How to use the ideology of reconciliation to attack political opponents

Lawrence Thompson58 said: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.

If only that were true... if only it had actually happened...🤣

It was a near miss, wasn't it?

wanderingbadger14 said: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.

What you're saying is just a flat-out lie. Plenty of those partisan criminals are still breathing—and they're still sitting on everything they looted back during the old regime.

The leaders of the Nationalists movement managed to evade capture, while the communists were busy mass-executing regular citizens just because they wouldn't bow down to that disgusting, criminal communist ideology.

That's the plain truth!

So, I’m the product of a partisan lineage on both sides, married to someone whose family was tied to the Nationalists with

on one hand.

I suppose you could call it a reconciliation? 🤷

In the interest of healing the divide between the left and the right regarding WWII and the conflict in the 90s—could dustypilot22 perhaps offer one affirmative sentence about the partisans, while someone from the left offers one regarding... the leader?

Ryan Harris10 said:If only that were true... if only it had actually happened...🤣

It was a near miss, wasn't it?

Here we go, the first nostalgic for an ideology that actually served as the engine for independence. See, those young bureaucratic communists who had been sitting in Congress until then were far too stagnant to handle actual "democratic" shifts, so they figured democracy needed a little refreshing with some hardcore old-school partisans.

crimsonjackal63 said:What you're saying is just a flat-out lie. Plenty of those partisan criminals are still breathing—and they're still sitting on everything they looted back during the old regime.

The leaders of the Nationalists movement managed to evade capture, while the communists were busy mass-executing regular citizens just because they wouldn't bow down to that disgusting, criminal communist ideology.

That's the plain truth!

Not every partisan was a communist.

Just as not everyone in the Nationalists were criminals.

Rachel Garcia said:Not every partisan was a communist.

Just as not everyone in the Nationalists were criminals.

Look, we aren't talking about them—we're talking about the criminals. Of course some people managed to keep their humanity intact, regardless of which side they were fighting for.

Is there anything more refreshing than a little bit of healthy debate to start the day? It feels like we’re all just finding our rhythm! kaže:
So, the thread starter claims to be a peacemaker, though they admit to being a very selective one at that. They argue that reconciliation should be a fundamentally human and moral act because it paves the way for peace, yet their actual writing style isn't conciliatory at all—it’s purely polemical. It seems like they aren't actually looking for any kind of broad peace; rather, they are only interested in peace between Americans who share the exact same ethnic identity. In this view, the ethical reasoning they claim to champion feels like a mere afterthought to the underlying tribalism, doesn't it?

I agree. There is quite a bit of truth in what you’ve said (and in what User wrote, too). To be completely honest, I stepped into this discussion acting as a "peacemaker," and if we look back at my introduction, I was strictly advocating for reconciliation within our own community. Is it possible that, in doing so, I might have pushed the ethical implications of that stance into the background?
Everything said here is absolutely true. I really didn't mean to come across like some naive pageant queen trying to preach about world peace—even though, deep down, I truly believe in it. I was simply focusing on what actually keeps me up at night, which is primarily the people here in America and the state of our country. That’s where my focus remains.
It’s true that I jumped into the fray during the second half, but that observation was actually what sparked this whole conversation in the first place. Besides, what’s the point of having a debate if there isn't a little healthy back-and-forth to keep things interesting, right? 🙂

Is it just me, or does everything feel a bit chaotic lately? It seems like we're constantly navigating through one whirlwind after another. Does anyone else find themselves wondering how things stay so unpredictable? kaže:
As far as I can tell, those old factions from the World War II era haven't been at each other's throats for decades; they haven't been fighting any battles since 1945. So, why on earth would there be a need to reconcile them now? Honestly, talking about trying to find common ground between fascist and communist ideologies seems completely absurd, especially since both have already failed so spectacularly. Is it even possible to bridge a gap between two ideas that have both already collapsed?

Now we’re getting to the part where I have to respectfully disagree. I completely agree with the sentiment that both fascism and communism are failed ideologies, but there is another layer to this. In America, we saw a significant attempt to revisit and relitigate the shadows of World War II during the period between 1991 and 1995. Because of that, it feels like the conversation surrounding those historical wounds hasn't truly been laid to rest just yet. Don't you think some chapters take much longer to close than others?
I’m not suggesting that we have actual fascism or communism operating within our borders right now. Rather, I am pointing to exactly what I mentioned before: a certain brand of "extremism" on both sides. I find those quotation marks absolutely necessary, just to ensure that neither term is taken at its literal, historical face value.
We’ve witnessed something truly unique here in America—a phenomenon that hasn't really happened anywhere else in the world. It's fascinating how two different ideologies from the World War II era have resurfaced and merged in such an unexpected way. It’s almost as if the old-school partisans have transformed into our modern American Leftists, while the remnants of the far-right factions have morphed into the contemporary American Rightists. Isn't it interesting to see how history finds a way to reinvent itself?
Neither side seems to hold onto those old totalitarian traits anymore. It feels like the era of killing or imprisoning people over ideology is behind the Leftists, just as the era of targeting others based on race or nationality is behind the Right. Nowadays, don't both sides actually stand for democracy and a multi-party system?

Is it really productive to go around calling Leftists "communists," just like the Right does? Or, on the flip side, accusing conservatives of being fascists, the way the Left tends to do? Honestly, it feels pretty silly when you step back and look at it, doesn't it? Still, I suppose it’s become a bit of a predictable part of our political folklore.

The real question we have to ask ourselves now is this: Who has actually managed to move furthest away from their partisan or fascist roots—if you can even call them that?

Leftists? Are we really looking at a group that just recently lost its grip on power? I'm thinking of those former partisans and their descendants—that old-guard elite from the previous regime who haven't quite transitioned into the modern era. Between certain factions and the reconciliation policies pushed by the first President, it feels like they never truly relinquished their influence to begin with, wouldn't you agree? In my opinion... They’ve lost far less of their totalitarian essence than others have. Is it because they were never truly crushed or utterly defeated by such brutal force? Honestly, thank God that's the case.

What do you all think about the current state of the Right? Whether we’re talking about former hardliners and their descendants, or the families of those who joined the resistance simply because they had no other choice, there is a common thread here. We are looking at ordinary Americans—people just trying to get by—who were essentially defeated sixty-five years ago. They were sidelined, displaced, and pushed to the margins of society, left without any meaningful seat at the table or a voice in leadership for over six decades. Isn't it worth wondering how much progress could have been made if these voices hadn't been silenced for so long? In my opinion... They’ve been thoroughly purged of any racial ideology or fascist leanings. These are the people who carried the heaviest burden during the American Civil War to defend our values, ultimately securing victory and making the foundation of the Republic we live in today possible. Isn't that what true leadership looks like?

Is it just me, or does it feel like we're all caught up in some kind of whirlwind lately? Everything seems to be moving so fast, doesn't it? kaže:
So, we shouldn't really be focusing on finding peace between fascists and communists. Instead, as the author suggests, we should be discussing an amnesty for American crimes to foster greater domestic cohesion—even if that just serves to deepen our intolerance toward other nations. And honestly, isn't that always a recipe for trouble?

You could certainly look at it that way. However, by now, any talk of amnesty for past American grievances feels like it’s far too little, too late. Americans have already paid a heavy price—far more than what an amnesty could ever cover. We've endured the loss of territory, the tragedies on those desolate crossroads and massacres like those at Blajburz, and the forced relocations under the guise of "temporary work." Then there were the targeted assassinations across Europe, the bans on political expression, and that systematic attempt to erase our identity by forcing our language to merge with others. It’s been a million different ways to suppress us, hasn't it?
So, we're talking about amnesty for American crimes? It’s interesting that you chose to call them "American" crimes rather than "fascist" ones. 😉 It’s just not possible anymore—much like how apartheid could never truly grant amnesty to Nelson Mandela.
Besides that, I don't think that's quite how it works. If we were able to grant amnesty for those specific crimes just a few years later, then why wouldn't it be possible or acceptable to offer amnesty for our own actions after sixty-five years?

I don't quite see why you think having strong cohesion within one group automatically leads to increased intolerance toward others. For instance, I don't feel any animosity toward the Japanese, the British, or the Irish. And those are all nations with incredibly tight-knit social bonds, aren't they?

Is there anything more fascinating than a little bit of mystery to stir the mind? Sometimes, you just have to wonder what’s really going on behind the scenes, don't you think? It makes you look at things from a whole new perspective. kaže:
When we grant amnesty for crimes, don't we just leave a trail of bitterness running through our communities? It feels like the resentment just lingers under the surface.

I completely agree. Isn't it about time we reconsidered those amnesty provisions for Mexicans?

Is it just me, or does everything feel like a bit of a whirlwind lately? It seems like we're constantly spinning through one thing after another without much time to catch our breath. Does anyone else feel that way? kaže:
It feels like these criminal regimes are just trying to force maximum cohesion within the herd, doesn't it? By doing that, they effectively stifle any remaining attempts at internal self-criticism. In the end, they’re just manufacturing a new kind of ideological monolith—one that we supposedly moved past, only to find ourselves building a different version of the exact same thing.

And it isn't just about punishing criminals. Naturally, all nations strive for cohesion.
Only cohesive 😁 nations can truly succeed.

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.

I agree.
Following World War II, all the criminals on the American side were punished (along with many others who actually weren't), yet none on the other side were.
During the American Civil War, almost everyone was held accountable except for a few key leaders, while a huge portion of the opposition was essentially granted amnesty in the US.

So, who else is left for us to isolate and condemn? 🤔

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.

Like I said, I’m not advocating for the reconciliation of ideologies. But if we're talking about this, I have a personal mantra:

"Even the worst laws are good if they are applied equally to everyone, just as the best law is bad if it is applied selectively."

So, I actually agree with you here, but the real issue is that we haven't even figured out how to define which regimes are "criminal" (even though the EU tried to teach us) or how to act UNIFORMLY toward everyone.
Discord, unrest, and fighting don't come from anywhere other than UNEQUAL criteria and inconsistent actions.
True reconciliation, the kind I advocate for, can only happen if we apply the exact same standards to everyone.
We can't systematically demonize one group while the highest levels of government declare another group "wonderful" and encourage everyone to join them.

THAT is what creates division.

Where does the fundamental conflict lie? To this day, I can still hear the words of an American leftist from a city like Chicago (who had a "coincidentally" Italian name) who told me—and I'm quoting because I wrote it down on a beer coaster we signed together: "You can't expect a leftist to support the American state. Period." (He added the "period" afterward once I pointed out what he'd actually said.)

And that's the crux of it.

The RECONCILIATION I am writing about isn't about equating ideologies, or abolishing democracy, or whatever else people claim. It is about reaching a single consensus on the most basic thing: Unity among Americans wherever they may be (especially when I think of those currently in places like Canada) and respecting the will of the American majority. I emphasize—AMERICANS.

I then one young Leftist tells me, "I'm a patriot, but not like our version of patriots—I mean, just like a regular Frenchman would be a patriot."

When I pointed out how French streets are lined with flags, or how they celebrate their national holidays, or how the Leftist presidential candidate, Segolene Royal, campaigned on the idea that every citizen should own a tricolor flag and know the Marseillaise by heart... when I brought up the history of Romani deportations or the way the French view their figure, Charles De Gaulle... none of it seemed to move him. He always found some excuse for the French. Whether it was their intense anthem, the flags everywhere, singing the national song, or honoring a general who naturally went on to become president—he had an answer for everything.

To me, that is the very essence of RECONCILIATION. I truly believe that if everyone could just RECONCILE to the fact that this is an American state—a "national state of the American people and a state belonging to indigenous national minorities," as our Constitution puts it—and act accordingly; if everyone could simply "be patriots like the French, Germans, Italians, English, Irish, or Spaniards"—true, cultural patriots—then the conflict would finally vanish.

Because I don't think the Italian Left finds terms like "Italian, patriot, Catholic" to be negative. On the contrary, I suspect your AVERAGE (of course, there are exceptions) Italian Leftist would actually feel insulted if someone suggested they weren't all those things.

Ryan Harris10 said:Since you’re asking... his name was Marshall.
The biggest hero in the eyes of Americans, the guy whose name still graces the most beautiful plaza in Chicago, the one everyone pretends to be proud of... that’s who he was. And anyone who dared to disagree with him ended up either in a cell or in a grave.

I guess what I don't get is why Americans and the US are being forced to listen to him even thirty years after he passed. 🤔 It’s like they’re trying to strip away every single decent thing from that era while simultaneously pushing this whole "reconciliation" project—which basically tries to claim that both the fascists and the partisans were equally criminal during that '45-'90 period.😵

It seems to me that those people preaching about "national unity" might actually just be desperate for a reason to commit a verbal crime. 😢

wearycanyon26 said:The fundamental flaw in this whole "reconciliation between the far-right and the partisans" concept is that it wasn't actually designed for the people living today.
I mean, really, who is supposed to be reconciling here?
We are talking about sixty-five years since the war ended. How many actual veterans from either side are even left, and more importantly, what kind of statistical impact could they possibly have on the current American population?
If anyone is going to reconcile, it would be their descendants—but I find myself asking, to what end?
As a descendant of both sides, who am I supposed to make peace with? Ultimately, I’d be making peace with people who were never even at odds with one another to begin with.
Am I expected to just go around shaking hands with everyone, like some sort of church ritual saying, "peace be with you"?
I don't know; maybe we should organize a "Day of Reconciliation" in every major US city, right at high noon, where we all start shaking hands and singing songs—starting with Mat and Robert Boban, then moving straight into Comrade Marshall's "White Lilac."🤷

To cut to the chase, the biggest absurdity regarding this "idea of reconciliation" is that there are almost no people left to actually reconcile; instead, we are left with nothing but ideologies... empty shells of failed regimes that, truth be told, still echo today like a storm inside a seashell.
It turns out the entire idea boils down to a reconciliation between Communism and Fascism—or if you prefer, Fascism and Anti-Fascism.
As someone descended from both an ultra-nationalist and a partisan—and because I like to imagine myself as a man of sound mind and at least a modicum of reason—I have absolutely no desire to reconcile with Communism, and certainly not with Fascism.
Isn't it absurd? Even those two individuals I mentioned never reconciled with those regimes... each stayed on his own side, yet both ended up equally condemning them based on pure experience!

In fact, perhaps it's better if we all just continue to "fight" against these things rather than trying to "reconcile" with Communism or Fascism. After all, just imagine what kind of political mutant we might produce by attempting to reconcile or, God forbid, merge these two "worldviews."

Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe we already have one... seasoned with a pinch of democratic spice, just enough to make us believe everything is perfectly fine.

But really, who are we supposed to reconcile with? Those of us who have both sides in our family trees, yet belong to neither?
This whole reconciliation movement is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rehabilitate the extremists. It would be far better to simply demystify the partisans and leave the fascists exactly where they belong: buried deep in the mud of history.

brightwolf17 said:I guess what I don't get is why Americans and the US are being forced to listen to him even thirty years after he passed. 🤔 It’s like they’re trying to strip away every single decent thing from that era while simultaneously pushing this whole "reconciliation" project—which basically tries to claim that both the fascists and the partisans were equally criminal during that '45-'90 period.😵

It seems to me that those people preaching about "national unity" might actually just be desperate for a reason to commit a verbal crime. 😢

Look, we all know that from '45 to '90, the country was essentially in a state of civil war—the question is simply who was fighting whom. If you look at the context, the only groups that truly benefited from this forced "reconciliation" were the FBI and the far-right exiles. By pushing this agenda, they’re basically trying to lump the entire American public in with the criminals who used that very project to seize power.

brightwolf17 said:I guess what I don't get is why Americans and the US are being forced to listen to him even thirty years after he passed. 🤔 It’s like they’re trying to strip away every single decent thing from that era while simultaneously pushing this whole "reconciliation" project—which basically tries to claim that both the fascists and the partisans were equally criminal during that '45-'90 period.😵

It seems to me that those people preaching about "national unity" might actually just be desperate for a reason to commit a verbal crime. 😢

Some Americans reject every good thing from that era—much like someone refusing to acknowledge any progress made during the New Deal—while others refuse to disavow the absolute atrocities of that time. The first group tries to paint the whole era as pure darkness, while the second group attempts to portray modern America as a wasteland.

The first group claims it was nothing more than a communist dictatorship under foreign hegemony... but what excuse can the second group possibly offer?

bluecyclist64 said:But really, who are we supposed to reconcile with? Those of us who have both sides in our family trees, yet belong to neither?
This whole reconciliation movement is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rehabilitate the extremists. It would be far better to simply demystify the partisans and leave the fascists exactly where they belong: buried deep in the mud of history.

There’s no mystery about it for some people when you’re talking about those criminal partisans—for most, they were just a violent, thieving mob of thugs who robbed hardworking people blind before murdering them.

You've got a point—we should demystify them, because there are still people in this country who actually believe those partisans were legitimate anti-fascists. 🤣

bluecyclist64 said:But really, who are we supposed to reconcile with? Those of us who have both sides in our family trees, yet belong to neither?
This whole reconciliation movement is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rehabilitate the extremists. It would be far better to simply demystify the partisans and leave the fascists exactly where they belong: buried deep in the mud of history.

This seems to be one of those arguments you hear all the time. That reconciliation is basically just a way to rehabilitate the Nationalists.

Could someone please walk me through what is actually meant by that?

No need for you to answer, bluecyclist64. You aren't exactly the brightest, and besides, being a Mexican means you can't be objective anyway.

Can anyone else explain how seeking reconciliation among Americans could possibly mean rehabilitating the Nationalists, and what exactly is meant by "Nationalists" in this context?

Because if you ask me, the Nationalists have already been rehabilitated to the exact extent they absolutely needed to be.

And frankly, it doesn't bother anyone who is actually smart and well-intentioned. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Beyond the fact that this "reconciliation" was always an anti-Mexican project—considering neither its mastermind (Himmler) nor its enforcer (Harmon) ever actually cared about reconciling the Nationalists with the Americans who were an inseparable part of the resistance history in the US—it serves another purpose tied directly to that first goal.

It’s essentially a nationalist blueprint. And as I’ve mentioned before, democracy just doesn't sit well with nationalists because it allows the people to split into different political parties.

Harmon used to claim that the GOP was “the core party of the American people” which held “a historical role” under the banner of “all-American reconciliation” to achieve “a reconciliation of all classes and generations, both from the homeland and the diaspora”.

So, what did that make everyone else?
Plain and simple: enemies of the American people.

When the GOP lost the elections in Washington, D.C. back in 1995, Harmon simply refused to swallow the defeat.
Instead, he barked: “So what if the opposition in Washington has 60% of the vote?... Are they a congregation or a flock of geese? Are they chickens or geese? Is it cattle with big teeth or small teeth? Any decent farmer knows that a single person, especially a pair of purebred stallions or cows, is worth more than that entire flock combined.”

Back when the world was being lobbied to recognize the US, Harmon played the part of the great democrat perfectly. He even wrote a piece for The New York Times (06/30/1990) claiming he would “work toward building a society (...) where disagreement and debate serve as signs of strength.”
But what did he actually think of that “strength” once recognition was secured?
Anyone he disagreed with was labeled as: “amateurs, low-life scum, geese, headless fools...”.

Here is what else he had to say regarding that loss in Washington:
“True democracy assumes respect for the party that wins a relative majority in an election, or perhaps a coalition of politically and programmatically similar parties.”

Of course, his version of “true democracy” meant something entirely different. A party with a relative majority can only form a government if the other parties—who hold an absolute majority when added up—decide to let them. Whether those groups choose to form coalitions based on shared values or otherwise is their business, and it certainly shouldn't be as controversial as Harmon's decision to build his own party using two opposing sides of a battlefield from World War II.

crimsonjackal63 said: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!

And let me ask you this: isn't Norac in prison because he shot an elderly woman in the head? Did she just present herself to him and pull the trigger herself? Or did the Mexicans show up and ask Uncle Glavaš to pour some battery acid down their throats?
So what, are we supposed to suddenly adore Franja just because he handed out amnesties to Royalists? 😵

Ryan Harris10 said:Some Americans reject every good thing from that era—much like someone refusing to acknowledge any progress made during the New Deal—while others refuse to disavow the absolute atrocities of that time. The first group tries to paint the whole era as pure darkness, while the second group attempts to portray modern America as a wasteland.

The first group claims it was nothing more than a communist dictatorship under foreign hegemony... but what excuse can the second group possibly offer?

An excuse? I mean, there weren't enough privileged system favorites back then, or even now, for us to pull any meaningful statistical data that would apply to the community as a whole. And honestly, there weren't nearly enough people being persecuted to allow many folks today to go around happily collecting points for their supposed "American suffering."
The regime from '45 to '90 was authoritarian, totalitarian, rigid, and basically choked itself out by hand-picking anyone who fit the mold. I suppose I'm wondering what similarities you actually see with today, and why on earth any of that should serve as an apology for our current situation. Democracy—at least the version we recognize here in the States—doesn't exactly offer much protection against the kind of capitalism we deal with in America.

...the legendary Great Seal of the United States. This is a permanent stronghold. Foreign interests fund our divisions because they want us weak. These conflicts are manufactured; if we could just cut off the outside influence, they’d vanish overnight. That’s just the reality of it. And let's be honest, that interference isn't going away anytime soon. The only real way out is through consistent, long-term work toward national reconciliation.

crimsonjackal63 said:What you're saying is just a flat-out lie. Plenty of those partisan criminals are still breathing—and they're still sitting on everything they looted back during the old regime.

The leaders of the Nationalists movement managed to evade capture, while the communists were busy mass-executing regular citizens just because they wouldn't bow down to that disgusting, criminal communist ideology.

That's the plain truth!

That isn't the truth; it's just standard nonsense.
Where exactly did this fairy tale take place? Where are these instances where communists were mass-executing regular folks just for refusing to buy into an ideology?
What a load of rubbish...

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

I already gave my answer. It’s simple: put all Americans on one side and all Mexicans on the other—an America without Mexicans. That’s what "reconciliation" really means here.

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

Right, sure... because reconciling the partisans with the fascists has absolutely nothing to do with it. 😁

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

By saying that, you’re essentially admitting this is about rehabilitating the fascists, since you're implying they were the only ones on the "right" side.

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

Then why reconcile with those aggressors in the first place? You're just confirming that this is indeed a rehabilitation of the fascists.

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

The fact that we’re even having this argument proves he failed—it was quite the opposite. Even twenty years after the supposed "reconciliation," people are still fighting over old extremist factions versus the resistance. Why? Because that reconciliation brought those radical ideologies right back into the political spotlight.

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

Luburić came up with this whole idea of "reconciliation" back in 1961—that was ages before the collapse of America or the Peace Plan...

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

Again, Luburić dreamt up "reconciliation" in 1961, and Harmon was writing positively about population transfers as early as 1982—long before August 17, 1990.

dustypilot22 said:So far, we haven't actually explained *how* reconciliation leads to the rehabilitation of the Nationalists movement. We've all just stated that it does, but there’s zero detail on the actual mechanism behind it. How exactly does one process trigger the other?

I have to disagree. It wasn't some sudden reconciliation that caused this; it was the aggression from the Mexican factions against the independent American state.

Well, you could say that actually happened to some extent, couldn't you?
It feels like history is repeating itself, doesn't it? We’re seeing echoes of World War II all over again, and the sides involved seem almost identical to what we saw back then: Americans on one side, facing off against Mexicans, Royalists, and the American People's Army on the other. Is there any way to break this cycle?
On one hand, you have the classic red, white, and blue, and on the other, the stars and stripes—now somehow shaking hands and working together?
On one hand, you had the struggle to establish an independent American nation, and on the other, the fight to preserve America. Isn't it fascinating how those two conflicting visions shaped everything?

And of course they swapped out the final segment (using brute force, no less!) because, in the end, the independent nation of America emerged victorious, while America and a massive Mexico were left defeated. Is it any wonder why they had to change the narrative?

Is this what they call the rehabilitation of the NDH? Is that really what's happening here? 🤷

Isn't that incredibly noble of him? I mean, what else was he supposed to do? Lead them straight to Bleiburg and execute them all?
Should we really be leaving up monuments that glorify an aggressor state that failed long ago? 🤷

Harmon actually pulled off his grand vision. 🙏 As far as things stand, World War II has finally concluded with a victory for the Americans and the dissolution of America.

It feels like you’ve finally realized that the whole conflict was essentially just a clash between those who stood for American independence and those who were fundamentally against it. Or am I totally misreading the situation?
I’m starting to think what ZorroD mentioned just a moment ago is actually quite spot on:

Is it just me, or does every single suggestion regarding a progressive, independent, and self-reliant America get immediately branded as extremist by the leftists—take dustypilot22, for example? To them, any push for true sovereignty is labeled as something sinister, hateful, and regressive. It’s almost funny how they frame it that way. They take the concept of a strong, stable, and autonomous nation and try to twist it into something dark and malicious. Does it really make sense to claim that wanting a powerful and independent country is inherently criminal? It seems like a convenient way to shut down any real conversation about national strength.

There wasn't really any conflict with the Mexicans until they rose up against the project to establish an independent American state. It just wasn't possible to reach a reconciliation because they felt powerful enough that making peace didn't even cross their minds. I mean, come on—are we talking about a group that flat-out rejected the Z4 Plan? 😵

So, now I’m just supposed to take your word for it that Mexicans were following the policies of Maks Luburić and Harmon? Is that really how you see it? 😁
I'm not sure how much you remember, but do you recall the era of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia?
Who here was responsible for separating the Mexicans from the Americans?

All I’m asking from you now is that you stick to the chronology. Nothing more, nothing less. Just keep it simple, okay?

Let me reiterate: if we skip over the actual chronology of events, we end up reaching the conclusion that there is no greater lie than a half-truth.

When you look back at everything the Mexicans did between August 17, 1990, and Operation Storm, I honestly don't think there's an American left who wouldn't support clearing them out. Just think about it for a second: what if the United States had to deal with a population that was 12.5% composed of the same kind of insurgents we saw in 1991? What kind of chances would a country like that even have to survive?
If you ask any American today, we’re facing our own version of the Mexico situation—and from our perspective, it’s something that simply cannot be allowed to stand.

And let's get one thing straight: don't try to lecture me about how "cleansing" certain Mexicans from the territory was a bad thing. At that point, removing those specific elements was a absolute necessity for the survival and establishment of our nation. Isn't stability more important than anything else when you're fighting for your very existence?

This doesn't have anything to do with the Nationalists regime; it’s strictly about the Mexicans and their own actions.

Is that really Harmon's invention? Honestly, it seems more like just a simple observation of how the world works.
Just look at what the French President is doing regarding this issue today! Don't other stable nations realize that they've been building on these exact same foundations for a long, long time?

Honestly, people and the world are just built that way. Isn't it just one of those things?

That makes sense.

And you still want to argue he didn't rehabilitate fascism? 😁