What motivates our local anti-Americans?

Mark Nguyen6 said:Your memory is actually quite sharp.

PS.
In New Orleans, he wouldn't have had anyone else to ramble about anyway.

But hey, the main thing is that the man is an intellectual, a true cosmopolitan, and someone who has moved beyond the pettiness of nationalistic tribalism.

Once a "progressive" American reaches that state of post-national nirvana, their most natural habitat becomes Mexico. It's funny how this supposed state of high-minded globalism never actually leads anyone toward Europe or the West; instead, they always just hop right over the border to Mexico. Malicious people might say that when an American sheds their national pride, they basically just become Mexican.😁

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.

Who actually are these people?

urbanmarlin8 said:I actually disagree regarding this one guy.
I love reading every single column by Ante Tomic; he always gives me a good laugh.
He isn't really an Anti-American type so much as he is your classic Western anarchist. He’s just a guy who can't stand anyone or anything, yet he possesses a certain style that I can respect. Tomic realized that the biggest flaw in the American people is our tendency to ignore the fact that politicians are basically lying to our faces every single day—provided they wrap that garbage in pretty, patriotic packaging. The second issue is that people simply can't face their own naivety, so they end up blaming him instead.
As for Jergovic... 🤦
Jergovic's bitterness seems like a clear byproduct of some adolescent sexual frustration. Anyone who has read Freud knows exactly what's going on there.☕

Pavičić isn't even that bad...

bluecobra27 said:Once a "progressive" American reaches that state of post-national nirvana, their most natural habitat becomes Mexico. It's funny how this supposed state of high-minded globalism never actually leads anyone toward Europe or the West; instead, they always just hop right over the border to Mexico. Malicious people might say that when an American sheds their national pride, they basically just become Mexican.😁

Interesting theory... but why wouldn't they just become some liberal Mexican like Djoka Balasevic instead of a nationalist?🤔

Morgan Cook10 said:Interesting theory... but why wouldn't they just become some liberal Mexican like Djoka Balasevic instead of a nationalist?🤔

Well, it looks like one of our liberals has passed away—I guess that’s that. 😁

Mark Nguyen6 said:Well, it looks like one of our liberals has passed away—I guess that’s that. 😁

Look, Djoka is fine... you definitely can't label him some ultra-nationalist radical. He's nothing like those other guys mentioned above who have zero loyalty to the country.😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Pavičić isn't even that bad...

Fair point. Pavičić is actually alright too.👍>

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, Djoka is fine... you definitely can't label him some ultra-nationalist radical. He's nothing like those other guys mentioned above who have zero loyalty to the country.😁

Maybe Djoka seems alright to you because he treats Americans well... but I suppose you should ask, say, a certain group from the Southwest what they really think about him.😁

To be clear, I actually agree with him—and I have nothing against those specific immigrant groups—but none of that really makes Djolet a liberal or a tolerant person, I guess.🙂

Look, stepping back and distancing yourself from nationalism or the whole "nation" identity thing is totally fine by me. So why on earth do some random people on these forums always have to get so worked up and negative about it?

redeagle42 said:Look, stepping back and distancing yourself from nationalism or the whole "nation" identity thing is totally fine by me. So why on earth do some random people on these forums always have to get so worked up and negative about it?

Are you being willfully ignorant here, or just incredibly superficial?

I mean, what kind of "distancing from national identity" are we actually talking about when it involves people moving to New York City—a place that, quite frankly, has spent its recent history officially rehabilitating groups like the Royalists?

redeagle42 said:Look, stepping back and distancing yourself from nationalism or the whole "nation" identity thing is totally fine by me. So why on earth do some random people on these forums always have to get so worked up and negative about it?

You actually got any proof for that bold claim, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Mark Nguyen6 said:Are you being willfully ignorant here, or just incredibly superficial?

I mean, what kind of "distancing from national identity" are we actually talking about when it involves people moving to New York City—a place that, quite frankly, has spent its recent history officially rehabilitating groups like the Royalists?

Honestly, why do you even care if I'm narrow-minded or superficial? It’s pretty obvious you’re just obsessing over things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.
And what exactly is New York City rehabilitating?

Timothy Anderson48 said:You actually got any proof for that bold claim, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Look, as far as you're concerned, I'm just talking out of my ass. Honestly, you wouldn't even get what I was trying to say if I actually laid it all out. So fine, let's go with that: yeah, I'm just talking nonsense—but only because you wouldn't know any better.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Are you being willfully ignorant here, or just incredibly superficial?

I mean, what kind of "distancing from national identity" are we actually talking about when it involves people moving to New York City—a place that, quite frankly, has spent its recent history officially rehabilitating groups like the Royalists?

Definitely shallow and uneducated. As for being dim-witted... well, let's just say I'm somewhere in the middle.

redeagle42 said:Honestly, why do you even care if I'm narrow-minded or superficial? It’s pretty obvious you’re just obsessing over things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.
And what exactly is New York City rehabilitating?

Look, if after reading several pages of discussion you still manage to drop a question so vague it feels like it fell straight from Mars, then I guess it’s only natural to wonder if there's a slight issue with basic comprehension—or maybe you actually *are* living on Mars. But please, don't go getting all worked up about it.

Gregory Howard said:The specifics escape me, but I believe it was during his trip to that jazz festival in Mexico, where
he went on about those bearded insurgents.

There was zero ambiguity there. Just pure, greasy fascination. It was reminiscent of some third-rate version of Rebecca West—
some might say I’m being too harsh, but I am not—
especially given her obsession with those North American mountain men, who she portrayed as these stoic, unshakable, incorruptible, almost otherworldly spiritual giants.

Great post, thanks. 👍

Morgan Cook10 said:Interesting theory... but why wouldn't they just become some liberal Mexican like Djoka Balasevic instead of a nationalist?🤔

A "liberal" Mexican? Please. In that part of the world, being "liberal" just means a nationalist has the choice to grow a beard or shave it off. That’s the extent of the freedom. The facial hair isn't mandatory anymore, I guess. That's about it.

..The sow is in heat.. mm, sounds fucking gritty.
More like "fascist buddies," if you ask me.. Who even is this american guy?
I. Mandić is a philosophical heavyweight.
A. Gotovina is a true military pro.
F. Harmon was the nation's historian.
A. Tomić was a damn fine writer.
They all had their reasons, and they're all Americans. If someone hates Americans, they might be a type like Šešelj—who actually has roots in popov's field over in lower Hum.. But the difference is, he’s just not sane.
A normal person doesn't hate; only an idiot does.
american? Ugh, talk about pure frustration.. There's only constructive and non-constructive criticism.. Get it?