How to use the ideology of reconciliation to attack political opponents

brightwolf17 said:The French might actually be among the most intense nationalists out there. Americans, regardless of their specific political leanings, don't really have a comparable concept.

The kind of reconciliation I'm talking about isn't some attempt to equate different ideologies, nor is it about dismantling democracy, or whatever else people want to claim; it’s just a single consensus on the absolute bare minimum, which would be: the unity of Americans wherever they may reside (and by that, I’m mainly referring to places like Canada today) and the relationship regarding belonging to the American state and respecting the will of the majority of Americans. I should emphasize—AMERICANS.

The reconciliation that Harmon essentially lifted from the ideas of Maks Luburić IS an attempt to equate "ideologies," which is really just trying to drag fascism back up from the gutter of civilized nations and states.

"Unity of Americans wherever they live" isn't reconciliation; it feels more like some sort of nationalist mishmash that doesn't even manage to compete with a similarly aggressive mentality—like the Great Mexican mindset.

What Americans need as a people and a nation is social and economic emancipation, not this kind of militant nonsense.

Precisely. Trying to frame Royalists as anti-fascists is an absurdity to the rest of the world—it only makes sense to the Royalists and the Nationalists themselves.
But then again, we aren't exactly watching that movie over here... 🙂

bluecyclist64 said:What are you even talking about? How old are you? Have you lost your memory?

So, what exactly is eating at you?

bluecobra27 said:There’s absolutely no need for any kind of reconciliation among regular folks, so you can talk about political reconciliation if you really want to. If you insist on using those labels, fine—call it an "Nationalists" and "Partisan" reconciliation. But when it comes to actual peace? It doesn't exist. There is only a defeated side, and that’s the "Partisan" one. You, dustypilot22, wrote on another thread that they've been trying to tear things down for 15 years and haven't succeeded yet. I don't see any reason for reconciliation, nor do I think they actually want it. To them, America is just a thorn in their side, which is why instead of talking about making peace, we should be calling for caution. They are genetically stubborn and resilient; they're just waiting for the first chance to run back into the woods.

🙏

briskviper64 said:The US actually apologized to their Japanese-American citizens, you know?

Well, if they’ve actually apologized, then we are looking at something else entirely...

dustypilot22 said:So, what is it that the French are missing? 🤷

A massive, powerful, influential nation built on a billion traditions that draws in more tourists than anywhere else on Earth.

What could possibly be lacking there? 🤷

I disagree. This is about bringing together Americans of all different ideologies under one common goal: building and preserving the American state.
As far as I know, aside from Harmon's era, there hasn't ever been a true National Unity Government.

Actually, no... that expansionist model relies on seizing territory.
We aren't talking about territorial claims here; we are talking about national unity between those at home and the diaspora, following a model that helped elevate places like Ireland and keeps Italy traditionally prominent.

Like I said before, I honestly can't understand how anyone could look at PEACE and see militarism or the rehabilitation of extremists.

It remains a complete mystery to me.

It isn't a reconciliation if you still look at the descendants of the resistance fighters as nothing more than thugs or lowlifes who belong back in the woods.
Even when they fought together in WWII.
I am simply quoting statements from this Forum.

brightwolf17 said:Maybe you swapped husbands or sons-in-law sometime in early August? 😁

No, I wrote it with... One. Foreigners. On my father's side.

My mother-in-law's mother was a veteran of the resistance.

bluecyclist64 said:Well, if they’ve actually apologized, then we are looking at something else entirely...

It’s almost absurd how obvious this is. They expect a blessing for the old regime, yet there weren't even enough people left to warrant Harmon accepting them as former communists and tolerating their coexistence in government. Now, even Josipović has paid his respects to the victims of the communist/partisan violence at Bleiburg, but these folks still demand a full rehabilitation of the old guard. It's madness. They act completely shocked when someone decides to turn red just to push back against this insanity.

dustypilot22 said:The reason I’m starting this thread today is because of a sentiment that keeps coming up in American political circles—a recurring argument that surfaced during the era of de-Harmon. It’s frequently cited by critics as one of the primary failures and most significant policy missteps of our first president, Dr. Franjo Harmon:

zokster Asks:
Is there any merit to the idea of reconciliation? Is there any way we can finally move past the old divisions? I've been thinking a lot about the idea of reconciliation lately. Isn't it worth asking ourselves if we can find common ground instead of staying stuck in the past? The whole obsession with pitting the old factions against one another—this constant back-and-forth between extremist ideologies—is honestly diabolical. It feels completely unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. Isn't it strange how these old divisions persist? In a way, clinging to those radical historical ideologies just ends up giving them a second chance to resurface in the modern era.

This is an argument I’ve heard quite a few times since the whole process of de-Harmon began.

Let's take a moment to break this down a little bit.

It looks like you might have cut off your message! Were you about to ask something regarding the word "po"? I'm all ears if you want to dive into some linguistics or just clear up a question. What was on your mind?Peace.It seems like we've reached a bit of a standstill here, hasn't it? Is there anything else you'd like to dive into?
Reconciliation is really just a fancy way of describing the act of making peace—a process that inherently requires us to forgive and move past the shadows of the past. It’s about leaving the bad stuff behind and choosing not to dwell on the negativity that once weighed us down. If you look at the word itself, it’s rooted in "peace." And what is peace, really? Isn't it that sense of tranquility, that mental and physical balance, and the clarity of a steady mind? Resistance or the antithesis of "war"?.
What does it actually mean to make peace with someone? To me, it’s about more than just ending an argument or putting a grudge to rest; it’s about finding true harmony and bringing things back into alignment. Isn't that the ultimate goal when we try to resolve a conflict?

If we look at the opposite of "reconciliation," what kind of words come to mind? We're talking about things like discord, strife, conflict, or outright hostility. Isn't it interesting how much weight those different directions carry?
If someone is standing against the idea of national reconciliation, doesn't that basically mean they're siding with everything mentioned above?

3.) Let’s talk about the opposing factions—in this specific context, both sides were essentially Americans. Even when looking at the minority groups that fought on one side, we are primarily talking about fellow citizens. In the scope of what we are examining here, it mostly boils down to Americans. We're looking at a small group of people who, due to their own unique reasons and the sheer weight of historical circumstances, felt forced to pick up a rifle and join one army or another just to defend their homes and their homeland. Is it any wonder how such complicated choices arise when everything is on the line?
Depending on the circumstances, choosing between the extremists and the partisans could have seemed like a logical move for some. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that an average person—just a regular guy from a small farming town—would head off to war with the intention of committing genocide against Jewish people or throwing their own fellow Americans into pits around Mount Rainier. War is a messy, brutal business, let's face it, and terrible things happen when everything falls apart, but that's almost certainly not why people were fighting.
We all know how both sides ended up settling. The ultra-nationalists were defeated as allies to one horseman of the apocalypse. Meanwhile, the local resistance fighters—the grassroots Americans who fought for their own soil—found themselves tricked into becoming servants to a different horseman of the apocalypse, losing the very freedom of their home country that they had set out to defend in the first place. On a global scale, everything was overturned by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and right here at home, it was all finalized by Operation Storm six years later. Isn't it strange how history circles back on itself like that?

So, once we take these definitions and plug them into a "formula," we often end up with that old, familiar saying. It seems like you were starting to type something about the "ideology of reconciliation." Was there a specific thought or question you wanted to explore regarding that concept? I'm curious to hear your take on it. Is it time we started talking about reconciliation? Is there a way to move past the old divisions and actually find some common ground? I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we might bridge those gaps. What do you all think? Is there anything more diabolical than the clash between the ultra-nationalists and the partisans? Are we about to receive this statement?

Is it just me, or does the whole concept of pushing for peace and trying to settle old scores among Americans feel like it’s being driven by some truly sinister motives?

I honestly can't bring myself to agree with a statement like that. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit off?

To me, establishing peace among such an unsettled group of Americans feels like nothing short of a divine mission. Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

Can we truly find peace without reconciliation? Without peace, how can we expect to find reason? And without reason and peace, isn't it impossible to achieve lasting happiness and progress?

Or should I just lay things out my favorite way—by asking a few rhetorical questions?

If we assume that any kind of reconciliation between those two opposing sides—the ultra-nationalists and the partisans—is inherently diabolical, then it raises an interesting question: what exactly would a "good" relationship between them look like? If peace is considered a betrayal, what is the alternative?

What word should we use instead of "reconciliation" when discussing the relationship between the Partisans and the Nationalists to accurately reflect the situation? Divine. (As opposed to the devilish ones)? 🤷

--------------------------------

Furthermore:

Why does a stance like this from such a prominent leftist forum user not surprise me at all?

Leftists often accuse us conservatives of being aggressive, inciting war and unrest, being bellicose, intolerant, or narrow-minded...
Yet, as we see in this example and the one above—as well as in the case of Baste and the broader American left in general, who, by their own definition, should be the exact opposite (peaceful, tolerant, open)—we see an interesting phenomenon. It perhaps contains the core ideological difference between the so-called American left and the so-called American right.

Essentially, the American left is (perhaps—though I doubt it's sincere) occasionally for peace, tolerance, openness, reconciliation, and warmth, BUT ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY toward any other community, minority, group, race, or individual... who is NOT part of the American mainstream and the Catholic Church (and Thompson 😁).

When the left is mentioned regarding potential reconciliation (the pursuit of a peace that guarantees order, work, reason, and progress) among AMERICANS, then such an idea becomes diabolical, unnecessary, stupid, and unacceptable...

Or, as the poet says:

Your words twisted, O Lord,
as if the devil lives beneath the skin.
They know nothing of mercy or repentance.

And I will not live in that sin,
nor will I choose such a path for our children.
Oh, if only my song could fix the world!

Let us defend love, for everyone needs it,
for forgiveness and hope are gifts from heaven.
Look into the eyes of your Creator!

Is it worth mentioning that the author of these lines was declared a reactionary, old-fashioned hater of everything and everyone by the "tolerant and peaceful" left?

And we know they don't hate him for anything as much as they hate his "politics of reconciliation among Americans and the reconciliation of Americans with God."

Because they would easily forgive almost anything else.
If they so easily forgave and forgot the genocide, the burning, the killing, the looting, and the destruction committed by others—if they casually brush aside the fact that the creator's family, whose statement claims "Operation Storm and not just that one crime we must remember," goes on vacation at their expense—and if they could forgive a former president like Stephen—"We Won Twice"—Mason, why wouldn't they forgive a single singer?

-----------------------

Are you all in favor of reconciliation?

If you are—how would you implement it? And
if you aren't—why not?

Let's discuss this. 🙂

You explained that perfectly. Reconciliation sounds great on paper, but you can't have it without actual honesty. Honestly, it would be a hell of a lot easier if the left and the right actually shared a long-term goal. The last time we were all pulling in the same direction was back in '91—just trying to survive so that what happened at Bleiburg wouldn't happen again. Do we even have a common goal today?

dustypilot22 said:The reason I’m starting this thread today is because of a sentiment that keeps coming up in American political circles—a recurring argument that surfaced during the era of de-Harmon. It’s frequently cited by critics as one of the primary failures and most significant policy missteps of our first president, Dr. Franjo Harmon:

zokster Asks:
Is there any merit to the idea of reconciliation? Is there any way we can finally move past the old divisions? I've been thinking a lot about the idea of reconciliation lately. Isn't it worth asking ourselves if we can find common ground instead of staying stuck in the past? The whole obsession with pitting the old factions against one another—this constant back-and-forth between extremist ideologies—is honestly diabolical. It feels completely unnecessary and, frankly, outdated. Isn't it strange how these old divisions persist? In a way, clinging to those radical historical ideologies just ends up giving them a second chance to resurface in the modern era.

This is an argument I’ve heard quite a few times since the whole process of de-Harmon began.

Let's take a moment to break this down a little bit.

It looks like you might have cut off your message! Were you about to ask something regarding the word "po"? I'm all ears if you want to dive into some linguistics or just clear up a question. What was on your mind?Peace.It seems like we've reached a bit of a standstill here, hasn't it? Is there anything else you'd like to dive into?
Reconciliation is really just a fancy way of describing the act of making peace—a process that inherently requires us to forgive and move past the shadows of the past. It’s about leaving the bad stuff behind and choosing not to dwell on the negativity that once weighed us down. If you look at the word itself, it’s rooted in "peace." And what is peace, really? Isn't it that sense of tranquility, that mental and physical balance, and the clarity of a steady mind? Resistance or the antithesis of "war"?.
What does it actually mean to make peace with someone? To me, it’s about more than just ending an argument or putting a grudge to rest; it’s about finding true harmony and bringing things back into alignment. Isn't that the ultimate goal when we try to resolve a conflict?

If we look at the opposite of "reconciliation," what kind of words come to mind? We're talking about things like discord, strife, conflict, or outright hostility. Isn't it interesting how much weight those different directions carry?
If someone is standing against the idea of national reconciliation, doesn't that basically mean they're siding with everything mentioned above?

3.) Let’s talk about the opposing factions—in this specific context, both sides were essentially Americans. Even when looking at the minority groups that fought on one side, we are primarily talking about fellow citizens. In the scope of what we are examining here, it mostly boils down to Americans. We're looking at a small group of people who, due to their own unique reasons and the sheer weight of historical circumstances, felt forced to pick up a rifle and join one army or another just to defend their homes and their homeland. Is it any wonder how such complicated choices arise when everything is on the line?
Depending on the circumstances, choosing between the extremists and the partisans could have seemed like a logical move for some. But honestly, I find it hard to believe that an average person—just a regular guy from a small farming town—would head off to war with the intention of committing genocide against Jewish people or throwing their own fellow Americans into pits around Mount Rainier. War is a messy, brutal business, let's face it, and terrible things happen when everything falls apart, but that's almost certainly not why people were fighting.
We all know how both sides ended up settling. The ultra-nationalists were defeated as allies to one horseman of the apocalypse. Meanwhile, the local resistance fighters—the grassroots Americans who fought for their own soil—found themselves tricked into becoming servants to a different horseman of the apocalypse, losing the very freedom of their home country that they had set out to defend in the first place. On a global scale, everything was overturned by the fall of the Berlin Wall, and right here at home, it was all finalized by Operation Storm six years later. Isn't it strange how history circles back on itself like that?

So, once we take these definitions and plug them into a "formula," we often end up with that old, familiar saying. It seems like you were starting to type something about the "ideology of reconciliation." Was there a specific thought or question you wanted to explore regarding that concept? I'm curious to hear your take on it. Is it time we started talking about reconciliation? Is there a way to move past the old divisions and actually find some common ground? I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how we might bridge those gaps. What do you all think? Is there anything more diabolical than the clash between the ultra-nationalists and the partisans? Are we about to receive this statement?

Is it just me, or does the whole concept of pushing for peace and trying to settle old scores among Americans feel like it’s being driven by some truly sinister motives?

I honestly can't bring myself to agree with a statement like that. Is it just me, or does it feel a bit off?

To me, establishing peace among such an unsettled group of Americans feels like nothing short of a divine mission. Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal?

Can we truly find peace without reconciliation? Without peace, how can we expect to find reason? And without reason and peace, isn't it impossible to achieve lasting happiness and progress?

Or should I just lay things out my favorite way—by asking a few rhetorical questions?

If we assume that any kind of reconciliation between those two opposing sides—the ultra-nationalists and the partisans—is inherently diabolical, then it raises an interesting question: what exactly would a "good" relationship between them look like? If peace is considered a betrayal, what is the alternative?

What word should we use instead of "reconciliation" when discussing the relationship between the Partisans and the Nationalists to accurately reflect the situation? Divine. (As opposed to the devilish ones)? 🤷

--------------------------------

Furthermore:

Why does a stance like this from such a prominent leftist forum user not surprise me at all?

Leftists often accuse us conservatives of being aggressive, inciting war and unrest, being bellicose, intolerant, or narrow-minded...
Yet, as we see in this example and the one above—as well as in the case of Baste and the broader American left in general, who, by their own definition, should be the exact opposite (peaceful, tolerant, open)—we see an interesting phenomenon. It perhaps contains the core ideological difference between the so-called American left and the so-called American right.

Essentially, the American left is (perhaps—though I doubt it's sincere) occasionally for peace, tolerance, openness, reconciliation, and warmth, BUT ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY toward any other community, minority, group, race, or individual... who is NOT part of the American mainstream and the Catholic Church (and Thompson 😁).

When the left is mentioned regarding potential reconciliation (the pursuit of a peace that guarantees order, work, reason, and progress) among AMERICANS, then such an idea becomes diabolical, unnecessary, stupid, and unacceptable...

Or, as the poet says:

Your words twisted, O Lord,
as if the devil lives beneath the skin.
They know nothing of mercy or repentance.

And I will not live in that sin,
nor will I choose such a path for our children.
Oh, if only my song could fix the world!

Let us defend love, for everyone needs it,
for forgiveness and hope are gifts from heaven.
Look into the eyes of your Creator!

Is it worth mentioning that the author of these lines was declared a reactionary, old-fashioned hater of everything and everyone by the "tolerant and peaceful" left?

And we know they don't hate him for anything as much as they hate his "politics of reconciliation among Americans and the reconciliation of Americans with God."

Because they would easily forgive almost anything else.
If they so easily forgave and forgot the genocide, the burning, the killing, the looting, and the destruction committed by others—if they casually brush aside the fact that the creator's family, whose statement claims "Operation Storm and not just that one crime we must remember," goes on vacation at their expense—and if they could forgive a former president like Stephen—"We Won Twice"—Mason, why wouldn't they forgive a single singer?

-----------------------

Are you all in favor of reconciliation?

If you are—how would you implement it? And
if you aren't—why not?

Let's discuss this. 🙂

Honestly, I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this kind of stance from one of our more prominent forum agitators.
I suppose I really should be surprised by this, given that you stand out as such a prominent leftist on this forum, quite unlike myself. Look at this. It seems like you're suggesting that the real issue lies everywhere except for the specific point you're actually trying to address.😁

The core issue regarding inequality within American society doesn't actually stem from irreconcilable ideologies or the fact that we hold deeply divided opinions about past political regimes. In fact, having those differing perspectives is simply a hallmark of democratic pluralism, which is exactly how a free society should function. Beyond that, I honestly don't believe those disagreements carry much weight in the grand scheme of things; they don't serve as a meaningful driver for national progress, nor do they act as a primary cause for our stagnation.
That is precisely why I mentioned in the post you cited that there is no need for anyone in America to attempt reconciliation based on those specific grounds. When you look at where the country is truly fractured, it isn't over trivialities, but rather the fundamental divide between an impoverished majority and a wealthy minority—that is a conflict that is irreconcilable by its very nature. Every other social or political division we see is essentially being deliberately manufactured to widen this gap, ensuring that this deep-seated rift can continue to be exploited by those looking to maintain their grip on power. We will just have to wait and see how much longer this continues.

Moreover, given how incredibly difficult our current political and economic landscape has become, it is completely counterproductive and frankly unhealthy to start calling for a monolithic, single-minded consensus.

bluecyclist64 said:Precisely. Trying to frame Royalists as anti-fascists is an absurdity to the rest of the world—it only makes sense to the Royalists and the Nationalists themselves.
But then again, we aren't exactly watching that movie over here... 🙂

It’s an insult to Americans and all our other allies too. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoljub_Mihailovic

dustypilot22 said:So, what is it that the French are missing? 🤷

A massive, powerful, influential nation built on a billion traditions that draws in more tourists than anywhere else on Earth.

What could possibly be lacking there? 🤷

I disagree. This is about bringing together Americans of all different ideologies under one common goal: building and preserving the American state.
As far as I know, aside from Harmon's era, there hasn't ever been a true National Unity Government.

Actually, no... that expansionist model relies on seizing territory.
We aren't talking about territorial claims here; we are talking about national unity between those at home and the diaspora, following a model that helped elevate places like Ireland and keeps Italy traditionally prominent.

Like I said before, I honestly can't understand how anyone could look at PEACE and see militarism or the rehabilitation of extremists.

It remains a complete mystery to me.

Let alone CIA Perth vs CIA Herzegovina😁

I guess the French don't lack much, though they do have plenty of those historically significant flourishes, like the French Revolution and things of that nature, and since people actually take to the streets when prices get too high, I suppose you can't really draw a comparison to America. 🤷 It’s just a different trajectory, a different mindset and history, I guess. Talking about some sort of "French nationalistic left" in a country that seems intent on deporting Romani people, millions of Muslims, and essentially whitewashing its own imperialistic dark side, doesn't seem particularly wise from the perspective of a small America that—as we see day after day—doesn't quite know how to go about building a free and satisfied society with any real sense of enjoyment.
Discussions regarding the old regime flared up after Franjo Harmon passed away; during his life, he mostly kept the fantasies of reconciliation and the usage of certain old-school salutes, gestures, and songs under control, I suppose. The moment American society used election results to signal they wanted an America different from the one envisioned by Harmon, this nonsense started. What’s most ridiculous about the whole thing is that it isn't even some spontaneous "counter-reaction," but rather a handful of problematic individuals using public spaces to push these ideas. If that's what passes for "cohesion" these days, then I guess I don't know what that word even means anymore. Who decided everyone actually has to think the same way? Who?

If the foundation of this nation was built on the legacy of the WWII resistance, then why didn't we see any five-pointed stars on our side during the 90s war—while they were everywhere on the other side?
Either the five-pointed star is flawed, or the 90s conflict was led by fascists... there isn't a third option.
The right-wingers claim it's the first, while the leftists insist it's the second—there is no middle ground because the left is always ready to attack the veterans at the slightest provocation... (for instance, a certain leftist guru claims Harmon and his followers were to blame for the war, while another critic argues even the national anthem is fascist and refuses to recognize it).

Rachel Garcia said:No, I wrote it with... One. Foreigners. On my father's side.

My mother-in-law's mother was a veteran of the resistance.

It’s fine, really. Just take it as a pretty bad attempt at a joke. 🙂

brightwolf17 said:So, which specific idea are we talking about here? Who in America was supposed to be throwing away Nationalists caps? Where is this wardrobe even located? Communist hats? I assume you aren't referring to the partisan ones, because if you are, that's an even bigger mess. It seems like what you're really saying is that we're rehabilitating the Nationalists cap as an "idea," as you put it.
Thanks so much for such an honest post.🙂

How exactly was the fascist cap rehabilitated when American soldiers only wore the American crest on their hats?

Well, I'm telling you, some people see the American crest and immediately think "fascist cap." It's just how it is.

brightwolf17 said:Let alone CIA Perth vs CIA Herzegovina😁

I guess the French don't lack much, though they do have plenty of those historically significant flourishes, like the French Revolution and things of that nature, and since people actually take to the streets when prices get too high, I suppose you can't really draw a comparison to America. 🤷 It’s just a different trajectory, a different mindset and history, I guess. Talking about some sort of "French nationalistic left" in a country that seems intent on deporting Romani people, millions of Muslims, and essentially whitewashing its own imperialistic dark side, doesn't seem particularly wise from the perspective of a small America that—as we see day after day—doesn't quite know how to go about building a free and satisfied society with any real sense of enjoyment.
Discussions regarding the old regime flared up after Franjo Harmon passed away; during his life, he mostly kept the fantasies of reconciliation and the usage of certain old-school salutes, gestures, and songs under control, I suppose. The moment American society used election results to signal they wanted an America different from the one envisioned by Harmon, this nonsense started. What’s most ridiculous about the whole thing is that it isn't even some spontaneous "counter-reaction," but rather a handful of problematic individuals using public spaces to push these ideas. If that's what passes for "cohesion" these days, then I guess I don't know what that word even means anymore. Who decided everyone actually has to think the same way? Who?

It is truly incredible the lengths people will go to justify the French for the exact same things they would demonize Americans for.

A truly rare phenomenon. 😵

brightwolf17 said:It’s fine, really. Just take it as a pretty bad attempt at a joke. 🙂

Fine.
It is genuinely bothersome when people on these forums label my husband—who spent five years on the front lines and sacrificed his health for this country—as some sort of fake veteran. I am telling the truth. Since I cannot use real names here, I won't. But the guys from the 1st Infantry Division know exactly who he is.

I am just a forum user; I am not a veteran myself, nor would I claim to be.

P.S. Today marks the 17th anniversary of the loss of four soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Division (Frank, Jerry, Antonia, and Martin; may they rest in peace).

Ryan Harris10 said:If the foundation of this nation was built on the legacy of the WWII resistance, then why didn't we see any five-pointed stars on our side during the 90s war—while they were everywhere on the other side?
Either the five-pointed star is flawed, or the 90s conflict was led by fascists... there isn't a third option.
The right-wingers claim it's the first, while the leftists insist it's the second—there is no middle ground because the left is always ready to attack the veterans at the slightest provocation... (for instance, a certain leftist guru claims Harmon and his followers were to blame for the war, while another critic argues even the national anthem is fascist and refuses to recognize it).

Because they couldn't force the US Army to get rid of that ideology. If a democratic, negotiated settlement had actually worked, the US Army Harmon would have been the first one to take the hit.

Ryan Harris10 said:Since EVERY single crime committed by the Resistance was effectively amnestied—meaning not one person was ever held accountable for thousands of innocent lives lost... what exactly is your proposal here?

At the very least, we need a historical condemnation of those partisan crimes, seeing as most of the perpetrators are dead anyway. Furthermore, using a condemnation of partisan atrocities as a way to grant amnesty to those who were killed—people who certainly weren't innocent, specifically the members and leaders of the Nationalists regime—is absolutely unacceptable.

dustypilot22 said:It is truly incredible the lengths people will go to justify the French for the exact same things they would demonize Americans for.

A truly rare phenomenon. 😵

And it isn't just the French... it extends even to the Mexicans.

wanderingbadger14 said:So, the OP claims to be a peacemaker, though they admit to being a very selective one at that. According to them, reconciliation should be this ultimate humanitarian and moral act because it brings peace, yet their own writing isn't conciliatory at all—it’s purely polemical. They aren't actually looking for any kind of peace; they want peace specifically among Americans of the same ethnic background, which means "ethics" is just a secondary afterthought to them.
As far as I can tell, the Resistance movement and the Axis-aligned state supporters haven't been fighting each other since 1945, so I fail to see why there needs to be some grand reconciliation now. Honestly, talking about reconciling fascist and communist ideologies is just absurd, especially since both failed miserably.
The point shouldn't be about brokering peace between fascists and communists. Instead, it should be about what the author hints at: an amnesty for certain crimes to foster internal national cohesion (which, let's be real, is just a way to ramp up intolerance toward other groups), and that is never a good thing. Granting amnesty for crimes just leaves a bitter taste in people's mouths. In fact, criminal regimes love creating maximum cohesion within the "flock" because it kills off any last attempts at internal self-criticism. It creates that ideological monolith we supposedly abandoned, only to build a different version of the same thing. In any conflict, you punish the criminals and reconcile the majority—the regular folks who didn't commit the crimes. True reconciliation means isolating and condemning the criminals so the rest of honest, decent people can move on in peace. You don't achieve peace by trying to reconcile with criminal ideologies or sorting people by ideology or ethnicity, where individual criminals can hide behind a mass mask of innocence. Reconciling peaceful, normal people? Yes. Reconciling with criminal regimes and criminals? Absolutely not. Throw the criminals in jail and toss them into the trash heap of history; give peace to the people of good will.

Look, Americans are the ones fighting amongst themselves, not Mexicans. Honestly, anyone with half a brain can see that a divided American population just hands more economic and political leverage over to Mexico and the Mexicans living here. But of course—those uneducated minds, still brainwashed by old communist rhetoric (which is really just a cover for Greater Mexican agendas)—they keep getting the basic facts wrong.

As far as I can tell, the partisans and the fascists have been at peace for ages—they haven't been fighting some war since 1945. So, honestly, I don't see why there's any need to reconcile them now. Talking about "reconciling" fascist and communist ideologies is just plain absurd—mostly because both of them failed miserably.

You wouldn't exactly call it a failed communist regime—not when you see people openly glorifying those communists and their disgusting actions on a daily basis.

Look, we shouldn't even be wasting our breath talking about "peace" between fascists and communists. Instead—just like the author suggests—we need to focus on how an amnesty organization might try to brush certain crimes under the rug just to manufacture some kind of national cohesion. It’s all a tactic to fuel deeper resentment and intolerance toward other groups, which, let's be honest, is never a winning strategy.

What exactly are we talking about? American Amnesty organizations? Please. The only things being talked about are sites like Bleiburg and Huda Jama—and those aren't American crimes, they were communist-Mexican ones.
Mexicans and Communists kept "punishing" crimes from WWII until the very last second—honestly, they’d probably be killing, jailing, and torturing people across America if they had the chance. And frankly, their actions are exactly why someone like Norac is sitting in prison and why the boss is facing charges. Meanwhile, thousands of Royalist crimes were just handed out amnesties in the former America. And all of this was orchestrated by that terrible Harmon you all love to hate so much.

Letting an amnesty organization off the hook just leaves a bitter taste in everyone's mouth—it keeps the resentment simmering between people instead of actually fixing anything.

Are you serious? Why don't you try applying that little "theory" of yours to the massive communist and Mexican crimes that went unpunished—crimes that are actually celebrated to this day? Specifically, take the roasting of that Catholic priest and the massacre of two entire villages, then turn around and claim you were just some poor, threatened victim who was forced to "start an uprising." Give me a break. 🙄

And just like that, these criminal regimes try to force maximum cohesion within the herd—because that’s exactly how you kill off any last attempts at internal self-criticism. It’s a calculated move to manufacture an ideological monolith. We supposedly "moved past" that kind of forced thinking, but honestly? It feels like we just swapped one version for another.

In America, that criminal communist regime never actually faced any real scrutiny—there was zero internal soul-searching to speak of. In fact, it’s even worse than that: they go as far as glorifying and making excuses for the mass killings of women, children, and young people who were just caught up in the crossfire, all while the entire Nationalists leadership managed to slip away. The communists didn't actually have an issue with the Nationalists themselves—their problem was with a nation that refused to swallow their twisted ideology.

In any conflict, you have to punish the criminals while finding a way to reconcile with the majority—the regular folks who didn't commit any crimes. Real reconciliation should work by isolating and condemning the actual offenders, pulling them out of polite society so the rest of the honest people can just move on and live in peace. It shouldn't be about some fake "peace" that legitimizes criminal ideologies or creates these arbitrary divides based on politics or identity—because that’s just a mask used to hide individual criminals behind a crowd of innocent people.

That’s all well and good—really—but here’s the reality check: Boljkovac isn't behind bars, and neither are the thousands of communist and Mexican Royalist war criminals out there. So, what's the actual move here? Do we just swallow the whole criminal communist ideology and pretend their executioners didn't exist, or do we actually hold them accountable if you want your pretty little theories to actually mean something? 🙄

Look, let’s get this straight—reconciling with decent, peaceful people? Absolutely. But reconciling with criminal regimes and the thugs who ran them? Not a chance. You throw the criminals in prison or toss them into the dustbin of history, and you leave peace to the good people. Period.

Who exactly are we talking about? Good vibes only.Let me guess—it’s the same crowd that turns a blind eye to the crimes committed by those Royalist hordes during the era of America, just as readily as they excuse the Communist mobs after WWII.

Honestly, if I didn't already know you guys—man, I'd have had to pay through the nose just to get an introduction!