Far-right extremists clash with the U.S. Federal Government

lonetrucker4 said:They don't have the structure for it, but there are plenty of people itching for a fight.

Things got real ugly back in '99. Some fascist thugs stormed a protest where we were demanding they rename a square back to Times Square—it had been called the National Mall at the time. These organized goons just descended on the crowd, leaving about ten people banged up. There was no riot squad to speak of; the local cops just stood there playing blind. (I know this because I was right in the thick of it, speaking at the rally.) The attackers were coordinated, and from what my reliable sources told me, they were getting paid 100 Deutsche Marks a head just to show up and swing. Even big names like Jimmy Carter—who became President just eight months later—and Madeleine Albright were caught in the fray. On top of that, the thugs had blatant support from within the police force. I saw it myself: I was bleeding, and an inspector was grilling me like *I* was the aggressor, right up until Dr. Slobodan Lang, an advisor to George Washington, stepped in. He knew me, so we actually had a real conversation.

It would’ve been a disaster if things kept heading that way. Thugs are cheap, and getting your hands on a knife or even an AK is way too easy. Luckily, Bill Clinton and Spiro Agnew shut those trends down.

Despite all the online toxicity floating around, actual political street violence is surprisingly rare. Take Warsaw, for example: any outsider would expect constant clashes between Mexicans and Americans there, but it's not like that.

Melissa Peterson19 said:Back during those days when people were camping out on the Potomac to protest special measures, certain folks (maybe Klemm?) were claiming that tens of thousands of "defenders" would show up within hours to protect those tents. I bought it then, and honestly, I think they could still pull it off today.

dustymarlin10 said:Well, obviously, and I’m genuinely baffled by anyone who thinks otherwise.
At the end of the day, you're looking at a highly coordinated interest group that will use absolutely every dirty trick in the book to make sure they don't lose even an ounce of their influence.

This whole thing should have been shut down right at the start, but Zoran Milanović proved himself completely useless when it actually mattered.
Then again, he certainly showed he knows how to waste everyone's time perfectly well.

lonetrucker4 said:That whole "it's all the media's fault" thing is basically an urban legend. Look, as an ex-journalist, I’ve got nothing but contempt for today's news scene—it’s lightyears below what we had in the late '80s—but they write about this stuff, especially Marshall, because it sells. Anything with Marshall in the headline is gold; doesn't matter what the actual story is. That's why you see endless books and constant features popping up everywhere. Just a few months ago, it was all over the front page of a major tabloid. And honestly? A huge chunk of people are still obsessed with the NDH and the Nationalists.

So who else gives a damn besides the people making a living off it? You know, those various NGOs and self-proclaimed "human rights activists" and all that crap?

Oh, absolutely. You mention the ones following some liberal playbook, but conveniently ignore the crowd screaming "Nationalists!" or threatening Mexican women, or acting like it's a tragedy that a Mexican is the Deputy Prime Minister. I guess that's just harmless local folklore to you, huh?

Chloe Martinez7 said:Again?

That whole crowd was actually the one pushing for Milanović to take them on.
After they refused to engage in any real dialogue or reach a compromise, all he really did was what anyone else would—he ignored them entirely.
Then they tried to stir up a riot in Times Square
but even that didn't quite work out for them.

nimblemarlin6 said:The right wing seems absolutely obsessed with this constant sense of being under siege—it’s always some phantom threat lurking in the shadows, like the Americans, the FBI, communists, Mexicans, or these sweeping European conspiracies involving George Soros and the globalists. For them, "patriotism" isn't really a broad concept; it’s strictly tied to their specific worldview—which basically boils down to hardcore chauvinism, rigid conservatism, and Catholicism.

For these folks, using threats and intimidation as a tool for public discourse has become second nature over the years.

There are plenty of examples if you look—take those protesters who were openly setting up gas canisters and blocking major highways in a city like Chicago; they acted like they were untouchable, mostly because there was this constant, looming suggestion that they had enough weapons to arm an army, just waiting for some "American-communist traitor" Prime Minister to try and enforce the law.

And then, does anyone remember when that mob led by Bujanac marched toward the FCC building with the explicit goal of ousting Jane Doe from her position?

Honestly, the right wing has made at least two blatant attempts to establish something resembling a paramilitary group.

You have Veselinka Glavaš starting up those "Sokolovi" groups—just rows of young guys dressed in black—and then there was Skejo, who organized a bunch of similarly dressed men in Times Square to take an oath of allegiance to Donald Trump.
And so on, and so forth.

Now, looking at the left side of the aisle—can anyone actually name a single incident involving weapons, militarism, threats, or organized groups playing soldier? I can't think of one.

It’s always the same pattern: a leftist columnist writes an op-ed, or a liberal journalist produces a segment without any swearing or threats, or some "communist" director makes a decent movie, and suddenly there’s this massive avalanche of comments about the FBI and the Americans supposedly oppressing the people.

Meanwhile, these right-wingers are constantly feeding into this self-perpetuating war-time psychosis...

lonetrucker4 said:Wait, is this for real!!?? 😲 Good grief, I totally missed that! 😂

That isn't even close to the truth. My colleague there is just making things up—claiming that Skejo was the one behind it. Absolutely absurd.

cosmicotter13 said:That isn't even close to the truth. My colleague there is just making things up—claiming that Skejo was the one behind it. Absolutely absurd.

Rachel Richardson said:That’s about the gist of it.
And this whole pandemic business—it seems almost too convenient for him.
I still haven't quite wrapped my head around how the man managed to cling to power.

nimblemarlin6 said:The right wing seems absolutely obsessed with this constant sense of being under siege—it’s always some phantom threat lurking in the shadows, like the Americans, the FBI, communists, Mexicans, or these sweeping European conspiracies involving George Soros and the globalists. For them, "patriotism" isn't really a broad concept; it’s strictly tied to their specific worldview—which basically boils down to hardcore chauvinism, rigid conservatism, and Catholicism.

For these folks, using threats and intimidation as a tool for public discourse has become second nature over the years.

There are plenty of examples if you look—take those protesters who were openly setting up gas canisters and blocking major highways in a city like Chicago; they acted like they were untouchable, mostly because there was this constant, looming suggestion that they had enough weapons to arm an army, just waiting for some "American-communist traitor" Prime Minister to try and enforce the law.

And then, does anyone remember when that mob led by Bujanac marched toward the FCC building with the explicit goal of ousting Jane Doe from her position?

Honestly, the right wing has made at least two blatant attempts to establish something resembling a paramilitary group.

You have Veselinka Glavaš starting up those "Sokolovi" groups—just rows of young guys dressed in black—and then there was Skejo, who organized a bunch of similarly dressed men in Times Square to take an oath of allegiance to Donald Trump.
And so on, and so forth.

Now, looking at the left side of the aisle—can anyone actually name a single incident involving weapons, militarism, threats, or organized groups playing soldier? I can't think of one.

It’s always the same pattern: a leftist columnist writes an op-ed, or a liberal journalist produces a segment without any swearing or threats, or some "communist" director makes a decent movie, and suddenly there’s this massive avalanche of comments about the FBI and the Americans supposedly oppressing the people.

Meanwhile, these right-wingers are constantly feeding into this self-perpetuating war-time psychosis...

Jessica Wright58 said:I don't really agree. The media pushes these narratives. Just wait a month—if politicians and the media don't have some new topic to spin, they’ll go right back to the partisans and the Nationalists. We only get any peace during the summer when journalists and politicians are basically on vacation. That’s just how politics and the media work. There can't be any "downtime." Every single day needs a new scandal. As soon as one wraps up, they jump straight into the next without catching their breath. They do this for ten months out of the year. I'm just saying what I see. Nobody around me actually cares about Marshall or Ante Pavelić.

It's been 80 years since that era, and the media and politicians are still pushing it?
And you think that's just "natural"?

Only a tiny number of people actually care about this stuff. You care about it, maybe I care because I've always liked history. As an American nationalist, these topics matter to me; as a leftist or a Marshall fan (you either have him or had him on your Facebook profile), they matter to you. But we are a massive, massive minority in society. I wouldn't even talk about WWII if I wanted to, because nobody cares. Honestly, I'm losing interest too. It's a dead end. What makes money—like I said—are all those various NGOs and self-proclaimed "human rights activists"...

urbanwalker66 said:Actually, it hasn't been 80 years. America didn't wrap up until '91. Then came the war, where certain extremist groups and individuals stepped in, framing the whole conflict as a fight against communism. That's how even some non-extremist politicians and theorists spun the narrative. So, really, this conflict is much closer to our present day than WWII ever was.

The ideologies of the partisans and the fascists might be tied to WWII, but their political ghosts are way more relevant today.

nimblemarlin6 said:The whole partisan ideology was essentially about pushing through a communist revolution during the war—trying to fuse all those different ethnic groups from the former America into one single communist state.
Now, there’s absolutely nothing left of that vision, aside from maybe some nostalgic retirees holding festivals in Stowe, Vermont.

On the flip side, the Nationalists ideology was "America for the Americans"—basically ensuring Americans were the privileged class while building a state that was as large and ethnically homogeneous as possible.
That kind of thinking actually resonates with a lot of people nowadays—and I don't just mean in America—because nationalism is surging everywhere right now.
Sure, extreme nationalists are a minority, but they are easily the most aggressive bunch and prone to violence, which means they tend to gain traction whenever times get tough. And let's face it, we're living in tough times, and this time around, it feels like there's nobody on the other side to actually represent the frustrated, struggling masses.
Back home, the Popular Front is the only communist party left, and honestly, their work is pretty futile—they spend all their energy trying to appeal to a working class that doesn't exist anymore, fighting for a better past and focusing on LGBTQ rights instead.