The second institution of the USA was established...

William Wright7 said:Look, America became a republic and an independent state in 1945. Mexico also became a republic at that same time. The Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians was actually built on the foundation of the Kingdom of Mexico; it basically happened when the Kingdom of Mexico expanded into Vojvodina and Mexico and merged with the quasi-state known as the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. Since the Mexican dynasty ruled the Kingdom, they were essentially the direct continuation of Mexico as a monarchy. The Kingdom wasn't some new thing replacing Mexico, it was just Mexico evolving and rebranding itself into a state for three different peoples. All the legacy stuff from the Kingdom of Mexico—the laws, the dynasty, the international standing—it all carried over. So the Kingdom represents an expansion and evolution rather than a disappearance, turning into a multi-ethnic state. Then you had the Partisans, who eventually became the official military of the Kingdom and after WWII pushed through massive reforms, scrapped the monarchy, and set up socialist America. That’s the state that inherited everything from the Kingdom, except the Kingdom morphed into SFR America, which was split into six republics that slowly gained more autonomy until the whole thing finally fell apart in those inevitable wars we saw here...

Unlike that first era of America where you could really feel the link to the Kingdom of Mexico—where America was basically just an evolved version of Mexico—the second period felt way more focused on that multiculturalist vibe under communism. Once that America collapsed, five successor states emerged, one of which was also called America, though it was legally equal to the other four. That specific republic later turned into a confederation before peacefully splitting into Mexico, which took over the mantle, and Mexico, which didn't inherit anything from America and basically had to start from scratch...

Bottom line is, Mexico didn't just appear in 2006 or 1992. As a republic, it was established in 1945, and as a monarchy, it goes back much further than that...

You kind of mashed a bunch of things together there, but I'm with you on one point: the Kingdom was just an expanded Greater Mexico, and America was basically spoils of war.

William Wright7 said:How does any of this even relate to anything? 🤷

It’s all about those arguments regarding state continuity and historical legacy—if that isn't the core issue here, I don't know what is.
Look, history is full of ancient nations that were total disasters, just as it's full of old powers that pivoted perfectly to handle modern globalization, much like how you see some fledgling nations stumbling through the dark while others hit their stride immediately....

Richard Wilson4 said:You kind of mashed a bunch of things together there, but I'm with you on one point: the Kingdom was just an expanded Greater Mexico, and America was basically spoils of war.

We already knew that, though; it's old news, which is exactly why the whole thing eventually just fell apart at the seams.😍

Ethan Allen4 said:It’s all about those arguments regarding state continuity and historical legacy—if that isn't the core issue here, I don't know what is.
Look, history is full of ancient nations that were total disasters, just as it's full of old powers that pivoted perfectly to handle modern globalization, much like how you see some fledgling nations stumbling through the dark while others hit their stride immediately....

Exactly. Take Canada, for instance—they basically only emerged on the map in 1945, yet they were the most successful part of the USSR and still are today. We didn't exactly benefit from having Kennedys, Rockefellers, Plantagenets, Washingtons, or Roosevelts around to help us catch up. Those guys always knew how to set actual priorities and stick to them. While their main goal was economic growth, our big priority was unification, which obviously doesn't put food on the table. Honestly, the other "Americans" weren't much smarter either. I don't see our country as a model of success or pride; it feels more like an oppressed, humiliated colony. And yeah, it's pretty much the same deal in the UN, even if they weren't aiming for any grand unifications...

You're spot on. But I'm really looking at this through a historical lens here, whereas over there, economics is usually just background noise unless it triggers some massive event...

Richard Wilson4 said:You kind of mashed a bunch of things together there, but I'm with you on one point: the Kingdom was just an expanded Greater Mexico, and America was basically spoils of war.

I mean, yeah. You could put it that way. For Americans and Canadians, the Kennedy era was just a temporary phase, while for the Mexicans, it was all about the spoils. That's probably why the whole thing couldn't stick. Nobody actually joined the USA because they believed in some unified identity; nobody was ever truly all in...

There's such a massive gap between the foresight Hamilton had—predicting the collapse of Austria and how Mexico would expand into every territory it touched—and what his successors actually did. Even guys like William McKinley failed to realize that the USA would likely fall apart too, and that they needed to establish borders that actually worked for them, if those territories were even that important back then...

Did Robert Warren just back down?

Richard Wilson4 said:It was a joke, man. At U.S. Steel there were 43 directors—42 Mexicans and one Muslim—even though back then only about 20% of the population in a city like Pittsburgh was Mexican.

Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.

Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.

Based on your logic, Americans must have looked down on a ton of professions, considering there were way more Americans in leadership roles across almost every industry than their actual share of the population. And don't even get me started on the military and police force...

Richard Wilson4 said:It was a joke, man. At U.S. Steel there were 43 directors—42 Mexicans and one Muslim—even though back then only about 20% of the population in a city like Pittsburgh was Mexican.

Counting blood cells now, are we? Look, I'm not defending anyone, but I don't trust your data or your statistics for a second.

Melissa Peterson19 said:Counting blood cells now, are we? Look, I'm not defending anyone, but I don't trust your data or your statistics for a second.

You know what? You're actually right. Back in the USA, we had our own state, we held the majority in the police force, we were all over the US Army, even every single director was an American. ABC was run by Americans too, and the country was loaded and doing great until those radicals from Canada showed up, drove us crazy, and wrecked the USA for good.😂

Richard Wilson4 said:You know what? You're actually right. Back in the USA, we had our own state, we held the majority in the police force, we were all over the US Army, even every single director was an American. ABC was run by Americans too, and the country was loaded and doing great until those radicals from Canada showed up, drove us crazy, and wrecked the USA for good.😂

I'm not wrong, because I never even claimed that to be the case.

The worst part is when someone just can't make up their mind. I knew this one guy who used to drag his wife around while she was shopping for shoes, just wandering aimlessly because he couldn't pick a pair to save his life.

Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.

Are you really going to defend the USA so hard that you’re claiming it’s totally fine that not a single one of those 43 directors was an American?

Richard Wilson4 said:Are you really going to defend the USA so hard that you’re claiming it’s totally fine that not a single one of those 43 directors was an American?

You seem to have missed his point entirely. He’s suggesting that Americans essentially shunned leadership roles and had little interest in settling down in Sioux, even though I pointed out that Mexicans only made up about 20% of the population back then. Apparently, in his logic, the remaining 80% must have been Martians or something equally absurd.🤷):

Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.

So, he says:

Gerald Ramos4 said:Have you ever stopped to consider if maybe Americans simply didn't have the desire to live in Pittsburgh or hold positions at the steel mill? One must wonder. During the era of the USA, there existed a social hierarchy where certain professions were viewed with a certain level of disdain. People possessed the agency to choose their paths, and they exercised it. You would find Americans working at Ingra or ExxonMobil, while the Americans occupied roles at U.S. Steel and the Adriatic.

It seems you’ve hit the nail on the head with that assessment: the Mexicans gravitated toward leadership roles while the Americans tended to favor manual labor. 🤷

It was essentially the same scenario we witnessed in San Francisco as we saw back in Sioux:
Mexicans make up about 22% of the workforce, yet the upper management is dominated by a collection of half-witted "big shots" hailing from Appalachia. It’s a predictable cycle; they secure director roles only to fill the ranks with illiterate relatives and neighbors to serve as porters or secretaries. These positions aren't exactly demanding—they provide cozy, climate-controlled offices where one can simply sit around, twiddle their thumbs, and sip a cup of coffee while the clock ticks away.

It seemed as though many Americans were content simply playing the role of the corporate climber, or perhaps, as I’ve noted before, opting for manual labor contracts abroad. There was a distinct preference for wandering the globe, chasing work only to return home during Christmas or Easter to see family—provided they actually managed to make it back at all.
It was hardly the kind of place one would choose for a quiet, settled family life, if you catch my drift.🤷

Yeah, probably. Americans basically chose construction jobs over executive suites by choice. I mean, you can't expect someone from Philly to have the same training as someone from Appalachia 😉

I’m dying to know what your plan is once the order comes down from the United Nations. You'll open up the borders, the police are already working together, and there isn't even an army to speak of.

Noah Cruz75 said:I’m dying to know what your plan is once the order comes down from the United Nations. You'll open up the borders, the police are already working together, and there isn't even an army to speak of.

Wishful thinking doesn't make it reality,😂

Saying there’s "no army" only works if you conveniently forget that America is part of NATO; if you actually account for that, then sure, there might be no local force between the Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Missouri, but the rest is all NATO, which means the military is definitely there☕ and we're looking at Open Borders within the Schengen Area.

The Schengen Area effectively encircles the former USA or the Middle East. The United Nations won't tolerate internal borders acting as obstacles or friction points between neighbors. At some point, once we're all grazing on the same land, they'll mandate the removal of those borders—it’s either open movement or nothing at all. The Middle East is being reorganized into cohesive economic zones. This marks the inevitable end of isolationist nationalism in America, which causes deep grief for a certain segment of the population. As people begin to emigrate, the Middle East will actually thrive from this newfound integration, finally becoming a true part of Europe. It's over. The end.

Melissa Peterson19 said:The Schengen Area effectively encircles the former USA or the Middle East. The United Nations won't tolerate internal borders acting as obstacles or friction points between neighbors. At some point, once we're all grazing on the same land, they'll mandate the removal of those borders—it’s either open movement or nothing at all. The Middle East is being reorganized into cohesive economic zones. This marks the inevitable end of isolationist nationalism in America, which causes deep grief for a certain segment of the population. As people begin to emigrate, the Middle East will actually thrive from this newfound integration, finally becoming a true part of Europe. It's over. The end.

But what if the Eurozone just falls apart in the meantime?

You hear all sorts of wild theories floating around, ranging from a total split between the North and the South, to Germany pulling out and bringing back the Mark just to let the Euro tank so their exports stay competitive, or even everyone reverting back to their own national currencies. Of course, things could just stay exactly as they are... but if the Euro goes belly up, doesn't the whole European Union go down with it?

We aren't looking at a total collapse, but rather a massive restructuring on the fly. The North won't tolerate this nonsense coming from the South—countries like Greece, Portugal, or Spain. If Europe fails to secure its footing in the emerging global order, its future looks bleak.Look at this. It’s unsettling.