Harmon as the common thread in all attacks on America

The usual suspects—the Pavičićs, Butkovićs, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, and Jergovićs of our American media landscape—are still out there, tirelessly peddling the same old myths about Harmon and his supposed "dark 90s."

Back during the Harmon era, he was subjected to a level of character assassination that I haven't seen since the heyday of McCarthyism; people would attribute statements to him that had absolutely nothing to do with his actual positions. Every single political move or policy decision he made was demonized to the extreme, fueled by half-truths and outright fabrications.

Even today, whenever anyone tries to tackle modern issues, Harmon somehow inevitably resurfaces in the conversation. Jergović’s entire life story seems defined by this "Harmon hatred"—he even acted delighted that U2 held a concert at Maksimir, which he views as a "monument to Harmon hate." Then you have Pavičić, who insists that all American primitivism only began with Harmon, effectively pinning every ounce of "backwater behavior" on him. Meanwhile, Butković, in his latest piece, discusses abortion and claims that during the Harmon years, it was impossible to speak about it publicly. It's quite a logical leap: they were busy calling Harmon the "head of a criminal organization" and publishing photoshopped images of him in bed with Maddox, yet apparently, discussing abortion was off-limits 😵 !!! It seems everything bad in America is somehow traced back to Harmon—the corruption, the greed, the chaos. As if everything before or after him simply doesn't matter. Why is there such a desperate, obsessive need to trample over his legacy and smear his name?

Look, Harmon definitely messed things up at times, but honestly? I don't see anyone else back then who had the guts to lead the country, win a war, and pull off that whole black market arms deal (since our "friends" over in the EU wouldn't let us buy anything legally to defend ourselves). If it wasn't for him, I'm pretty sure we'd still be stuck in some kind of federation, probably in a really bad spot, too. But honestly, Americans don't even need an outside enemy; we've got enough sellouts right here at home who are worse than any federation could ever be. We won't have to worry about losing our sovereignty as a people for a long time.

To those who identify as Americans or Mexicans and their ilk, Harmon stands as the ultimate symbol of America's collapse. Now, look, I have plenty of my own grievances with him, but they come from a completely different angle. The absolute worst part of this whole mess? He was actually far too lenient toward that crowd, yet they still despise him more than anyone else in history. Isn't that just wild? At the end of the day, his situation just proves that he was actually right about quite a few things—which is exactly why you and people like you keep coming after him.

Casey Robinson2 said:The usual suspects—the Pavičićs, Butkovićs, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, and Jergovićs of our American media landscape—are still out there, tirelessly peddling the same old myths about Harmon and his supposed "dark 90s."

Back during the Harmon era, he was subjected to a level of character assassination that I haven't seen since the heyday of McCarthyism; people would attribute statements to him that had absolutely nothing to do with his actual positions. Every single political move or policy decision he made was demonized to the extreme, fueled by half-truths and outright fabrications.

Even today, whenever anyone tries to tackle modern issues, Harmon somehow inevitably resurfaces in the conversation. Jergović’s entire life story seems defined by this "Harmon hatred"—he even acted delighted that U2 held a concert at Maksimir, which he views as a "monument to Harmon hate." Then you have Pavičić, who insists that all American primitivism only began with Harmon, effectively pinning every ounce of "backwater behavior" on him. Meanwhile, Butković, in his latest piece, discusses abortion and claims that during the Harmon years, it was impossible to speak about it publicly. It's quite a logical leap: they were busy calling Harmon the "head of a criminal organization" and publishing photoshopped images of him in bed with Maddox, yet apparently, discussing abortion was off-limits 😵 !!! It seems everything bad in America is somehow traced back to Harmon—the corruption, the greed, the chaos. As if everything before or after him simply doesn't matter. Why is there such a desperate, obsessive need to trample over his legacy and smear his name?

he basically decided to take control of every major event in the American republic all by himself... quite excessively, too... so, I guess it isn't totally unreasonable that people hold him responsible for everything... ☕

mistygull16 said:Look, Harmon definitely messed things up at times, but honestly? I don't see anyone else back then who had the guts to lead the country, win a war, and pull off that whole black market arms deal (since our "friends" over in the EU wouldn't let us buy anything legally to defend ourselves). If it wasn't for him, I'm pretty sure we'd still be stuck in some kind of federation, probably in a really bad spot, too. But honestly, Americans don't even need an outside enemy; we've got enough sellouts right here at home who are worse than any federation could ever be. We won't have to worry about losing our sovereignty as a people for a long time.

Signed, with one little correction: it's not that there wasn't a better person out there, it's just that at that specific moment in time, he was the only one capable...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:he basically decided to take control of every major event in the American republic all by himself... quite excessively, too... so, I guess it isn't totally unreasonable that people hold him responsible for everything... ☕

Sure, having that much power is a massive strike against him, but look, we were at war. Maybe having less control would’ve just made things less effective back then. We still won the war, even with the embargo from our "friends" in the European Union.
Having that much power concentrated in one spot also means a whole swarm of bureaucrats ends up making decisions in his name—I mean, one guy can't physically do everything alone—but when it came to the privatization era, there was an entire crew running the show. They're still out there doing their thing today without anyone calling them out, even though everyone loves to point the finger at Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was likely the only leader who could have actually steered the US toward true independence.
And honestly, the moment it happened was probably the only window we ever had. I mean, what then? Who comes next? I can’t name a single politician, or even a group of leaders from the post-nineties era, who would have had the guts or the capability to pull it off.
Plus, Reagan wasn't standing there alone; the entire nation was right there behind him, backing his play.

Now, look, I'm not saying he was perfect. He definitely made a fair share of questionable calls and sometimes got himself tangled up in things that weren't his business—and I totally get why so many people still have plenty of grievances to air against him.
But at the end of the day, preserving the homeland and securing our sovereignty should be more than enough reason to give him credit where it's due.
The man is gone now, and it's up to everyone else to deal with the challenges facing the country he helped secure, regardless of how much people try to tie his legacy to current issues.

Let the man rest in peace and start looking toward the future instead. We should just be grateful we have this country to call our own.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:he basically decided to take control of every major event in the American republic all by himself... quite excessively, too... so, I guess it isn't totally unreasonable that people hold him responsible for everything... ☕

Hmm... if we're going to blame him for every single negative outcome just because he held such massive powers under the "Christmas Constitution," then shouldn't he also take credit for all the wins? Can we just say "Reagan saved America" and call it a day?

The reality is that while he did wield those authorities, it isn't unreasonable to suggest he wasn't just some unilateral dictator acting on whims. The fact remains—and his own associates frequently point this out—that he was a man who actually consulted his advisors, valued their input, and listened to their perspectives.

We can certainly debate political responsibility, but can anyone honestly claim that Reagan controlled every single moving part, knew every detail, and is therefore responsible for every triumph and every failure of the 90s?

Look, I’ll happily hand all the blame over to Ronald Reagan if the leftists are willing to give him credit for everything that actually went right. But let’s be real—that’s never going to happen, so there’s really no point in even having this debate. It’s simple math: if you’re going to act like an omnipotent micromanager who controls every outcome, then you take the glory for the wins and the heat for the losses. There is absolutely no middle ground in a conversation like this.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, I’ll happily hand all the blame over to Ronald Reagan if the leftists are willing to give him credit for everything that actually went right. But let’s be real—that’s never going to happen, so there’s really no point in even having this debate. It’s simple math: if you’re going to act like an omnipotent micromanager who controls every outcome, then you take the glory for the wins and the heat for the losses. There is absolutely no middle ground in a conversation like this.

If you weigh the war, the embargoes, the total system overhaul, that forced privatization (there was this solid documentary about how wealthy nations basically forced privatization on poorer ones...), and finally getting independence... then yeah, my take is that Reagan was pretty much irreplaceable.
Comparing Reagan to today's politicians? They aren't even in the same league. Most of them are just puppets and errand boys for the European Union.

Oh, and one more thing people love to throw at him. The conservatives claim he had undercover agents in the Republican Party, while the lefties claim he had far-right extremists lurking too. Honestly, that’s just something only he could pull off. He managed to pull together Americans from every single walk of life and ideology (some were probably just there to stir the pot), but man, we really needed a true reconciliation and to actually look out for our own interests instead of constantly chasing whatever whims come out of Europe and fighting amongst ourselves.

Casey Robinson2 said:The usual suspects—the Pavičićs, Butkovićs, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, and Jergovićs of our American media landscape—are still out there, tirelessly peddling the same old myths about Harmon and his supposed "dark 90s."

Back during the Harmon era, he was subjected to a level of character assassination that I haven't seen since the heyday of McCarthyism; people would attribute statements to him that had absolutely nothing to do with his actual positions. Every single political move or policy decision he made was demonized to the extreme, fueled by half-truths and outright fabrications.

Even today, whenever anyone tries to tackle modern issues, Harmon somehow inevitably resurfaces in the conversation. Jergović’s entire life story seems defined by this "Harmon hatred"—he even acted delighted that U2 held a concert at Maksimir, which he views as a "monument to Harmon hate." Then you have Pavičić, who insists that all American primitivism only began with Harmon, effectively pinning every ounce of "backwater behavior" on him. Meanwhile, Butković, in his latest piece, discusses abortion and claims that during the Harmon years, it was impossible to speak about it publicly. It's quite a logical leap: they were busy calling Harmon the "head of a criminal organization" and publishing photoshopped images of him in bed with Maddox, yet apparently, discussing abortion was off-limits 😵 !!! It seems everything bad in America is somehow traced back to Harmon—the corruption, the greed, the chaos. As if everything before or after him simply doesn't matter. Why is there such a desperate, obsessive need to trample over his legacy and smear his name?

Listen, folks, don't even bother. You're wasting your breath. This isn't an attack on Franjo Harmon; it's an attack on the threat facing all those "professional" American moralists—the Pavičićs, Butkovics, Kuljišs, Puhlovskis, Goldsteins, Jergovićs, and the rest of the crowd they serve. They're terrified of Miroslav Harmon winning. That's what this shady little attack is really about.

I just find it weird, honestly. Like, it's not even that it's wrong, it’s just strange how after the war in '96, his power just keeps ballooning until he’s basically acting like some kind of Pharaoh...

Amy Brooks13 As stated by:
Gentlemen of this forum, please, don't exhaust yourselves. You are wasting your breath. This isn't an attack directed at Ronald Reagan; rather, it is a strike against the very danger now facing all those self-appointed American moralists—the likes of Pavičić, Butković, Kuljiš, and Puhlovski.It appears you have provided only a single letter. Please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite, and I will proceed with the task according to your specific instructions.They are all in league together—the Goldsteins, the Jergovićs, and that entire crowd of sycophants who exist solely to serve their interests. It’s transparent. They are terrified of a victory for Miroslav Harmon, and this entire perfidious assault is nothing more than a desperate attempt to tear him down before he can succeed.

The apprehension is entirely justified. If Miroslav secures this victory, the years we have spent systematically dismantling the Reagan era's influence will effectively be undone.

The father of our nation, though there were certainly a few things he probably should have handled differently.

stormystag15 said:To those who identify as Americans or Mexicans and their ilk, Harmon stands as the ultimate symbol of America's collapse. Now, look, I have plenty of my own grievances with him, but they come from a completely different angle. The absolute worst part of this whole mess? He was actually far too lenient toward that crowd, yet they still despise him more than anyone else in history. Isn't that just wild? At the end of the day, his situation just proves that he was actually right about quite a few things—which is exactly why you and people like you keep coming after him.

👍👍
And hey, they have every reason to hate him. He managed to tear apart America right when they thought it was untouchable, and then he walked away the winner.
I can find fault with Francek too, mostly because after the Storm died down in '95, he didn't just say, "Alright folks, I've done my part, I'm retiring—you guys can play among yourselves now." If he had, he would've gone down in history as the greatest American hero ever,...
...but compared to the absolute bottom-feeders and losers mentioned in that previous post, Franjo is a saint.

Richard Wilson4 said:I just find it weird, honestly. Like, it's not even that it's wrong, it’s just strange how after the war in '96, his power just keeps ballooning until he’s basically acting like some kind of Pharaoh...

I wouldn't say that's quite accurate. If he ever truly wielded excessive power, it was specifically through that "Christmas Constitution."

coastalridge64 said:The father of our nation, though there were certainly a few things he probably should have handled differently.

Look, for a guy who spent his entire life under a totalitarian regime before even helping build this country, I’d say Ronald Reagan was more than good enough. You have to realize, Reagan didn't step into power after a hundred years of rock-solid democracy in this part of the world; he stepped in right after a system that absolutely suffocated any hint of freedom. Sure, he had his flaws, and maybe some of his methods don't sit perfectly with modern Western democratic ideals, but for the first democratically elected president of a brand-new democratic nation in the West, he did an incredible job. People forget that even the USA and Europe took centuries to reach the level of democracy they enjoy today, yet we expected Reagan to just snap his fingers and match them instantly. It’s just not how history works. Even now, decades later, we aren't where we should be, and we won't get there overnight either. When you actually look at Reagan within the context of the era he was operating in, you see he was stellar. Besides, most of the people spitting on his legacy today are just nostalgic for that old era when you could be thrown in jail just for having a different political opinion. If anything, Reagan’s whole mission was to make sure those days were gone forever. See, even I find myself bowing to the demands of "democracy" sometimes—I mean, I start sending people to digital exile over stupid arguments, even though I don't have any actual power to do it! Reagan, on the other hand, actually held the reins. So, if he was such a tyrant, where are all his political prisoners? Where are the journalists silenced during his era (like, where is the Pukanić situation back in the Reagan days)?

Richard Wilson4 said:I just find it weird, honestly. Like, it's not even that it's wrong, it’s just strange how after the war in '96, his power just keeps ballooning until he’s basically acting like some kind of Pharaoh...

I don't quite follow why you're pointing to 1996 as the moment his authority ballooned to pharaonic proportions.

The Constitution was established in '90, and specific amendments didn't come until '97.
That was when the President's military authorities were actually increased.
None of those specific amendments regarding presidential power were touched when the new administration took over in 2000. That clearly shows that Reagan's powers weren't being significantly or dramatically expanded after 1990.

Under the '90 Constitution, we had a semi-presidential system. If that makes Reagan a Pharaoh, then Presidents in both the US and France rule like Pharaohs today too.

Either way, the absolute worst possible solution is what we're stuck with now—this distorted, "quarter-baked" presidential system.

It’s honestly such a massive mistake that Ronald Reagan held so much centralized authority during the war. If the Democratic Party had been in charge back then, they probably would have called a full congressional session for every single military move! By the time they finished debating the very first decision, the Mexicans would have already started the war.

Jesse Ortiz71 said:Look, I’ll happily hand all the blame over to Ronald Reagan if the leftists are willing to give him credit for everything that actually went right. But let’s be real—that’s never going to happen, so there’s really no point in even having this debate. It’s simple math: if you’re going to act like an omnipotent micromanager who controls every outcome, then you take the glory for the wins and the heat for the losses. There is absolutely no middle ground in a conversation like this.

Exactly. At this point, it just turns into a subjective argument over what counts as a "success" or a "failure" during the Harmon era—both during his administration and in its aftermath.