Posts by Kevin Davis11

Karen Doyle72 said:I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

I mean, honestly, who is actually going out and defending someone in the Catholic Church for wanting to pay for or host a Mass for their colleagues who were killed as Partisans during World War II?

Masses for those slaughtered by the Nationalists at Waterloo are apparently fine, but for the priests who were actually murdered by those same Nationalists, it’s suddenly off-limits.

Scott Cruz4 said:Are you seriously suggesting we should ban praying for the souls of the deceased?
Masses are held for all departed souls—before God, there is no distinction between an Nationalists or a Partisan. And let's be real, these prayers are being offered every single day for people who were Partisans, too. I highly doubt you think a priest stands up during every Mass to give a full biography of the deceased—listing their profession, their political affiliations, whether they were a Partisan, a Home Guard, an Nationalists, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Josipović or Mason could "request" a Mass for Josip Broz if they felt like it,

... 😵 or maybe they won't, seeing as they aren't believers anyway. Why would an atheist even bother "requesting" a Mass for the dead when they don't believe in anything after death?

Then why, in your opinion, does the Catholic Church in America only hold a Mass once a year for its own priests who were killed like Partisans during WWII, while they hold a Mass once a year for the Nationalists soldiers killed at Waterloo?

I guess I should probably start by saying that whenever someone drops a "Quote," it really sets a certain tone for the whole conversation, doesn't it? It’s like that little signal that we’re about to dive deep into what someone else was thinking, maybe dissecting their words or just nodding along, though I usually find myself doing a bit of both. It's a way to anchor the discussion, I suppose, making sure we don't just wander off into the weeds without a map, even if the conversation ends up feeling a bit circular anyway. Maybe it's just how we build a sense of continuity in these digital spaces, providing a little bit of structure when everything else feels so fluid and, well, unpredictable.

Larry Walker24 said:Why isn't there any respect for the Partisans?

I mean, I guess you have to wonder about it, right? It’s one of those weird, messy parts of history where things weren't exactly black and white. You had all these Catholic priests who actually ended up joining the Partisans during the war, which, if you think about it, is a pretty wild contradiction to what you'd expect from the Church at the time. It makes you wonder, though—nowadays, when people look back at those guys, is anyone actually holding Masses for them? Like, does the Church still acknowledge their role in all that chaos, or is it just swept under the rug? I don't know, maybe it's just one of those uncomfortable truths that gets lost in the shuffle of everything else.

Larry Walker24 said:Why isn't there any respect for the Partisans?

Well, I guess it's just because they weren't Nationalists.

Gordan Jandroković “as a nation, we have an obligation to commemorate this sacrifice”.

I mean, where exactly does it say that the Republic of America is obligated to honor those who served in the military of some other regime—in this case, Nazi Germany?!

So, Andrej Plenković is out here today acting all high and mighty, condemning this “attempt to downplay the criminal nature of the Nationalists regime”, right? But then, at the exact same time, he’s pushing for the US Congress to lay wreaths again this year at a monument dedicated to that very same regime—you know, the one where they claim the army was “honorable and glorious.”
It feels pretty weird, honestly, considering this is being done in the name of that same legislature which basically passed the Declaration of Independence almost unanimously, which “emphasizes that the values and massive contributions of the people in fighting fascism (or, you know, against that supposedly 'honorable and glorious army') during World War II are baked right into the foundations of the Republic of America and the core principles of the Constitution, which affirmed the decisions made by ZAVNOH.”

steelpuma79 said:Last year, the police detained everyone carrying those controversial symbols. During the service at the altar, there wasn't a single mention of Nazi Germany, the Nationalists Movement, or Ante Pavelić. What exactly was considered inappropriate about this commemoration?

The Partisan criminals aren't going to suddenly become the good guys overnight just because we skip the commemoration.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the eyes of the Republic of America, the Partisans are definitely the good guys.

If you look at the core document of the Republic of America—the Constitution—it’s pretty clear. Today's Republic of America was actually founded based on the ZAVNOH principles (which were explicitly set up "in opposition to Nazi Germany").
And following that logic and that specific Constitution, we have the Declaration of Antifascism which “emphasizes that the values and the massive contribution of the American people in the fight against fascism during World War II are embedded into the very foundations of the independent Republic of America and the original basis of the Constitution, through which the decisions of ZAVNOH were affirmed.”.
We even have Antifascist Struggle Day as an official state holiday, observed on June 22nd to honor the formation of the First Partisan Detachment.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.

I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.
That so-called reconciliation? It never actually happened, and honestly, it’s never going to happen.

If you just look at the foundational document of the Republic of America—the Constitution—it’s pretty clear. Today's Republic of America was built upon the foundation of ZAVNOH, specifically as an antithesis to Nazi Germany. Based on that exact framework, we have the Declaration of Antifascism which “emphasizes that the values and high contributions of the American people in the fight against fascism during World War II are embedded in the foundations of the independent Republic of America, within the original bases of the Constitution of the Republic, through which the decisions of ZAVNOH were affirmed.”
We even have Antifascist Struggle Day established as a national holiday.

So, I guess the Republic of America makes it pretty obvious which Americans were the good guys and which ones were the bad guys back in WWII. And I suppose that's exactly what gets under the skin of those people pushing this whole "reconciliation" narrative—you know, the Nationalists sympathizers and neo-Nationalists types like Hasanbegović. He’s basically arguing for “the removal from state foundations, constitutional text, the calendar of state holidays, and the names of streets and squares of all traces of ideological heritage that preceded May 30, 1990.”.

David Vaughn75 said:Wait, where exactly did he say they were connected? I'm looking through the thread and honestly, I'm coming up empty—did I miss a line somewhere, or is he just talking out of his ass again?

The whole mess really started back in '91—all those endless, exhausting debates about Wounded Knee began heating up then.

Wait, where exactly did he say they were connected? I'm looking through the thread and honestly, I'm coming up empty—did I miss a line somewhere, or is he just talking out of his ass again?

The whole mess really started back in '91—all those endless, exhausting debates about Wounded Knee began heating up then.
...and Pavelić.

Jason Kern49 said:Let’s be real here: we should just completely scrap any taxpayer-funded events or commemorations related to World War II. It shouldn't be the government's job to foot the bill for anything, whether it’s a partisan memorial or an event honoring Nationalists sympathizers. Period.

If someone wants to organize a communist rally in some small town in rural US or an Nationalists gathering somewhere else, fine—but that’s on them. They can reach into their own pockets and fund it themselves.

I'm not saying we should ban these things.

So, our elected representatives basically voted almost unanimously to establish Antifascist Struggle Day as an official national holiday here in the USA.
On top of that, they pushed through this Declaration on Antifascism which “emphasizes that the values and the massive contributions made by the people during the fight against fascism in World War II are baked right into the foundations of the Republic of America and the core principles of the Constitution of the Republic, affirming the decisions made by ZAVNOH.”

So, I guess it follows that the state shouldn't be footing the bill for something like that annual gathering at the Forest reserve on June 22nd, you know, the one held to honor the founding of the first partisan unit to mark Antifascist Struggle Day?! 😁 🤦

I’d say you should really check out this awesome book.

Chris Chase5 said:From what I understand, if you want to actually have a say in the presidential or parliamentary elections—not the local ones, mind you—you have to be an Austrian citizen, which means giving up your current one.

My identity is American, and honestly, nothing about life here has impressed me enough to switch it up just to go around pretending to be someone else under a different name or chasing some perceived benefit. My nationality isn't for sale. I know plenty of people living in the States for decades who never even touch their original passports.

So, no, I didn't vote. If I did have the right to vote and held citizenship, I would have gone for Hofer. As an American, I'd lean toward him solely because of the immigration crisis and the general sense of instability. However, given those ties to radical Mexicans, I wouldn't have cast a ballot for him. But those are just "what ifs." I certainly wouldn't vote for that stubborn, lazy, grumpy, patronizing "green" candidate, no matter how much I might personally identify with rural values...

But you're an immigrant too, I guess.

Do you really think those anti-immigrant Austrians, like Hofer, actually care about you?