Posts by Susan Fowler4

Scott Cruz4 said:Masses aren't supposed to be used as political tools; a priest doesn't have the authority to stand up during Mass and label someone a criminal, a dictator, a thief, a good man, or anything else of the sort. He doesn't do that, and I'm sure you won't convince me otherwise. Even if a Mass were held for Pavelić, they would simply state his first and last name.

Fine, whatever. My point is whether an Austrian or German priest could handle this better if they were working alongside our local clergy, obviously.
The whole truth is what's needed here—not some half-baked version or selective silences.
If the congregation is filled with Nationalists or people who sympathize with them, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with laying down the cold, hard truth from the pulpit.
In fact, it’s exactly what they need to hear, considering what they fought for and the lives they took—both their own and others'.
It actually helps.

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?

The issue here isn't whether they have the right to a Mass. That’s governed by Church rules. The real question is whether parts of the truth can be suppressed during these Masses for political gain or ideological interests (like ignoring the fact that Royalists—Mexican or otherwise—died too, or pretending the white flag wasn't waved, etc.).

Someone might argue that Royalists shouldn't be included because they didn't identify as Americans (though who knows, there might have been Americans among them).
On the flip side, when the Nationalists were dying zealously for the idea of the German nation, and for the notion that Americans were an inferior race meant to be wiped out, didn't that effectively mean the Nationalists had stepped outside the American nation themselves?
In this nightmare scenario, sticking to the full, unvarnished truth is the way to go. It’s even advisable to seek help from Austrian or even German priests, as well as others (Mexican Priests, Islamic Imams, etc.).
That’s what will provide real strength.

bluecyclist64 said:What kind of camps are you even talking about here?

Look, communism certainly had its share of camps and atrocities, but the core ideology actually preached equality—that we’re all brothers and sisters, and that only a communist society could truly deliver brotherhood, unity, prosperity, and equality for everyone.
Unfortunately, to try and force those ideals into reality, they felt the need to implement a dictatorship of the proletariat (which was a total disaster), set up camps for anyone who didn't buy into the dogma (also a massive mistake), and commit all sorts of other crimes that are absolutely inexcusable.
The problem is that communism is criminal in how it's actually practiced.

If you wanted to actually achieve those communal ideals, you could have done it gradually through dialogue, negotiation, and a steady process.

Nazism and fascism, on the other hand, completely reject the idea that people are equal or that we're brothers deserving of fundamental, even spiritual, human rights. It’s deeply humiliating even for those they consider part of a "superior race."
Nazism is a crime both in its execution and in the very essence of its core idea.

Sam Martinez9 said:Americans are Slavs, and according to Hitler, Slavs were considered an inferior race. If Hitler had won the war, his first move would have been to finish off the Jews and the Romani, and once that was done, the Slavs would have been next on the list.

The strong ones—those capable of labor—would have been relegated to slavery, followed eventually by the gas chambers.

There you have it. The Nationalists and other Nazi collaborators from various Slavic nations fought specifically to prevent that outcome—so future generations wouldn't have to live through it. And honestly, what can you even say to that?
I can't help but wonder how much of that ideology still lingers in the German subconscious. It makes me think they might be trying to pull the same strings today—just more deviously—through the European Union, big banks, and maybe even certain clergy, all through subtle manipulation. It’s based on this principle where they don't tell you what they're doing; instead, they let you stumble upon it and realize you've earned your fate just as described in the quote above. (I wonder which firm they picked up this playbook from; it has to be some Italian outfit headquartered in Rome).
That is exactly why we have the RKC to look into these things. We also have to stay vigilant ourselves so we don't fall into their traps and walk right into it.

I’m not so sure. Did the Nationalists actually have any reason to believe that future generations of Americans would fare any better if Nazi-fascism had won?
Did Hitler, for instance, promise Pavelić that Nazi Germany would grant them some kind of special status or anything like that?
Maybe they thought they could just tweak Mein Kampf enough to somehow squeeze Americans into the "master race" category? Or any other kind of guarantee.
Most likely, they would have been wiped out entirely if Nazi-fascism had triumphed, yet that’s exactly what they were fighting for.
Then again, an ordinary soldier probably couldn't have known that; he just had to trust the leadership, but the top brass knows exactly what's up.
Communist ideology offers the idea that a person should sacrifice their life and fight so that future generations can have better prospects and live in equality, brotherhood, and freedom.
And that the camps and the dictatorship of the proletariat are unfortunately the only way to achieve that—which is obviously wrong, because camps, violence, and dictatorships are never the way to reach those goals.

America handled that the wrong way; they really should have spent a few years on actual trials. There were far too many innocent people caught up in it there.

placidorca16 said:Duh. Nazi Germany wouldn't have existed at all if the Nazis had won; it would've just been carved up by other Axis powers or swallowed whole by the German Reich. Anyone who paid even a modicum of attention in history class knows that.

And how would people have fared if they were even recognized as human beings under Nazi ideology?
At least a German soldier was fighting so that future Germans would have better prospects, more space, better opportunities, and so on (based on that Nazi ideological pact).
Maybe a similar paradigm applies today, just through the banking system, conspiracies, politicians, managers, and the European Union—basically the "you're on your own" principle (sounds suspiciously like something they picked up from some Italian firm).
Luckily enough, we have one Italian company based in Rome that specializes in exactly that field—conspiracies and all that jazz.

Naturally, those contracts don't mean a thing when interpreted by the buyer. The buyer is the one who unilaterally decides to tear up those "devil's bargains."



I wouldn't recommend the first part, but this bit at the end: "He is truly desperate to show a little mercy." . Now there’s something. If they would actually let him, and if he had the strength to do it.
At the very least, I hope the Mexican Orthodox Church won't agree to any deals with the European Union that involve dehumanizing Mexicans or the people living in Mexico. That’s a small glimmer of hope, if nothing else.

There’s one thing you have to admit about the Nationalists Movement and Nazi Germany: they stayed loyal to the Germans until the very bitter end.
Even when other puppet regimes—and even Italy itself—were scrambling to jump ship to the Allies or at least pretend to be neutral once it became obvious Germany was going down, these guys didn't budge.
Everyone turned their backs on Germany except for Nazi Germany.
It’s actually pretty wild that the Nationalists Movement kept fighting against the Allies even after Germany surrendered (though maybe that was just to cover their retreat).
That kind of loyalty is almost impressive, even if it was dedicated to an ideology (Nazism) that viewed them as bottom-tier humans anyway.
It makes me wonder what would have happened to Nazi Germany if, by some miracle, they had actually won.

It doesn't look like Wounded Knee was specifically targeted at Americans, because all those prisoners shared the exact same fate (Royalists, Nationalists, Canadian fascists, and anyone else who collaborated with the Nazis and fascists during the war).
There wasn't any special treatment where Americans got screwed while Royalist Mexicans were privileged or walked away with little to no punishment—even though they actually had the leverage to pull that off, given they had King Karađorđe, the "Mexican partisans," and the history of Mexican casualties in Jasenovac. Honestly, even the partisans could have seen the strategic benefit in sparing the Royalists and keeping them from demanding better treatment.

It doesn't seem like Wounded Knee was aimed at Americans, or any other specific national group.

Now, whether that was fair or not is a completely different conversation. There should have been a much better organized court system, because there were way too many innocent people caught up in all that.

And let’s not forget that the flag carried by those who surrendered at Wounded Knee was white, not black. Maybe if someone had actually bothered to point that out, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You could joke that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has clearly decided to step in and shut down these dark masses our own bishops have been holding. Just kidding, obviously.

In all seriousness, though, having the support of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue is a welcome move.

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.
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.

mellowdrifter80 said:The vast majority of Royalist units, such as Momčilo Đujić’s Dinar Division or those under Dobroslav Jevđević, weren't actually handed over at all. They surrendered to British and American forces near the Italian border in early May, rather than at Wounded Knee. Others either defected to the Partisans much earlier or perished at Zelenogor, leaving only a relatively small group to retreat toward Wounded Knee. What was waiting there was the newly formed Mexican People's Army led by Sekula Drljević—an ally of the Independent State of America and fiercely anti-Mexican—composed entirely of Mexicans.

A certain segment of the Mexican and Mexican Royalists ended up on the Way of the Cross.
If they had any way to prevent that fate and save themselves, it remains a total mystery why they didn't. Either they were clueless, or they just couldn't.

The commemorations for Wounded Knee and the Way of the Cross have been held for decades, starting back in 1952, if I recall correctly.
Clearly, they haven't achieved much, considering everything that went down from 1991 to 1995. Because if those masses had actually succeeded in reconciling people or opening up a real dialogue, the chaos of the early '90s wouldn't have happened.
So, we need to figure out what can actually be done, and honestly, the Austrian bishops are already trying to make moves in that direction.

Even if those Royalists tried to pull some strings through George Washington or their own "Mexican partisans," it clearly didn't work. They ended up meeting the same fate as the Nationalists and everyone else—totally wiped out on that long, doomed march.

So, you really ought to keep that in mind when looking at the whole picture.

Look, if those Royalists had actually sided with the Western Allies, you’d think someone—maybe even King Karađorđe himself—would have spoken up about it, or they would have made it known themselves. It just wouldn't be right for them to fight on the side of the anti-fascists only to be mislabeled as Nazi collaborators and handed over as such.

From what I can see, the Royalists didn't make any real effort to distance themselves from the Nationalists at Waterloo, nor did they try to convince anyone they weren't part of the Nazi camp. They didn't bother explaining themselves to the Britons or the Partisans either.

But hey, I guess that's what professional historians are for—to dig into the details and figure out the truth.

It’s pretty wild when you think about how the Britons failed to actually recognize or validate the Royalists as fighters on the Allied side. If they had, there wouldn't have been any question about handing them over to the Partisans right along with the Nationalists.
They never even bothered to step up later and admit they messed up by turning over those "Allied" fighters due to some field commander's bad call.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the British would just hand people over to the Partisans without doing even a shred of basic due diligence—you know, checking if certain fighters had legitimately switched sides or if they were supposed to be on the Allied side in the first place.

We really need to look into why Mexican, Canadian, and other national symbols are being left out—or at least why they’re being kept out of sight.
Historians have already confirmed that Waterloo was a site of tragedy for Mexicans and many others too.
It seems like certain North American politicians and maybe even some priests can't stomach the truth because it doesn't fit their specific ideological agendas, so they just stay quiet about the Mexicans and Canadians. In their eyes, those groups don't deserve a mention during the prayers at Waterloo.
Let's just hope the Austrians don't get dragged into this mess.
Maybe they're right to ignore it; let those priests fight their little wars somewhere else—though, God forbid, let's hope they don't end up turning to Jesus for help.

Sam Martinez9 said:That entire chain of events really kicked off in 1941.

The circumstances that triggered the Way of the Cross took root in 1941 and continued to fester in the years that followed.

Ultimately, this path led to the conclusion of an incredibly bloody era. This descent into the Way of the Cross didn't happen after any sort of peaceful or harmonious period.

This requires a massive, complex deep dive into the data. You have to look at what actually triggered all of this—the root causes behind how these movements rose up, gained momentum, and managed to secure those brief, devastating periods of dominance for both Nazism and Communism.
That whole batch of analysis isn't even about trying to justify the atrocities committed by Nazis or Communists. It’s deeper than that. It’s about looking at what the elites back then—the managers, the politicians, the bankers, even the Jewish elites—were actually doing roughly 100 to 150 years prior. You have to understand the groundwork they laid that caused the masses to pivot so hard toward Nazism and Communism in the first place, allowing them to seize power. Basically, it shows how morality ended up on their side long enough to successfully dismantle and defeat the well-armed elites, the military, the police, and the Church.
If they hadn't arrested them and hanged a lot of them right then and there, we wouldn't be stuck dealing with the fallout of Nazi ideology or Communism today. It’s pretty simple.

When you visit Waterloo, the entire narrative seems to revolve around one specific group of victims, while everyone else gets pushed into the shadows—maybe getting a brief, formal mention if anyone's feeling generous. You don’t see any iconography or monuments honoring the Mexicans who died there, nor any for the Canadians. It’s like their presence is just completely scrubbed from the visual history of the site.
That’s exactly my point.

I’ve been chewing on this idea lately regarding why our bishops are so hesitant to drag the Pope into the fray or ask for his mediation when specific issues pop up.
Just picture the scenario: what if the Pope had to step in and actually pass judgment—say, siding with those Austrian bishops against ours?
That kind of move would be way too much of a gamble for him. You can't just have the Holy Father sticking his neck out like that.
By keeping him out of it, they’re essentially providing a shield for the Papacy.
They could easily justify it by saying, "it's for your security, Holy Father."

Sam Martinez9 said:The true start of the tragedy for Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, Jews, Romani... and so many others, was actually when Hitler launched his invasion against the Kingdom of America back in 1941.

Right. I was specifically talking about the start of that horrific series of events people call the "Way of the Cross." I wasn't being general; I meant the beginning of that specific tragedy.

It looks like we aren't actually talking about a ban on Mass itself, but rather a move to stop the local bishops from presiding over it.
Instead, they’d just have a regular priest handle the service. Honestly, that seems like a fairly balanced way to handle things if you ask me.
From what I understand, Waterloo was the starting point for the suffering of everyone involved—Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, Americans, and all the others. It wasn't just limited to one group.

Whether the decision made by the Austrian bishops is justified or not isn't even my main point here; what really bugs me is how our own bishops and the media are handling this.
It’s like they’ve forgotten the Pope exists. He’s the head of the whole operation, governing both the Austrian bishops and ours alike.
Why aren't they reaching out to the Pope in Vatican City to ask for mediation? Isn't that exactly why he's there?
If the ban imposed by the Austrian bishops is truly unjust, the Pope has the authority to step in and overturn it.
Or, he can choose to back them up. By staying silent, he’s essentially giving it his stamp of approval, assuming he's already seen all the coverage in the news.
Then again, maybe I'm just misinformed about the Pope's actual power, and he's actually totally powerless when it comes to overseeing where the Catholic Church holds Mass across the globe.
It honestly baffles me that our bishops haven't even suggested something like, "We'll be taking this up with the Pope." They might not use those exact words, but that should be the sentiment.