Posts by Kevin Davis11

Rachel Barrett8 said:The partisans, the fascists, the veterans, all those various organizations... they’re all funded by private donations, not taxpayer dollars.

God, who would have thought? It turns out Americans finally decided to start acting like philanthropists.

🤦

Here we go again...

Look, we're talking about a national holiday here. And, I mean, obviously, the government celebrates national holidays.

Maybe you should just side with Hasanbegović and join his crusade to scrap the whole holiday entirely. Good luck with that, I guess. 😁

Jose Campbell2 said:They were actually trying to book Thompson. And even if they had, you wouldn't see those types from news outlets complaining about it.
The thing is... Thompson wouldn't have done it.

😁

👍

Christian Myers said:True, but remember when Thompson had that concert in a Small town in USA for Storm a few years back—which the local government also helped fund—and everyone was complaining (not necessarily you, maybe, I don't know) about wasting a struggling city's budget on stuff like that. And then recently there was all the whining (again, maybe not from you) about how there’s no money for new tires or trucks because Bandić basically drained everything dry—so how is there suddenly cash for that Mexican singer at the Food festival or for TBF? Look, I'm not against any of it, but if we're doing this, I expect a decent concert for Independence Day (haven't seen anything yet, maybe I missed it) and for Storm.

I guess all national holidays should be celebrated. It doesn't mean every single little town or municipality has to host a massive event for every single one. As long as America celebrates them somewhere, it's fine. Wherever, really, it doesn't matter much to me.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Oh, absolutely. Citizens pay their utilities, taxes, and surcharges just so we can throw these big parties.

I mean, we shouldn't have to pay utility bills for the Sanitation Department just to have them pick up our trash, right?

It's honestly wild that we're among the poorest in the European Union. This kind of mindset really deserves to be protected as intangible heritage by UNESCO.

We truly are the Directors of Space.

Come on, don't be so dramatic, he didn't pay for The Rolling Stones, just TBF.

Rachel Barrett8 said:When you're broke, you call it being modest.
It feels like I'm the only one on this entire forum who ever struggled with money, which somehow makes me the outlier. It’s almost as if poverty never even existed in America.

But when you have the chance to just dump your debts onto the next generation? Then you're just as foolish as someone suffering from anemia.

So, how did Mustard celebrate the body holiday?

Honestly, if a country can't even afford to celebrate its own holidays, it might as well just pack up and shut down.

Corpus Christi used to be celebrated in every single church, and I mean every one of them, and they're all being funded by taxpayer money.

Rachel Barrett8 said:I'm not saying New York City is broke; I'm saying Eric Adams is.

Who celebrates when they have no money? Only an idiot or a fool.

The United States has plenty of holidays. Let them have their little party for all the idiots who fell for political talking points instead of focusing on actual municipal issues.

Exactly. National holidays are meant to be celebrated or at least acknowledged, and doing that stuff costs money.

If we're just going to ignore them, then what's even the point?

Rachel Barrett8 said:Honestly, I’m not even surprised by all these festivities and the blatant waste of money on ideological nonsense.
That’s exactly how Bandić ran things for 20 years—right after Marshall... excuse me, right after Bandić, I mean Bandić.

Now I can already hear the other forum members jumping in to lecture me on whether I actually know the price of a single tire for a Sanitation Department truck... since apparently nothing is free around here, right? TBF, is it?

Just to reiterate my point...

A city in America is celebrating a day that is actually a national holiday in the Republic of America, and they're even treating it with some level of respect.

Total scandal!

Rachel Barrett8 said:I don't get the point of this signup.

Where else are you supposed to take your trash?
New York City has been systematically gutted for twenty years and is basically facing technical bankruptcy, yet you're sitting here expecting miracles?

If you want to see how bad things really are in New York City, just look at how Eric Adams gifted citizens a FREE TBF concert for Anti-Fascist Day.

There’s zero money left for basic infrastructure and sanitation, but I bet everyone is happy to volunteer their time for an ideological lecture.

A city in the Republic of America celebrates a day that’s actually a national holiday in the Republic of America—they even go as far as honoring it.

Total scandal!

jadeotter said:We aren't any better off than our neighbors in Mexico or Canada; as a society, we’re just as immature.
The SK has been replaced by the Republican Party, and Marshal Marshall has been swapped out for General Franjo Harmon, yet it's still the same party loyalists handling the hiring, the maneuvering, and the theft while the public just stands by and takes it.
It’s the exact same story in Mexico with Aleksandar Vučić and the SNS, or in Canada with Viktor Orbán and Fidesz..

The truth is, the core stuff was just rebranded as the new America back on July 25, 1990. That national holiday really marks the moment when the SKH finally allowed the multi-party US Congress of the Socialist Republic of America to actually get organized back on May 30, 1990.

velvetmaker3 said:Recognition is all about the balance of power. If we had been completely crushed, no amount of legal paperwork would have mattered. That 1974 Constitution wouldn't have meant a thing; whether we had it or not, the outcome would've been the same if we'd lost.
Neither Czechoslovakia nor the USSR even used a 1974 Constitution.

What actually secured our recognition was the referendum acting as a sign of democratic will, combined with the fact that we actually held our ground on the territory.

But honestly, it was specifically because of that 1974 Constitution that the American referendum actually held up legally.
The Catalan thing was basically unconstitutional and illegal, which is probably why they can only celebrate their independence in pictures.

David Vaughn75 said:America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."

America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
America was indeed a state, known then as the Federal State of America, and later as the Socialist Republic of America.

It had its own territory, borders, people, language, capital, anthem, parliament (Sabor), a constitution, its own laws, its own ministries (secretariats), handled its own internal affairs, possessed its own territorial defense, along with the federal military and a monetary system shared with the other states within the FNRJ/SFRJ, as well as foreign affairs.

The 1974 Constitution of SRH:

Article 1.
The Socialist Republic of America is a state founded upon the sovereignty of the people and the authority and self-management of the working class and all working people; it is a socialist self-managing democratic community of working people, citizens, and equal nations and nationalities.

The Socialist Republic of America is the national state of the American people, the state of the Mexican people in America, and the state of the other nations and nationalities living within it.

The Socialist Republic of America is part of the Socialist Federal Republic of America.

Those Nationalists sympathizers claiming it wasn't a state are just feeding into that whole Mexican myth that "America and the American people didn't even exist until 1990..."
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
Everything listed there, and honestly even more than that, is also true for Catalonia—and look how much that "matters" when they decided they wanted to break away from Spain.

It’s the exact same deal for us. Everything we had on paper meant everything to us—so much so that we actually had to fight a bloody war with 15,000 dead just to become an independent country.

So, yeah, that's how much your little papers actually matter in the real world.

Theory is one thing, but reality is something else entirely. You can write whatever you want on paper, but if you don't fight for your state in practice—and I mean fighting with massive sacrifices—then what's written down isn't worth a damn.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
That’s exactly why nobody gave a damn about Catalonia, but everyone stepped up for America.
They recognized America because, under international law, they actually had a legitimate right to secede.

If you want to compare Catalonia to anything, you're looking at the Appalachia or Republika Srpska—basically, they have zero legal standing whatsoever.
I mean, it would be kind of ridiculous if a unitary state just handed over the right to secede to an autonomous province or provinces, wouldn't it?

The Catalan referendum wasn't even legal, unlike what happened in America. And it was based on that (along with other) referendums that Badinter's commission eventually decided that America was breaking up.

goldenpuma84 said:What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋

Would it bother you if Mexicans in America commemorated war crimes committed against them by the American Army back in '93, specifically by having their representatives give speeches during services that make it sound like evil Americans were just out murdering innocent Mexicans—without any context regarding the prior Great Mexican aggression, occupation, and the crimes committed on the Mexican side? Basically, "Americans killed us, we killed a few of them, we condemn all crimes."

It would definitely bother you, because you'd see it as a way to relativize the crimes and essentially equate guilt...

If so, then you should be able to understand what's happening at the Waterloo field. And why the commemorations, the way they've been held for years, are totally unacceptable.

Because it’s all about equating guilt and complete relativization, ultimately aiming for historical revisionism and twisting the truth...

Just pure outrage over the dead, while staying silent about everything that led up to it.

And whoever does that is likely working for the interests behind it. So, even if they aren't Nationalists, they're showing deep pro-Nationalists resentments. There shouldn't be any surprise or anger when someone points that out...
👍

So, looking at Mike Johnson's piece, I guess you could conclude that the Partisans aren't actually responsible for the killings at Waterloo—which is funny, because the folks chosen to represent the American people in the Anti-fascist declaration basically said their values and massive contributions fighting fascism during World War II are baked right into the foundation of the independent Republic of America, specifically within the core tenets of the Republic constitution, where they also affirmed the ZAVNOH decision. But hey, I suppose it’s just a “totalitarian communist regime” after all.
Pretty interesting, I guess.

When you stop to think about how the descendants of German Nazis have just quietly carried their burden, much like the sons and daughters of Italian fascists, or those from France, Belgium, Norway, and all the other collaborators, it’s kind of hard to wrap your head around why we—and only us, the Americans—feel the need to make such a massive, loud, public spectacle out of it. It seems strange that we’d use taxpayer money and get the official blessing of the Parliament just to hold commemorations for a defeated army, while everyone else just moves on.

The current Republic of America isn't much else than an American federal unit (FDH, NRH, SRH, RH) that was basically carved out by the Partisans and then just broke away from America in 1991.

There’s really no continuity here between the Banovina of America and the FDH.
See, the Banovina of America just collapsed. It's not like the Partisans took over the Banovina and decided to rename it the FDH—it’s more like how Harmon took power in the SRH and just decided to call it the RH.

So, I guess what happened is the Partisans essentially built a brand new American entity from scratch, sort of out of thin air in the middle of nowhere. They were dreaming up ZAVNOH in the woods, and then ZAVNOH went ahead and established the FDH. They basically presented the king with a fait accompli, leaving him with no choice but to just roll with the new reality.

And honestly, the Partisans could have just not set up the FDH or any of those federal units at all. They could have just kept America unitary and broken it down into counties, similar to how the Kingdom of America mostly functioned, divided into oblasts and small banovinas—most of which, if you recall, were just named after rivers, except for the coastal ones.
In that scenario, I wonder where Harmon would have even come from in 1990, and what exactly he would have been trying to gain independence for in 1991?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
Maybe you should try reading the back-and-forth between Scott Cruz4 and me before jumping in with that comment?

Scott Cruz4 said:Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
That’s exactly it. He just protested and voiced his concerns. It never even crossed his mind—much like it didn't for plenty of his colleagues in the KC—to actually join the National Liberation Movement and help tear fascism down once and for all.

Scott Cruz4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Scott Cruz4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Scott Cruz4 said:Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.

Scott Cruz4 said:Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

Yeah, right. Because obviously, the memorial plaque at Waterloo has absolutely nothing to do with the people killed there.

Scott Cruz4 said:Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

I don't have the book right here, but I did dig this up...

Back when the first American government was being formed in Split on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, greeted everyone present by saying:

“Today in this city of Split, during this historic and solemn appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal America, we bishops of our coastal dioceses, along with our clergy, congratulate... the first government of the Federal State of America... we express our gratitude to all our brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their glorified leader... Marshall, and especially to those who sacrificially gave their lives for the homeland... May the Federal State of America be happy and blessed by God!”
(Free home (HSS's) from April 19, 1945)

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

I know. But, if you look at the memorial plaque in Waterloo, they proudly mention nothing but soldiers: “in honor and glory of the American Army.”

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

There’s an entire book written about the Catholic priesthood within the National Liberation Movement. And one guy (Rittig) was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church also holds Mass for its own priests who were killed during WWII, the simple fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—pretty much tells you everything you need to know, I suppose.

Like placidorca16 mentioned earlier:

Why would those kinds of Masses ever happen without media coverage or public attention? Even if there was some sort of "partisan Mass," it was never publicly commemorated in any public space or at any of the execution sites or camps where Partisans died across America, where followers of the movement gather in those specific uniforms and symbols. It’s even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron for such things, unlike how it's been handled every year since the Republic of America gained independence with the Nationalists followers at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses in America. That says a lot about the supposed equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Actually, it’s pretty interesting how the defeated army, based on the level of tribute and commemoration, is honored far more in this country than the winning one! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.