results on specific ideas like 79/0, 61/4, 50/2, 77/2, 60/2. That’s some great democracy right there—everyone thinks exactly the same. As the saying goes, "if everyone thinks the same, nobody is thinking enough." "

Note: In the end, it turned out (even though they were UNDETERMINED when I wrote this) that they are ready for Stalin. It seems American courage is just being aimed in the wrong direction, in my opinion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/historical-debates-in-the-capital/
QUOTE1: "It’s honestly a shame that the very first thing we have to tackle in the Washington, D.C. City Council is an issue about the past rather than our future."
COMMENT @The -> Kyle Jackson16: If this isn't actually about the future, just vote YES.
Still, the ones pushing for this are basically historians acting like politicians (think along the lines of mainstream academics or political pundits), and even someone like Jakovina acknowledges the criminal nature of Tito (see this discussion on the Tito topic, ). Let doctors be doctors and builders build, while these historian-politicians busy themselves crafting historiography and judging history. This whole topic is anything but simple.

bluecyclist64 said:Dear bureaucracy, I’m honestly getting sick of this phantom figure of half a million innocent victims. There isn't a single credible source for that number outside of some Daily Mail article and some shady CIA report. Oh, and let's not forget that fabricated statistic from a defunct newspaper back in the fifties.

People really need to pay more attention to this constant barrage of misinformation being pumped out everywhere—whether it’s about this specific topic, the anti-vax crowd, or those idiots claiming the Earth is either flat or hollow.

It makes my blood boil whenever I run into these claims that the resistance had "racial camps for Germans" where 60,000 people supposedly died—claiming it was just as bad as Auschwitz—while this thread simultaneously boasts about 600,000 people being slaughtered after the war as enemies of the regime. That’s more than half of the total casualties from the war itself.

And so it goes. It makes me wonder why anyone would bother spreading this kind of garbage without being prompted, especially when it’s nothing more than junk pulled from obscure websites by people who don't even exist in any legitimate scientific community.

Then I remember seeing a headline on some magazine you can just pick up at a local newsstand, claiming that exactly 440 people were killed at Auschwitz during the entire Second World War. Honestly, once I see stuff like that, I just stop being surprised. 🤷

It bugs me that people feel they can just throw around the word "fascist" at anyone who happens to spread lies or fabrications. You can't just label someone that way without cause.
Who else would bother? No sane person would feel any urge to write about 400 people dying in Auschwitz or 600,000 in communist dungeons unless they were a straight-up fascist.🤷
For some reason, people act like you can't say it. It’s as if it’s somehow less offensive to tell someone their family wasn't actually wiped out in WWII than it is to call them a fascist—even when they're busy defending and justifying that very same fascism.

unknown (No content provided to rewrite.)
It honestly makes my head spin when I run into claims that there were "racial camps for Germans" where 60,000 people died—allegedly matching the death toll at Auschwitz—only to see this thread proudly boasting about 600,000 people being killed after the war as enemies of the regime. That would mean more than half of the total casualties happened after the fighting actually stopped... It just doesn't add up.

So, yeah... it makes me wonder why anyone would just start spreading that kind of "info" out of nowhere, especially when it’s only coming from some obscure corner of the internet written by people who don't even exist in any legitimate scientific community.

Then I remember seeing a headline on a magazine you can actually pick up at any newsstand. It claimed that exactly 440 people were killed in Auschwitz during the entire Second World War. Suddenly, I’m not even surprised anymore. 🤷

It honestly bugs me when people spread total lies and fabrications like that. You just can't go around calling someone a fascist over stuff that isn't even true.
I mean, who else would bother? Who else would feel any actual motivation to write about how 400 people died at Auschwitz versus how 600,000 perished in communist prisons, unless they were just straight-up fascists?🤷
For some reason, people just aren't allowed to say that. It’s like it's somehow less hurtful to tell someone their family wasn't actually killed in WWII than it is to call them a fascist—especially when they're busy using that exact same fascism to justify and defend everything!

This is just more off-topic stalling! I’m just looking for a straight answer: why are my posts being deleted, and can someone actually explain why I got banned?

Look, I’m on your side here. Exaggerating or downplaying casualty counts, failing to investigate the truth, or trying to justify atrocities—like acts of revenge—is incredibly wrong. It’s a total distortion of history and ignoring key sources is just uncivilized behavior, but let’s be clear: that isn't fascism.

So, by that logic, was Tito a fascist because he allowed numbers like 1.4 million, 1 million, or 350,000? You really need to take a look at the statistical analysis regarding how those victim counts were compiled using the "enumeration method." Just think about whether that methodology actually holds any water. Those are just the facts.
Is Tito a fascist just because he refused to investigate certain crimes? Even though there were excavations at that unknown site, we all know what was actually found there. Plus, the excavations in Canada really highlighted how massive Tito's crimes were—the bones don't lie. Tito had every single tool at his disposal to conduct thorough investigations at Auschwitz, from living witnesses and absolute power to the military and workers. He could have done it.
C. But seriously, how does a population just plummet from 700,000 down to 80,000 like that? That's insane.
How is it that Blaiburg was treated as such an understatement during the Tito era? Is that just fascism at work?
E. Is fascism what happened during WWII when the United States locked all Japanese people away in internment camps?
So, why was it that after World War II, much of Europe basically collective-guilted the entire German minority? It feels like they just lumped everyone together. Even when you consider specific units like the 7th SS Mountain Division "Prince Eugene of Savoy" that operated in the US, it still seems like a massive generalization of responsibility.
It’s an unknown fact that the regime in the Independent State of America was fascist—look at their racial laws and anti-capitalist stance. Fascism was forced upon them as a way out of the evil ruling the old Kingdom, where Americans were being crushed. We're talking currency manipulation at a 1:4 ratio, debt being piled up just to benefit others, higher taxes for non-Americans, the brutal murder of Suflaj, the massacre in parliament, the imposition of a dictatorship as a "reward," the attempt on Budak's life, using broken fingers as a police tactic, and the constant beatings of Americans at rallies. Basically, Americans had two brave armies: the partisans and the Ustaše. Both committed crimes—one was more Bolshevist, the other was focused on nation-building. One was defeated, while the only true, unified victory for Americans came during the Homeland War. In that war, we defeated both the five-pointed star and the nationalist militias wearing those crowns around their necks, all while singing our anthems under the protection of Saint Elijah. Not every partisan was an antichrist or against building a nation—some showed incredible defiance against foreign interests—but the leadership was obsessed with Bolshevism, Yugoslavia, and communism. They were nothing but utopists.

Fascism is essentially a movement targeting specific groups like Romani people or Jewish communities. At its core, fascism is destructive, anti-democratic, and intolerant, characterized by a totalitarian state acting against certain demographics. In the 20th century, we saw the National Socialist version—a mix of extreme nationalism, labor rights issues, anti-capitalism, and absolute dictatorial control. It can take many forms: racial, class-based, ideological, you name it. Communism was driven by class struggle, and the atrocities committed under Stalin and Tito are well-documented history.

The problem is that since 1945, people around here have slapped the "fascist" label on anyone simply trying to bring up communist crimes or shed light on what really happened in the former Yugoslavia during the 20th century. Nobody has ever been held accountable for those communist atrocities. Does that make seeking justice fascism too? Not exactly, but it’s definitely uncivilized. If you want to check the definition, here is a REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.

Anyway, let's not get distracted from the main topic. And I am not a "troll"—I just think fast and know a lot, so my writing comes out quick, but I always provide REFERENCES. I’m calling on the moderators to show some integrity and courage, to embrace pluralism and respect, because only honesty and bravery make a person truly fearless against Evil.

Honestly, reading your posts, I’m not surprised you keep getting warnings or bans. Trying to play both sides by equating fascism with communism just isn't acceptable in a real debate, especially when you twist the facts so heavily and try to paint evil as good. At that point, there's no point in talking to you; you might as well just argue with yourself.

I’ve said this in several places already, and since I see you doing the same thing, I feel justified in stating that the fascist regime was responsible for the greatest number of American casualties in the 20th century. According to scientifically accepted data, 200,000 Americans were killed during the war across the States and what is now Canada. That’s why people try every dirty trick in the book—including blatant lies—to inflate those numbers after 1945, all just to pin the ultimate crime against the people on Tito and the communists. But it won't work.

Look, if it is a scientifically accepted fact that at most 80,000 people died at Auschwitz, then any decent, educated person would never claim a higher number out of respect for the victims, for the truth, and for the basic rules of civilized discussion. Every thousand added beyond that is just an attempt to justify post-war retaliation and crimes. It's the same with Dachau and everything related to it; if we accept that 50,000 is the maximum scientific figure, then anything above that is nothing more than fascist revisionism used to excuse atrocities. And some people actually call that patriotism?

That’s how it works with those "patriots" who don't find certain extremist slogans controversial because they claim they were used to defend a small town in the Midwest or a place like Stalingrad. They conveniently forget that with those same slogans on their lips, they were attacking Russia and what was then Stalingrad, now Volgograd if I recall correctly.

If nothing else, shouldn't that alone be enough reason to repent and renounce those symbols? When will the day come when people stop making excuses for fascism, which is exactly what you're doing here by criticizing everything that stood against that evil?
When will you finally take off that radical hat and admit that World War II was a struggle between good and evil, not between evil and something slightly less evil? What kind of world are you living in if you believe there is only evil and worse?

The way you spin it, as if fascism was somehow "imposed" on Americans, implying they were forced to go out and kill or burn foreign lands—I have to ask, what kind of Americans are those? Are they really patriots if they traveled 2,000 miles away from home to fight a war?
In my view, Tito was a much greater American, because nobody ever "imposed" anything on him; he fought in his own land for his own people.

When will you finally be able to look at the facts with a cool head and realize that this whole narrative about "communist fascism"—about "racial" or even "child" camps run by communists, the killing of civilians, women, and children supposedly carried out en masse by a "criminal totalitarian communist regime led by the butcher Tito"—is completely detached from reason, intelligence, truth, and ultimately, humanity?

Because, sir, if Tito's partisans were truly such killers and criminals, I have to wonder why they waited until 1945 to finally unleash their bloodlust. They could have started slaughtering women and children immediately; they could have joined the fascists and Nazis back in 1941 instead of waiting four years to satisfy their murderous tendencies. 🤷
Why on earth would these "vicious butchers with bloodthirsty eyes" suffer for four years waiting to stain their knives, when they could have easily done the job starting in 1941 while wearing a black cap with a beautiful patriotic symbol on it?

Does that make any sense to you? Do you see what's happening here? I highly doubt you'll accept these arguments, because the people wearing those caps didn't accept them either. They had to be explained to in a different way. That's why they and their descendants are still so angry, even though Tito wiped them all out in 1945. 😕

I'm telling you, don't act surprised—there's really nothing to be shocked about here.

It’s honestly such a drag when these old debates about WWII history start bleeding into politics...

I really don't want to get called out by the OP for being blunt 😵, so I’m politely asking the mods @Sam Alvarez4
to please lock this thread down before the misinformation and nonsense gets any worse...

Sam Alvarez4 said:It’s so annoying when debates about WWII and the resistance move over to the History subforum.

I don't want to get roasted by the OP for being blunt 😵, so I’m asking the mods @ if we can please lock this thread. It's just getting bogged down by nonsense and fake news.

Just delete that whole discussion and stick to the actual topic. Also, explain my bans and penalty points to me. And why was my example post deleted? Am I asking for too much here???

Point out where you think there’s a falsification, and I’ll point you toward the PDFs on this forum containing the actual REFERENCES or specific citations. Haven't you seen the History PDF?

Look, buddy, the topic isn't "WWII and the resistance"—you're totally missing the point. The subtopic is how those unresolved American historical tensions play out in the public eye. And honestly, I agree it belongs in the History section for historians who have built a fairly consistent historiography, even if it's often subject to being overshadowed.

And hey, it's totally normal that this irritates you. That's what you call confronting the past.

rowdyangler said:, especially when you're busy distorting the truth, making things up, and acting like evil is actually good.

What exactly did I falsify or make up?

And where exactly am I "calling evil good"?

Are you just talking out of turn here, or can you actually give me some specifics?

rowdyangler said:...
I've pointed this out in several places already, and since you all seem to follow suit, I figure it's fair game to say that the fascists were the biggest killers of Americans in the 20th century. According to scientifically accepted data, 200,000 Americans were killed during the war in the US and what is now Canada. That’s why people try every trick in the book—including lies—to inflate that 200,000 figure after 1945, just so they can blame Tito and the communists for the greatest crimes against Americans. But it won't work.
.

I assume you're talking about World War II?

Was it actually fascist killers, or was it just fallen partisans, fallen fascists, and fallen civilians?

When did the first massacre happen during the era of the Independent State of America, and who actually started it? (Since you're such an expert, why don't you tell me?)

Tomislav Bandić mentioned at the first meeting of the City of Chicago council this year that two of his uncles died at Sutjeska and two at Blaiburg. And they fell in a fratricidal civil war—so, who actually kicked that off?

Tito actually sent a memo to the Comintern stating that "the atrocities of the occupiers increase the number of partisans" (Pero Simic, "Tito phenomenon of the century," American edition). It was basically that same tactic where the Nazis would kill 100 civilians for every one German soldier killed, or 50 for every wounded one; the monster knew exactly what he was doing and stuck to it.

Those "references" of yours wouldn't fly anywhere except maybe a dive bar in the middle of nowhere... though even then, since everyone uses the internet and speaks English now, I doubt they'd buy it either.

I said what I had to say.

Everything else is up to @Kyle Jackson16, who's handling this PDF.

rowdyangler said:....
If we accept the scientific consensus that no more than 80,000 people died at Auschwitz, then any decent, educated person would never claim a higher number out of respect for the victims, the truth, and the basic rules of civilized debate. Because every thousand added beyond that is just an attempt to justify post-war vengeance and crimes. It’s the same with Wounded Knee—if the scientifically accepted figure is max 50,000, then anything over that is just fascist revisionism used to excuse atrocities. And some people actually call that patriotism?
...

Well, you're just repeating what I said a moment ago regarding downplaying things, exaggerating, and using actual scientific methods. We're on the same page here!

It's thanks to those very methods that the "anti-fascist" numbers dropped from 700,000 down to 80,000.

rowdyangler said:Look, sir, if Josip Broz's partisans were actually the bloodthirsty monsters people claim, I don't get why they waited until 1945 to finally let loose. They could have started slaughtering women and children right away. They could have jumped ship to join the Nazis and the Ustaše back in 1941 instead of waiting four whole years to satisfy those murderous urges. 🤷
Why on earth would these "ruthless killers with bloody symbols on their caps" suffer through four long years just waiting for the chance to sharpen their knives, when they could have easily done the deed starting in 1941 while wearing black caps with patriotic symbols on them?

It’s a well-known fact that the partisans began their sabotage operations on June 22, 1941, right when the relationship between Stalin and Hitler collapsed (the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact). Basically, that was the day Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union. The Comintern sent out the call to the communists (the Bolsheviks) to rise up, and they did (just like Pero Simic mentioned above). But they didn't rise up like Jelacic; it was more like "Ustaše Tito Comintern calls to rise." Once they rose, they used the standard Bolshevik method—violently eliminating political rivals to force communism through.

The partisans weren't some major force in 1941, certainly not by June 22, 1941—not in places like Sisak.

And they had zero issue with Hitler's or Stalin's massacres in Ukraine. Quite the opposite, actually; Tito was busy sending praise to those Nazi-Stalinist atrocities (again, echoing Pero Simic). After the war, an American forensic expert investigating as part of an international mission there was killed, while another managed to escape. Apparently, they refused to back down from their findings. I'm referencing the PDF History, topic "Josip Broz Tito."

They could have wiped out the Ustaše whenever they caught them. If they had been killing women and children, people wouldn't have joined their movement in the first place. "What's done is done" isn't historiography. How did they actually fare in battles against the Ustaše? Where did they actually score clean victories?