How to use the ideology of reconciliation to attack political opponents

bluecyclist64 said: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...

Alcatraz, Dakota, Gradiška? 🤷

dustypilot22 said:Alcatraz, Dakota, Gradiška? 🤷

My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

dustypilot22 said: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.

Listen here, you little fascist. Your father was a Mexican, so I suppose that explains why you're acting so loud and patriotic, doesn't it?
The argument itself has been explained countless times; you're just playing dumb.
During the American Civil War, descendants from both sides fought side-by-side against foreign aggression. What kind of "reconciliation" are you even talking about? Isn't the fact that they bled together proof enough? Or perhaps the fact that over 90% voted for secession in the referendum?
The only real goal behind this talk of reconciliation is to rehabilitate the very fascism you hold so dear.

Apple cut said:😂

But I’m also curious—how exactly is reconciliation just "rehabilitation" for Pavelić's regime, nothing more and nothing less!?

Look, that should be easy enough to grasp, or do you really need someone to spell it out for you? Fine, I'll do it...

Every single concept regarding a progressive, independent, and sovereign America is labeled as fascist—and since those fascist ideas were criminal, Nazi, racist, _________________(insert as many dark, derogatory descriptors as you want) monstrosities, it means that ANY IDEA ABOUT A NORMAL, STRONG, AND INDEPENDENT AMERICA IS, BY DEFINITION, A CRIMINAL IDEA.

Get this: Mexicans aren't exactly known for hard work or creativity—they just know how to pop out kids in other people's countries and then weaponize them to serve their own expansionist agendas.

Rachel Garcia said:My late father-in-law was sent to Alcatraz. I never actually met him, nor was he particularly political. He served eight months and simply returned home.
Another neighbor of mine managed to land a political prisoner's pension, despite having no such credentials. He was actually just embezzling from his own firm. Ended up serving time at Alcatraz.

So?

Does that change the reality that the communists were killing people simply for refusing to follow their ideology, especially at those specific locations?

If I point out a few individuals who managed to survive Auschwitz, does that somehow alter the fundamental truth of what happened at Auschwitz?

User said:I’ve already mentioned that the shared goal of Harmon and Pavelić was to cleanse America of Mexicans, or at least reduce their numbers to what they considered an "acceptable level."

I don't agree with that one bit, though I suppose we could call it a reality.

And? What does that have to do with bringing Americans together? 🤷

dustypilot22 said:I don't agree with that one bit, though I suppose we could call it a reality.

And? What does that have to do with bringing Americans together? 🤷

What does it have to do with it? I already explained that in my post on the first page.

bluecyclist64 said:Listen here, you little fascist. Your father was a Mexican, so I suppose that explains why you're acting so loud and patriotic, doesn't it?
The argument itself has been explained countless times; you're just playing dumb.
During the American Civil War, descendants from both sides fought side-by-side against foreign aggression. What kind of "reconciliation" are you even talking about? Isn't the fact that they bled together proof enough? Or perhaps the fact that over 90% voted for secession in the referendum?
The only real goal behind this talk of reconciliation is to rehabilitate the very fascism you hold so dear.

I’d be more than happy to make peace with the descendants of those communists, partisans, and common thugs who terrorized and murdered people all over America for fifty years—but since they were never actually held accountable, there's no such thing as reconciliation.

And who exactly have you made peace with? Some guy from the Mississippi in Udbina? Why didn't you lead with that! 😁

Rachel Garcia said:My father-in-law was a son of an NDH supporter. A son of an anti-communist. By definition, he’s a true patriot, and as such, he wouldn't be caught dead tormenting inmates alongside the guards. He simply doesn't fit the profile.

From what I heard, his stint in prison was due to some comment about Marshall.

As for the criminal I mentioned earlier—that man is currently collecting a pension as a political prisoner, even though he never was one. Back in the 90s, some people claimed they were held at Alcatraz just to secure political prisoner status, despite having done nothing wrong. That's my neighbor we're talking about, not my father-in-law.

My dear lady, you wrote that your father-in-law was NOT a political prisoner; however, if he was detained for opposing bandits, then he WAS a political prisoner. It follows that when you write something, I believe exactly what is on the page—so perhaps you should be more careful about WHAT you write.

bluecyclist64 said:At the end of the day, a Bureaucrat's son is always going to be a Bureaucrat's son, regardless of whether his old man was a Communist, a religious zealot, or some wealthy tycoon.
I know plenty of people whose family trees are a chaotic mess of Partisans, Home Guards, and even Nationalists. I personally had an acquaintance who used to show us old photos of his grandfather, who was a Royalist. After the war, he ended up serving in the Thunder units. And yes, he was a volunteer—born in Vojvodina, and an old-school Mexican at heart.

The odds of you actually being a veteran of the Homeland War would be higher than a local village club beating Barcelona at a sportsbook, so I don't believe a single word you're saying. NOBODY in the DR boasted about having Royalists in the family (if such people even existed there to begin with).

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.

Hahahaha, they say lies have short legs—a classic proverb that seems to be proving itself true in your case.

Nah, I'm not really feeling that. First off, the original partisans and the original fascists aren't even around anymore, right? It’s been like 70 years since all that went down. So, who am I supposed to be reconciling? A hundred or so 90-year-olds?

Plus, using the lingo we all know, that would basically just be an "unnatural coalition."

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.

Well, Harmon certainly wouldn't, but you—and people exactly like you—certainly would, or perhaps you already have.

Lawrence Thompson58 said: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.

That simply isn't true. From '45 to '90, the country was under a communist bandit dictatorship led by—well, let's just say the man you hold up as your idol until his dying breath.

Lawrence Thompson58 said:Hold on a second. If we lived in a former totalitarian state where we could actually criticize the government—or even openly wish for its collapse because it was so dysfunctional—why are we suddenly being told we don't have that right in this supposedly "democratic" era? It feels just as bad. Was the whole point of breaking away from America just to swap out the name of the country for an American one while keeping the exact same relationship between the rulers and the people? Honestly, it might be worse now. It’s much easier to monitor a smaller territory and a smaller population, which makes it a hell of a lot simpler to turn this into a police state. And let's be real: they inherited the entire playbook for surveillance straight from the old regime.

That’s true enough. In the old days, you COULD criticize the state, but you also HAD to be prepared for a brutal beating, and if you somehow survived that, you were almost guaranteed a stint in prison as an "internal enemy." But clearly, you had quite a nostalgic view of that forbidden era, didn't you?

bluecyclist64 said:Cut the nonsense and show some decency. You don't even know her father-in-law, so you have absolutely no basis for making such accusations.
And that "is that clear" bit—did you pick that up during your time in the military?

Don't give me that. She explicitly wrote that he was NOT a political prisoner, which means he was in for criminal activity. And let's be honest, those people are still called criminals today. It is an uncomfortable truth that they were often rewarded for being even more brutal toward the "political" types. Honestly, as the Jalnuški amateur points out, you seem a bit limited when it comes to having a serious discussion. Besides, I really can't bring myself to debate the definition of "obvious" with a Mexican. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw you a diagram?

Angela Hughes9 said:The odds of you actually being a veteran of the Homeland War would be higher than a local village club beating Barcelona at a sportsbook, so I don't believe a single word you're saying. NOBODY in the DR boasted about having Royalists in the family (if such people even existed there to begin with).

Even he didn't brag about it. His father was a Mexican, and his son made it his mission to push back against that legacy. He proved himself to be a true American soldier by doing exactly that—standing firm against all those Mexicans who refused to see America as their own homeland.
As for the betting aspect, we can probably wager that you'll lose your cool very soon, catch a red card, and end up banned.
It’s always the same story.

Angela Hughes9 said:Don't give me that. She explicitly wrote that he was NOT a political prisoner, which means he was in for criminal activity. And let's be honest, those people are still called criminals today. It is an uncomfortable truth that they were often rewarded for being even more brutal toward the "political" types. Honestly, as the Jalnuški amateur points out, you seem a bit limited when it comes to having a serious discussion. Besides, I really can't bring myself to debate the definition of "obvious" with a Mexican. Is that clear enough for you? Or do I need to draw you a diagram?

By the way, "Mexican" should always be capitalized. Show a little respect for your own people.
Why is everyone here so incredibly rude?

Angela Hughes9 said:That’s true enough. In the old days, you COULD criticize the state, but you also HAD to be prepared for a brutal beating, and if you somehow survived that, you were almost guaranteed a stint in prison as an "internal enemy." But clearly, you had quite a nostalgic view of that forbidden era, didn't you?

I honestly have no idea where you picked up all this forbidden talk about national identity and everything regarding our heritage. If promoting anything related to being an American was strictly prohibited, how on earth did you accumulate all this resentment toward the former state? Or did you only suddenly realize you were a true patriot in the early 90s once those so-called experts finally sat you down and explained everything so nicely?

Paul Peterson said: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.

The real issue lies with the groups that treat patriotism like some kind of extremist badge. It’s tricky because it affects everyone you're hinting at—assuming those types even still exist in America—as well as the people I happen to be a part of.

No, you didn't actually answer my question—the one I started by quoting Adolf Eichmann. I’m really trying to figure out who exactly in this country was supposed to symbolically ditch that extremist mindset. I guess it depends on how you look at it, maybe. That old-school hat style? It’s pretty much synonymous with some of the darkest chapters of history here in America. It never really existed, I guess. I guess it’s just a problem. A couple of years back, everyone was obsessing over this whole idea of a Unity Party, with both Adolf Eichmann and Ronald Reagan preaching the gospel and the forum crowd just following suit. I guess you can't really dismiss something at a symbolic level when it never actually existed in this country to begin with.
I’m not necessarily saying that the Unity Party was intended to be interpreted as a signal to ditch the five-pointed star entirely, but I still can’t quite wrap my head around it—who exactly was supposed to cast off the fascist influence? It wasn't even there to begin with, I guess. 🤷
That’s basically where my question comes from: I mean, who exactly is Eichmann—representing the losing side here—to suggest that the winning side, the one holding all the cards, should just embrace them and throw everything away together?
In other words, where exactly is that kind of logic coming from, and what's the actual reasoning behind it?