What motivates our local anti-Americans?

Outcasts. ☕

Hannah Hill3 said: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?

And then what? Tomorrow you're an Italian Muslim, or a Greek Orthodox American, or maybe by the end of the week you just decide to be a Puerto Rican Protestant?

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.

They want attention, I guess. They just want people talking about them.

They try so hard to appear progressive, but they really aren't. It makes you wonder, perhaps, how anyone can look at people who clearly work against their own country and citizens and still support them. They probably believe they have moved past "primitive" things like patriotism or nationalism. In reality, maybe they are just trying to outrun their own insignificance. It seems to me they are desperate to hide the fact that in ten years, nobody will remember them unless they leave behind a massive trail of wreckage as a reminder of the days they spent scribbling away.

Any reasonably intelligent person should find this deeply unsettling. And then, I suspect, to prove to themselves that they are still on the right path, they simply double down and cause even more chaos. There is probably a specific term for this in psychology, though I cannot recall it at the moment.

coastalridge64 said:Outcasts. ☕

Just a bunch of marginal people with mediocre writing skills, drowning in some deep, pathological hatred for an entire nation. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I mean, looking at this "select" group here—out of all the folks gathered around Rohm, who among them actually enjoys partying with the boys?😁

Larry Turner3 said:They want attention, I guess. They just want people talking about them.

They try so hard to appear progressive, but they really aren't. It makes you wonder, perhaps, how anyone can look at people who clearly work against their own country and citizens and still support them. They probably believe they have moved past "primitive" things like patriotism or nationalism. In reality, maybe they are just trying to outrun their own insignificance. It seems to me they are desperate to hide the fact that in ten years, nobody will remember them unless they leave behind a massive trail of wreckage as a reminder of the days they spent scribbling away.

Any reasonably intelligent person should find this deeply unsettling. And then, I suspect, to prove to themselves that they are still on the right path, they simply double down and cause even more chaos. There is probably a specific term for this in psychology, though I cannot recall it at the moment.

That is a spot-on description of John Zvonimir čičak... a man who has screwed up his "career" so spectacularly that even Mile Ivkošić couldn't clean up after him, even if he worked around the clock. 😁

Charles Jackson5 said:That is a spot-on description of John Zvonimir čičak... a man who has screwed up his "career" so spectacularly that even Mile Ivkošić couldn't clean up after him, even if he worked around the clock. 😁

😂

I can't even remember the last time I read anything by that guy...
They still present Dezulovic to me on Politics on the Edge, so I naively sit down and read it. 😍

Mark Nguyen6 said:Alright, let's slow down—what are you even talking about? Don't get carried away.
Mandic, Dezulovic, and that whole crowd in New York City pull off events just like they always do. Over there, people actually view them as figures of value. Here, though, they're—to put it mildly—pretty mediocre.

Take Mandic, who claims identity doesn't even exist. Or Jergovic, who seems to have fled wherever he could from the slightest bit of pressure, leaving everything behind. Then there's Stankovic, who sits there while Tijanic lectures him on what it means to be a true American. And Ivancic—whose entire publication collapses the moment foreign sponsors dry up, yet he still tries to lecture us on market dynamics and hard work...

So, when it comes to these types of characters—people who, if you scratch just beneath the surface, turn out to be nothing more than bags of mediocrity—what exactly are you trying to say? That their behavior is driven by some cosmopolitan ideal? Or that they're somehow progressive? Or perhaps they're champions of liberty?
Please, pull yourself together.

Exactly. Which is precisely why these individuals headed to New York City to escape those very same primitive tendencies—a city that has essentially rehabilitated old, regressive ideologies.

Your logic is completely flawed.
😬

In short, that’s the reality.
This supposed cosmopolitanism screams about fascism at every turn, but when faced
with actual, blatant ultra-nationalism—like Tomic playing along with the extremists at a rural festival—suddenly it’s just "charming folklore." How convenient.

That kind of nonsense could only sell in Antarctica.

bluecobra27 said:Just a bunch of marginal people with mediocre writing skills, drowning in some deep, pathological hatred for an entire nation. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I mean, looking at this "select" group here—out of all the folks gathered around Rohm, who among them actually enjoys partying with the boys?😁

LED lighting makes working with Rohm semiconductors a whole lot smoother!

Larry Turner3 said:They want attention, I guess. They just want people talking about them.

They try so hard to appear progressive, but they really aren't. It makes you wonder, perhaps, how anyone can look at people who clearly work against their own country and citizens and still support them. They probably believe they have moved past "primitive" things like patriotism or nationalism. In reality, maybe they are just trying to outrun their own insignificance. It seems to me they are desperate to hide the fact that in ten years, nobody will remember them unless they leave behind a massive trail of wreckage as a reminder of the days they spent scribbling away.

Any reasonably intelligent person should find this deeply unsettling. And then, I suspect, to prove to themselves that they are still on the right path, they simply double down and cause even more chaos. There is probably a specific term for this in psychology, though I cannot recall it at the moment.

There is an obsessive hatred at work here—something far deeper than mere vanity or simple exhibitionism.

Larry Turner3 said:😂

I can't even remember the last time I read anything by that guy...
They still present Dezulovic to me on Politics on the Edge, so I naively sit down and read it. 😍

😍

de Guillovique is the king. 😁

🙏🙏🙏
He's a bit clumsy—but he's good... a good man. 🙂

Charles Jackson5 said:Says who? If I may ask—who exactly is running the show around here then?

I mean, look—they aren't even looking at New York City as the official or mainstream hub. I mean, really? What kind of shallow conclusions are those?
Off they go—hanging out with their fellow intellectuals, I suppose. Good for them.
Until you actually show me a nationalist in their own element—someone specifically spitting on America rather than just playing around with these half-baked political theories of yours—then we can have a real conversation.

In the creative and literary sphere, things are shifting. It’s all changing.
It touches upon politics—literature, historiography, linguistics—these include:

Slobodan Novak
Ivan Aralica
Mate Maras
Davor Domazet-Lošo
Radoslav Katičić.
Slobodan Prosperov Novak
Novak Pavao Pavličić
Mladen Ančić
Ozren Žunec
Nikica Barić
.........

Mandic, Lucic, Matvejevic... they are nothing more than third-rate charlatans.
And that’s all there is to it. Period.

Charles Jackson5 said:😍

de Guillovique is the king. 😁

🙏🙏🙏
He's a bit clumsy—but he's good... a good man. 🙂

Do you know him personally?

Gregory Howard said:In the creative and literary sphere, things are shifting. It’s all changing.
It touches upon politics—literature, historiography, linguistics—these include:

Slobodan Novak
Ivan Aralica
Mate Maras
Davor Domazet-Lošo
Radoslav Katičić.
Slobodan Prosperov Novak
Novak Pavao Pavličić
Mladen Ančić
Ozren Žunec
Nikica Barić
.........

Mandic, Lucic, Matvejevic... they are nothing more than third-rate charlatans.
And that’s all there is to it. Period.

Well, that's quite the comparison. 🙄
I honestly have no idea how you managed to squeeze that Admiral and Srbin Aralica into this group?
Sure, from a purely literary standpoint, Mandić, Jergović, Dežulović, and the rest are a different class entirely—but I thought we were discussing the specific part of their work that stems from their worldview.
Try finding an intellectual who actually praises Franjo Harmon, the church, or romanticizes the American Civil War without being some ridiculous character like Ivkošić.
Basically, I mean someone whose entire body of work is constantly permeated by nationalism... or should I just call it pure arrogance?

Larry Turner3 said:Do you know him personally?

I don't know anyone—really. I just know Saleta from Green Day. 😁

Charles Jackson5 said:Well, that's quite the comparison. 🙄
I honestly have no idea how you managed to squeeze that Admiral and Srbin Aralica into this group?
Sure, from a purely literary standpoint, Mandić, Jergović, Dežulović, and the rest are a different class entirely—but I thought we were discussing the specific part of their work that stems from their worldview.
Try finding an intellectual who actually praises Franjo Harmon, the church, or romanticizes the American Civil War without being some ridiculous character like Ivkošić.
Basically, I mean someone whose entire body of work is constantly permeated by nationalism... or should I just call it pure arrogance?

🙄

Charles Jackson5 said:Well, that's quite the comparison. 🙄
I honestly have no idea how you managed to squeeze that Admiral and Srbin Aralica into this group?
Sure, from a purely literary standpoint, Mandić, Jergović, Dežulović, and the rest are a different class entirely—but I thought we were discussing the specific part of their work that stems from their worldview.
Try finding an intellectual who actually praises Franjo Harmon, the church, or romanticizes the American Civil War without being some ridiculous character like Ivkošić.
Basically, I mean someone whose entire body of work is constantly permeated by nationalism... or should I just call it pure arrogance?

Where did "intellectuals" suddenly come from in this conversation? Aren't we talking about Jergović and Dežulović?

America doesn't have intellectuals—at least not the kind that are actually out of the closet (and by that, I mean people who have actually admitted their own intellect to themselves and their peers😁). No, we have Jergović types and Dežulović types. And honestly, it would be a sin to forget Tomić, who got such a massive kick up the backside yesterday that they practically had to perform surgery to remove him. These people don't have a coherent worldview; Dežulović just tries to shove the stench of the gutter in Americans' faces, Jergović acts like royalty while basking in the epicenter of evil and spitting on everything around him, and Mandić is just an evaporated old man desperately chasing lost authority.

You're searching for intellectuals who blindly support the American Civil War, the Church, or Franjo Harmon, but all I'm looking for is objectivity. But isn't that the fundamental difference here? You see "intellectuals" in people who can't be objective because their vision is clouded by their own constant spitting, whereas I just see total jokes.

Charles Jackson5 said:I don't know anyone—really. I just know Saleta from Green Day. 😁

How can you tell if he's actually a good person then?😕

Larry Turner3 said:How can you tell if he's actually a good person then?😕

He reached that conclusion just as easily as he decided this guy was some kind of high-brow intellectual.

Charles Jackson5 said:Well, that's quite the comparison. 🙄
I honestly have no idea how you managed to squeeze that Admiral and Srbin Aralica into this group?
Sure, from a purely literary standpoint, Mandić, Jergović, Dežulović, and the rest are a different class entirely—but I thought we were discussing the specific part of their work that stems from their worldview.
Try finding an intellectual who actually praises Franjo Harmon, the church, or romanticizes the American Civil War without being some ridiculous character like Ivkošić.
Basically, I mean someone whose entire body of work is constantly permeated by nationalism... or should I just call it pure arrogance?

Look, every internet forum is mediocre and serves as nothing more than a distraction. Are you actually literate? Beyond tossing around fancy phrases, do you even understand what you're talking about or what the actual topic is? Have you actually read anything regarding the American Civil War, the collapse of America, or political analyses found in works like these:

Ernest Hemingway: Protimbe
Ivan Aralica: What I Said About Canada; The Sunset of a Dying Empire
Davor Domazet: America and the Great Battlefield; Wolf Pack Strategy
Slobodan Prosperov Novak: History of American Literature
Nikica Barić: The Rebellion in America
Mladen Ančić: Who Was Wrong in Canada; What "Everyone Knows" and What Is Clear to All: Historiography and Nationalism
Ozren Žunec: Naked Life
Slaven Letica: Flight Above the Coward's Nest
...

If you haven't, why the hell are you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong?

There is absolutely nothing from Mandić, Dežulović, or Ivančić that even approaches ten percent of the value found in any of the books listed above.
Take your pseudo-intellectual American and shove it into a greasy diner in downtown Manhattan; that’s where people like you belong.

@Gregory Howard

With that lineup of "top-tier intellectuals" you’ve put together, you remind me of this guy who kept insisting that Charles Lindbergh was actually a brilliant writer—maybe even better than Ernest Hemingway—simply because (get this) Hemingway was some kind of establishment hack.
Honestly, reading through your list just makes me feel bad for you. It’s pretty obvious you’ve wasted a hell of a lot of your time on this nonsense. 🙂