What motivates our local anti-Americans?

Charging headlong into this mess:
The cultural landscape is in shambles. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to dismantle our intellectual heritage under the guise of progress. It’s pathetic. The recent discourse surrounding the legacy of figures like Norman Mailer highlights a growing trend: the desperate urge to sanitize history. Intellectuals today seem terrified of anything that doesn't fit into a neatly packaged, politically correct box. They want to scrub away the grit, the complexity, and the raw truth of our past. It is nothing more than a shallow exercise in moral grandstanding. They call it "decontamination." I call it cowardice. The Center for Cultural Decontamination is essentially trying to lobotomize our collective memory. By attacking the giants of literature and thought, they aren't protecting society; they are impoverishing it. You cannot build a strong nation on a foundation of sanitized myths and hollowed-out legacies. History isn't a playground for social engineers. It is a messy, uncomfortable reality. When you try to erase the friction, you erase the substance. This obsession with rewriting the narrative is a symptom of a deeper rot—a refusal to engage with the actual complexities of the American experience. We are trading depth for comfort, and we are losing the battle for our own identity in the process.

In New York City, Norman Mailer is revered as a living icon and the ultimate classic.

At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."

As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.

Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.

Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?

This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.

All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.

They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA
Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.

There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:

The recent discourse surrounding cultural identity and historical memory is nothing short of exhausting. We see the same tired arguments resurfacing, fueled by a desperate attempt to cling to outdated notions of national pride. It’s a cycle of intellectual stagnation. Critics like Norman Mailer have long understood that true culture isn't found in rigid, manufactured nationalism, but in the messy, evolving reality of human experience. Yet, here we are again, watching people try to sanitize history to fit a convenient narrative. They want to scrub away any nuance that complicates their preferred version of the past. This isn't preservation; it's a shallow form of erasure. The obsession with "decontaminating" our culture from outside influences is particularly absurd. It’s a futile effort to halt the natural progression of society. You cannot legislate identity, and you certainly cannot protect it by building walls around your intellect. Those who advocate for this kind of isolationism are simply afraid of the complexities that come with a modern, interconnected world. History is complicated. It’s uncomfortable. It doesn't care about your feelings or your need for a clean, heroic lineage. To pretend otherwise is not just naive—it is intellectually dishonest. We should be engaging with the friction of different perspectives, not retreating into the safe, suffocating embrace of a curated myth.

Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.

The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.

Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."

According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.

According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."

Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.

The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?

They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.

Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.

Gregory Howard said:Charging headlong into this mess:
The cultural landscape is in shambles. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to dismantle our intellectual heritage under the guise of progress. It’s pathetic. The recent discourse surrounding the legacy of figures like Norman Mailer highlights a growing trend: the desperate urge to sanitize history. Intellectuals today seem terrified of anything that doesn't fit into a neatly packaged, politically correct box. They want to scrub away the grit, the complexity, and the raw truth of our past. It is nothing more than a shallow exercise in moral grandstanding. They call it "decontamination." I call it cowardice. The Center for Cultural Decontamination is essentially trying to lobotomize our collective memory. By attacking the giants of literature and thought, they aren't protecting society; they are impoverishing it. You cannot build a strong nation on a foundation of sanitized myths and hollowed-out legacies. History isn't a playground for social engineers. It is a messy, uncomfortable reality. When you try to erase the friction, you erase the substance. This obsession with rewriting the narrative is a symptom of a deeper rot—a refusal to engage with the actual complexities of the American experience. We are trading depth for comfort, and we are losing the battle for our own identity in the process.

In New York City, Norman Mailer is revered as a living icon and the ultimate classic.

At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."

As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.

Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.

Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?

This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.

All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.

They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA
Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.

There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:

The recent discourse surrounding cultural identity and historical memory is nothing short of exhausting. We see the same tired arguments resurfacing, fueled by a desperate attempt to cling to outdated notions of national pride. It’s a cycle of intellectual stagnation. Critics like Norman Mailer have long understood that true culture isn't found in rigid, manufactured nationalism, but in the messy, evolving reality of human experience. Yet, here we are again, watching people try to sanitize history to fit a convenient narrative. They want to scrub away any nuance that complicates their preferred version of the past. This isn't preservation; it's a shallow form of erasure. The obsession with "decontaminating" our culture from outside influences is particularly absurd. It’s a futile effort to halt the natural progression of society. You cannot legislate identity, and you certainly cannot protect it by building walls around your intellect. Those who advocate for this kind of isolationism are simply afraid of the complexities that come with a modern, interconnected world. History is complicated. It’s uncomfortable. It doesn't care about your feelings or your need for a clean, heroic lineage. To pretend otherwise is not just naive—it is intellectually dishonest. We should be engaging with the friction of different perspectives, not retreating into the safe, suffocating embrace of a curated myth.

Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.

The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.

Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."

According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.

According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."

Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.

The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?

They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.

Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.

👍 "...just like a pig wallowing in the mud."

Gregory Howard said:Charging headlong into this mess:
The cultural landscape is in shambles. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to dismantle our intellectual heritage under the guise of progress. It’s pathetic. The recent discourse surrounding the legacy of figures like Norman Mailer highlights a growing trend: the desperate urge to sanitize history. Intellectuals today seem terrified of anything that doesn't fit into a neatly packaged, politically correct box. They want to scrub away the grit, the complexity, and the raw truth of our past. It is nothing more than a shallow exercise in moral grandstanding. They call it "decontamination." I call it cowardice. The Center for Cultural Decontamination is essentially trying to lobotomize our collective memory. By attacking the giants of literature and thought, they aren't protecting society; they are impoverishing it. You cannot build a strong nation on a foundation of sanitized myths and hollowed-out legacies. History isn't a playground for social engineers. It is a messy, uncomfortable reality. When you try to erase the friction, you erase the substance. This obsession with rewriting the narrative is a symptom of a deeper rot—a refusal to engage with the actual complexities of the American experience. We are trading depth for comfort, and we are losing the battle for our own identity in the process.

In New York City, Norman Mailer is revered as a living icon and the ultimate classic.

At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."

As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.

Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.

Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?

This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.

All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.

They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA
Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.

There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:

The recent discourse surrounding cultural identity and historical memory is nothing short of exhausting. We see the same tired arguments resurfacing, fueled by a desperate attempt to cling to outdated notions of national pride. It’s a cycle of intellectual stagnation. Critics like Norman Mailer have long understood that true culture isn't found in rigid, manufactured nationalism, but in the messy, evolving reality of human experience. Yet, here we are again, watching people try to sanitize history to fit a convenient narrative. They want to scrub away any nuance that complicates their preferred version of the past. This isn't preservation; it's a shallow form of erasure. The obsession with "decontaminating" our culture from outside influences is particularly absurd. It’s a futile effort to halt the natural progression of society. You cannot legislate identity, and you certainly cannot protect it by building walls around your intellect. Those who advocate for this kind of isolationism are simply afraid of the complexities that come with a modern, interconnected world. History is complicated. It’s uncomfortable. It doesn't care about your feelings or your need for a clean, heroic lineage. To pretend otherwise is not just naive—it is intellectually dishonest. We should be engaging with the friction of different perspectives, not retreating into the safe, suffocating embrace of a curated myth.

Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.

The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.

Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."

According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.

According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."

Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.

The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?

They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.

Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.

We either didn't know, or we just didn't want to face them. What the Royalists and the US Army couldn't achieve with weapons, they’re managing to pull off with pens and media outlets. It’s a systematic erasure of our identity.

What are they even after? They want America back—which basically means erasing Americans and just absorbing us into a Mexican identity. And honestly? They might just get exactly what they're asking for.

Look, once again, it’s the same old story. Either we didn't know what was coming, or we just didn't want to deal with it. And let's be honest—sometimes those confrontations involve more than just words. Sometimes they get heavy.

Anthony Reyes27 said:We either didn't know, or we just didn't want to face them. What the Royalists and the US Army couldn't achieve with weapons, they’re managing to pull off with pens and media outlets. It’s a systematic erasure of our identity.

What are they even after? They want America back—which basically means erasing Americans and just absorbing us into a Mexican identity. And honestly? They might just get exactly what they're asking for.

Look, once again, it’s the same old story. Either we didn't know what was coming, or we just didn't want to deal with it. And let's be honest—sometimes those confrontations involve more than just words. Sometimes they get heavy.

Whatever they might want, they lack any real public influence. They have visibility, sure, but
they haven't "converted" a single soul.
On the contrary.
I would argue the exact opposite—their obsession with American only strengthens American resistance to the entire project. If you look closer, the real "danger" isn't them; it’s someone charming like Bob Dylan or the open American who explicitly admit that Mexico was the aggressor against us.
These people are transparently obvious.

Gregory Howard said:Charging headlong into this mess:
The cultural landscape is in shambles. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to dismantle our intellectual heritage under the guise of progress. It’s pathetic. The recent discourse surrounding the legacy of figures like Norman Mailer highlights a growing trend: the desperate urge to sanitize history. Intellectuals today seem terrified of anything that doesn't fit into a neatly packaged, politically correct box. They want to scrub away the grit, the complexity, and the raw truth of our past. It is nothing more than a shallow exercise in moral grandstanding. They call it "decontamination." I call it cowardice. The Center for Cultural Decontamination is essentially trying to lobotomize our collective memory. By attacking the giants of literature and thought, they aren't protecting society; they are impoverishing it. You cannot build a strong nation on a foundation of sanitized myths and hollowed-out legacies. History isn't a playground for social engineers. It is a messy, uncomfortable reality. When you try to erase the friction, you erase the substance. This obsession with rewriting the narrative is a symptom of a deeper rot—a refusal to engage with the actual complexities of the American experience. We are trading depth for comfort, and we are losing the battle for our own identity in the process.

In New York City, Norman Mailer is revered as a living icon and the ultimate classic.

At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."

As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.

Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.

Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?

This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.

All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.

They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA
Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.

There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:

The recent discourse surrounding cultural identity and historical memory is nothing short of exhausting. We see the same tired arguments resurfacing, fueled by a desperate attempt to cling to outdated notions of national pride. It’s a cycle of intellectual stagnation. Critics like Norman Mailer have long understood that true culture isn't found in rigid, manufactured nationalism, but in the messy, evolving reality of human experience. Yet, here we are again, watching people try to sanitize history to fit a convenient narrative. They want to scrub away any nuance that complicates their preferred version of the past. This isn't preservation; it's a shallow form of erasure. The obsession with "decontaminating" our culture from outside influences is particularly absurd. It’s a futile effort to halt the natural progression of society. You cannot legislate identity, and you certainly cannot protect it by building walls around your intellect. Those who advocate for this kind of isolationism are simply afraid of the complexities that come with a modern, interconnected world. History is complicated. It’s uncomfortable. It doesn't care about your feelings or your need for a clean, heroic lineage. To pretend otherwise is not just naive—it is intellectually dishonest. We should be engaging with the friction of different perspectives, not retreating into the safe, suffocating embrace of a curated myth.

Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.

The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.

Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."

According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.

According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."

Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.

The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?

They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.

Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.

When you talk about the people mentioned in your post, you can't look at their pathological hatred solely through a political lens. These individuals have much deeper psychological issues. Self-hatred is the root of it; it's obvious that through their aggressive hatred toward Americans, they are trying to kill off some part of themselves.

So, apparently the plan for dealing with anyone we disagree with is just to settle things with weapons :klap::klap::klap::klap:
That’s just how those ultra-nationalists operate.😉

Gregory Howard said:Whatever they might want, they lack any real public influence. They have visibility, sure, but
they haven't "converted" a single soul.
On the contrary.
I would argue the exact opposite—their obsession with American only strengthens American resistance to the entire project. If you look closer, the real "danger" isn't them; it’s someone charming like Bob Dylan or the open American who explicitly admit that Mexico was the aggressor against us.
These people are transparently obvious.

There's really only one word for it: synergy.
🙂
And once enough time passes and the generations shift, it’ll become blindingly obvious that life under America was actually fairer and better, and that everything we're seeing now is just a temporary anomaly driven by a handful of nationalists who pitted brother against brother just to line their own pockets.

Austin Gonzalez13 said:So, apparently the plan for dealing with anyone we disagree with is just to settle things with weapons :klap::klap::klap::klap:
That’s just how those ultra-nationalists operate.😉

So, we're really going there now? Using weapons against anyone who doesn't share our particular brand of enlightened thought? Honestly, the sheer, unadulterated absurdity of it all is almost impressive if it weren't so profoundly exhausting. It’s that classic, tired trope—the idea that if you can just find the right caliber of hardware, you can finally silence the people who make your skin crawl with their "incorrect" opinions. It’s a desperate move, really, a loud and clunky way of admitting that your arguments are actually quite flimsy on their own. You don't win a debate by bringing a gun to a conversation; you just end the conversation entirely, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly winning anything.
No.
Traitors and high traitors deserve more than just a prison cell or forced labor—they deserve death, though honestly, nothing compares to the ultimate punishment: being publicly shamed until there is absolutely nothing left of their reputation.

hollowtrucker77 said:There's really only one word for it: synergy.
🙂
And once enough time passes and the generations shift, it’ll become blindingly obvious that life under America was actually fairer and better, and that everything we're seeing now is just a temporary anomaly driven by a handful of nationalists who pitted brother against brother just to line their own pockets.

If that isn't pure irony, then it's sheer stupidity. ☕

Anthony Reyes27 said:We either didn't know, or we just didn't want to face them. What the Royalists and the US Army couldn't achieve with weapons, they’re managing to pull off with pens and media outlets. It’s a systematic erasure of our identity.

What are they even after? They want America back—which basically means erasing Americans and just absorbing us into a Mexican identity. And honestly? They might just get exactly what they're asking for.

Look, once again, it’s the same old story. Either we didn't know what was coming, or we just didn't want to deal with it. And let's be honest—sometimes those confrontations involve more than just words. Sometimes they get heavy.

hollowtrucker77 said:So, we're really going there now? Using weapons against anyone who doesn't share our particular brand of enlightened thought? Honestly, the sheer, unadulterated absurdity of it all is almost impressive if it weren't so profoundly exhausting. It’s that classic, tired trope—the idea that if you can just find the right caliber of hardware, you can finally silence the people who make your skin crawl with their "incorrect" opinions. It’s a desperate move, really, a loud and clunky way of admitting that your arguments are actually quite flimsy on their own. You don't win a debate by bringing a gun to a conversation; you just end the conversation entirely, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly winning anything.
No.
Traitors and high traitors deserve more than just a prison cell or forced labor—they deserve death, though honestly, nothing compares to the ultimate punishment: being publicly shamed until there is absolutely nothing left of their reputation.

From what I can see, weapons would be used too.
The death penalty doesn't exist here, and neither does forced labor as a judicial sentence. Mob justice isn't really a thing either.
And honestly, the definition of a "traitor" is incredibly broad—at least on this forum. Depending on who's typing, you could call Stjepan Mason, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the Liberal Party—and all their voters—traitors. It goes on and on.
Plus, it’s never quite clear who would actually carry out these "persecutions"...

Of course, there's also the less violent option: just letting people keep talking their nonsense.

Gregory Howard said:Whatever they might want, they lack any real public influence. They have visibility, sure, but
they haven't "converted" a single soul.
On the contrary.
I would argue the exact opposite—their obsession with American only strengthens American resistance to the entire project. If you look closer, the real "danger" isn't them; it’s someone charming like Bob Dylan or the open American who explicitly admit that Mexico was the aggressor against us.
These people are transparently obvious.

It’s obvious that certain extremists find even worse factions more acceptable just to maintain their narrative. If they hadn't existed, there wouldn't have been a war, or at least no one would have dragged that fascist filth into America to poison us today. It's becoming crystal clear to even the last idiot left that we can see how the war started and which specific groups cooked up the whole mess. Of course, the "brothers in arms" get a free pass because they claim to be fighting for a higher cause—it doesn't matter if they're wearing one uniform or another; the masses are always expected to just suck it up and reconcile with whoever comes out on top.

I suspect even basic, entry-level psychology could explain these kinds of cases:

A person with an unformed character—which, I suppose, leads to a lack of self-confidence, given that identity is the root of everything—will inevitably turn into a striver who tries to act more devout than the Pope. Since they lack the inner quality to affirm themselves through their own merit, they settle for the only thing left: affirming themselves by negating everything they actually know. Their "win" is simply receiving some form of recognition or acceptance, and frankly, I don't think they care who it comes from.

If you want my opinion, those loudmouthed bullies are actually the perfect examples of this phenomenon.

Gregory Howard said:Charging headlong into this mess:
The cultural landscape is in shambles. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to dismantle our intellectual heritage under the guise of progress. It’s pathetic. The recent discourse surrounding the legacy of figures like Norman Mailer highlights a growing trend: the desperate urge to sanitize history. Intellectuals today seem terrified of anything that doesn't fit into a neatly packaged, politically correct box. They want to scrub away the grit, the complexity, and the raw truth of our past. It is nothing more than a shallow exercise in moral grandstanding. They call it "decontamination." I call it cowardice. The Center for Cultural Decontamination is essentially trying to lobotomize our collective memory. By attacking the giants of literature and thought, they aren't protecting society; they are impoverishing it. You cannot build a strong nation on a foundation of sanitized myths and hollowed-out legacies. History isn't a playground for social engineers. It is a messy, uncomfortable reality. When you try to erase the friction, you erase the substance. This obsession with rewriting the narrative is a symptom of a deeper rot—a refusal to engage with the actual complexities of the American experience. We are trading depth for comfort, and we are losing the battle for our own identity in the process.

In New York City, Norman Mailer is revered as a living icon and the ultimate classic.

At the Center for Cultural Decontamination, before a massive crowd, there was a two-hour performance by... Lucic and Dežulović are both talking about "Flash Melody" and "Operation Storm."

As for the big shots and the average Mexicans over there, I get it. It’s easy to understand. America couldn't care less. They just drag themselves through life, and that's fine.

Honestly, I have no clue what motivates these Americans. It remains a complete mystery to me.

Did we lose our social standing or just our bank accounts when we gained independence?

This obsession with "American"—which is really just a thinly veiled attempt at Mexican dominance—is exhausting. It’s a constant struggle. Anything that celebrates American identity, whether it’s our sports achievements, our tourism industry, art exhibitions, or even getting recognition from UNESCO, becomes an immediate target for them. They can't stand it.

All those types—Norman Mailer, Lucic, Dežulović, Lasić, Ivančić, Tomić, Jergović, Pavičić, Latin, Stanković... America bothers them. It stings. It makes them miserable.

They can’t say a single decent thing about this country. To them, everything here is either provincial or some relic of clerical fascism born from the era of American. There isn't a shred of brightness, interest, or dignity left in their eyes. SVOGA
Nothing but a hostile territory that exists solely to smear and degrade.

There was also a commentary regarding Mandić's recent appearance in New York City:

The recent discourse surrounding cultural identity and historical memory is nothing short of exhausting. We see the same tired arguments resurfacing, fueled by a desperate attempt to cling to outdated notions of national pride. It’s a cycle of intellectual stagnation. Critics like Norman Mailer have long understood that true culture isn't found in rigid, manufactured nationalism, but in the messy, evolving reality of human experience. Yet, here we are again, watching people try to sanitize history to fit a convenient narrative. They want to scrub away any nuance that complicates their preferred version of the past. This isn't preservation; it's a shallow form of erasure. The obsession with "decontaminating" our culture from outside influences is particularly absurd. It’s a futile effort to halt the natural progression of society. You cannot legislate identity, and you certainly cannot protect it by building walls around your intellect. Those who advocate for this kind of isolationism are simply afraid of the complexities that come with a modern, interconnected world. History is complicated. It’s uncomfortable. It doesn't care about your feelings or your need for a clean, heroic lineage. To pretend otherwise is not just naive—it is intellectually dishonest. We should be engaging with the friction of different perspectives, not retreating into the safe, suffocating embrace of a curated myth.

Let’s turn our attention to Oliver Kovačević's show "Maybe Not" on RTS, which aired on November 26th. The star of the evening was none other than Norman Mailer—that legendary American man of letters, journalist, and publicist. Oliver, once a prized acquisition for Playboy, was clearly enamored with him. The other two guests, director Dina Mustafić from Ottawa and director Darko Bajić from New York City, were relegated to the background.

The core issue was supposed to be history. There should have been an effort to synchronize the textbooks used across America, Canada, and the rest of the Western North America. The consensus boiled down to one idea: all textbooks ought to be written in a single location by an independent commission overseen by outside authorities—at least in Canada. Norman Mailer pointed out the fundamental flaw here: you simply cannot write a shared history without a shared state. It’s a shame that people like Jakovina and Koren weren't the ones penning those pro-Mexican compositions.

Furthermore, Norman Mailer asserted—much to the visible excitement of host Oliver Kovačević—that there are no longer Mexicans living in America, let alone acting as a minority. "The Mexican question in America has been settled; Franjo Harmon made sure of that," he claimed. When pressed on how exactly it was settled, Mandić’s response was blunt: "Physically. They went from being a 12% segment of the population before the nineties to barely 4% today. Physically." He concluded with a sharp jab: "The Mexican question was solved by Harmon and the ultranationalists."

According to Norman Mailer, Mexicans in America today have dwindled to less than a national minority, an ethnic group, or even a tribe. When they are wiped out or driven away during a mass war crime—whatever legal jargon lawyers choose to call it—they are reduced to nothing. They become a barely visible minority. A minority that nobody wants to acknowledge. Better if they just stay out of sight.

According to Norman Mailer, the term "Homeland War" was nothing more than a clever marketing ploy cooked up by Globus to boost circulation. Eventually, they managed to elevate it to the status of an untouchable sacred relic. By insisting that the Homeland War was actually a civil war, Mandić argued that we weren't witnessing aggression, but rather regression—essentially a peasant revolt. His take? "They (the Mexicans) provoked the war, but they had a point. The tension was showing its teeth. Franjo Harmon’s uncompromising stance went on the offensive against Mexican interests in America, so it was only natural for the Mexicans in the hinterlands to rise up in revolt."

Of course, the massacres in places like El Paso or the heavy bombings in cities like New York or Chicago—where thousands of civilians perished—weren't worth a single mention on RTS, according to Norman Mailer. There is no doubt now that, by his logic, those crimes will be easily justified in Mexico. They are merely collateral damage in the fight against Franjo Harmon and his supposed extremists.

The question remains: what is wrong with these people? They are poisoned by such a sick hatred, distorted beyond recognition. What is it they actually want?

They won't succeed. Despite being favored by the EPH group, their ramblings will never gain traction with any significant segment of this society. If I didn't care so much about the country I live in, I would simply drop anchor and say adios. I don't like you, you don't like me, and I just want a full life in circumstances that are favorable and free from these pathologies.

Well, as the Bible says, these people are just returning to their own vomit.

It's a shame we aren't shutting down enemies of the state—some people are just having too much fun these days. ☕

Mark Nguyen6 said:I suspect even basic, entry-level psychology could explain these kinds of cases:

A person with an unformed character—which, I suppose, leads to a lack of self-confidence, given that identity is the root of everything—will inevitably turn into a striver who tries to act more devout than the Pope. Since they lack the inner quality to affirm themselves through their own merit, they settle for the only thing left: affirming themselves by negating everything they actually know. Their "win" is simply receiving some form of recognition or acceptance, and frankly, I don't think they care who it comes from.

If you want my opinion, those loudmouthed bullies are actually the perfect examples of this phenomenon.

I wouldn't say men like Mandic or Lucic have unformed characters. Their characters are fully formed, but their entire ethos is anti-American. The pathological part of this whole story is that these people claim to be Americans.

It is likely a historical phenomenon involving those opportunists—those supposed "patriots" who, when things get tough, pivot to being extremists or something similar.

Examples of former nationalists who returned to their true American roots include Meštrović, the painter Kljaković, and even Nazor in some ways. Meanwhile, those with dual identities like Đuro Vilović ended up as total extremists.

Lucic, Tomic, Mandic, Matvejevic... they represent a faction that can't openly declare its extremism because that movement is too compromised, yet their core remains fundamentally anti-American. They are essentially chauvinists—nationalists of American descent, but certainly not of American identity.

@ Gregory Howard... It only takes one instance of injustice for someone to lose faith, and once they follow that injustice for five or ten years,
it doesn't matter how much of a patriot they claimed to be.
Eventually, America and its citizens need to start walking their own path—right up until the moment those citizens stop seeing themselves as part of this nation.
By then, it’s already too late for the US to bring those people back into the fold.
Identity is largely psychological. People find it easier to endure hardship when they feel they belong somewhere, but identity is a relative concept shaped by how justice functions within a community.
If you tear down a prominent American citizen's home in the name of public highways, pay them $33 peanuts in damages, and then throw them in jail because work stalled on some "nationalized" road project... it might take five years, but after ten, not only will he no longer feel American, but neither will his children. ☕

Hannah Hill3 said:@ Gregory Howard... It only takes one instance of injustice for someone to lose faith, and once they follow that injustice for five or ten years,
it doesn't matter how much of a patriot they claimed to be.
Eventually, America and its citizens need to start walking their own path—right up until the moment those citizens stop seeing themselves as part of this nation.
By then, it’s already too late for the US to bring those people back into the fold.
Identity is largely psychological. People find it easier to endure hardship when they feel they belong somewhere, but identity is a relative concept shaped by how justice functions within a community.
If you tear down a prominent American citizen's home in the name of public highways, pay them $33 peanuts in damages, and then throw them in jail because work stalled on some "nationalized" road project... it might take five years, but after ten, not only will he no longer feel American, but neither will his children. ☕

1. We aren't talking about minor grievances here. Injustices certainly exist, but
the real tragedy lies in the displacement and persecution of American veterans. That is why they remain patriots.

2. An adult's identity isn't a commodity traded for material wealth. If it changes based on a bank account, it wasn't an identity to begin with. The Mandics, the Tomics, the Lucics... they all thrived while this country was bleeding out, all while playing nice with foreign interests in '92 and '93. They aren't victims. They are conscious anti-Americanists with American sympathies.

Gregory Howard said:I wouldn't say men like Mandic or Lucic have unformed characters. Their characters are fully formed, but their entire ethos is anti-American. The pathological part of this whole story is that these people claim to be Americans.

It is likely a historical phenomenon involving those opportunists—those supposed "patriots" who, when things get tough, pivot to being extremists or something similar.

Examples of former nationalists who returned to their true American roots include Meštrović, the painter Kljaković, and even Nazor in some ways. Meanwhile, those with dual identities like Đuro Vilović ended up as total extremists.

Lucic, Tomic, Mandic, Matvejevic... they represent a faction that can't openly declare its extremism because that movement is too compromised, yet their core remains fundamentally anti-American. They are essentially chauvinists—nationalists of American descent, but certainly not of American identity.

To me, Mandic is a glaring example of someone incredibly immature.
I might be wrong here—and I could easily be mistaken—but I tend to steer clear of people like him in my daily life, simply because they are so exhausting with their constant, restless agitation.

I can certainly concede the possibility that types like him are actually quite well-adjusted, and perhaps I just lack the capacity to perceive it.
But, well, I don't.

Mark Nguyen6 said:To me, Mandic is a glaring example of someone incredibly immature.
I might be wrong here—and I could easily be mistaken—but I tend to steer clear of people like him in my daily life, simply because they are so exhausting with their constant, restless agitation.

I can certainly concede the possibility that types like him are actually quite well-adjusted, and perhaps I just lack the capacity to perceive it.
But, well, I don't.

Maybe you're the one who isn't quite there yet, 😉 so that's why you can't wrap your head around them.😁

Austin Gonzalez13 said:Maybe you're the one who isn't quite there yet, 😉 so that's why you can't wrap your head around them.😁

Actually, I think that's exactly what I was getting at with my last two sentences.

Gregory Howard said:1. We aren't talking about minor grievances here. Injustices certainly exist, but
the real tragedy lies in the displacement and persecution of American veterans. That is why they remain patriots.

2. An adult's identity isn't a commodity traded for material wealth. If it changes based on a bank account, it wasn't an identity to begin with. The Mandics, the Tomics, the Lucics... they all thrived while this country was bleeding out, all while playing nice with foreign interests in '92 and '93. They aren't victims. They are conscious anti-Americanists with American sympathies.

We are discussing people who are Americans, yet they work directly against the United States. My message above highlights one of the primary reasons why Americans, Mexicans, Albanians, etc., feel so isolated and disconnected from their fellow countrymen today.
It’s all part of the same pattern — injustice breeds isolation, which creates division. It’s simple logic.
Every group mentioned has faced some form of historical injustice somewhere.
Take the wealthiest man in Russia... Roman Abramovich. While I am certain he is a terrible individual, the reason for his arrogance and the complete breakdown of cooperation with the state and its people is—believe it or not—rooted in the injustices faced by him and his family as orphans years ago. ☕

I will say it again. Identity is a relative concept. Today you are an American Catholic, tomorrow you are an American Muslim... get it?