In Defense of the Church

I was raised a Catholic, and its often said that 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic', even with a lapsed one like me.

For me, the final break with the Church was during the great child sex scandals of the 1990s and beyond.  And it wasn't so much that priests were molesting little boys, which was horrible, but how the Church tried to cover it up.

I felt that the way the Church tried to use political power to shelter the accused priests, hide them, and keep them from prosecution was totally without honor.  It was the straw that broke the camel's back for me really.  The act, harkening back to medieval times when the Church and Pope could literally order kings and princes around, was so insensitive and out of touch with modern reality, that I still can't believe they did it.   Perhaps they felt that trying to keep a lid on it and stop more information from getting out was going to save them face, well it didn't.

Anyway, some years later, people really started speaking out more on the Church's involvement in World War II with the Nazis.  There was a well-known book called Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell which seemed to be more rooted in the ancient anti-Catholic feelings of the British than anything else.  

As an armchair amateur historian of the period, I have read quite a bit about the Nazis, and their involvement with the Catholic Church.  Even though I am disgusted by how they handled the child molestation crisis, I cannot agree that Pius XII was going around heiling Hitler and cheer-leading the Nazis.  

Its a bit more complicated than that, as it always is.  

"Even so, the notion that there might be some authoritarian, patriotic, anti-Marxist, residual 'good' in Naziism, that National Socialism, notwithstanding everything, might succeed some day in eliminating from its programme and its activities all that which conflicted in principle and practice with Catholicism."

"...the potential, too, for driving a wedge between 'the god fearing statesman' Hitler and the anti-Christian Party radicals, especially Rosenberg."

The Hitler Myth, Ian Kershaw, p.36-7


This pretty much sums up everything that I've read about the troubled and murky relationship between the Catholic Church and Nazis.   Basically, the Catholics thought they could "handle" Hitler.   The Church of the day feared communism/marxism much more than the up and coming Nazi movement and hoped to use it against the communists.  Also, they believed they could do a "Bene Gesserit" with the Nazis, to use a reference to Frank Herbert's Dune series of books.  They thought they would get into their minds, use them against each other, manipulate them.   The last quote really bears that out when they thought they could separate Hitler (who was still seen as vaguely moderate, had been raised as a Catholic himself, and was still claiming to believe in god) and more pagan members of the Nazi movement like Heinrich Himmler and Alfred Rosenburg (who wrote "The Myth of the 20th Century" advocating a new pagan religion and denigrating Christianity as an evil Jewish plot).

This last part alone indicates why any hope to "handle" the Nazis was doomed to failure.  Hitler was not a moderate believer in God (or even gods) but a master cynic and propagandist who said whatever words he had to to get people to follow him.  Hitler also supported his followers weird beliefs, such as Himmler, although he did break off with Rosenburg eventually when his pagan beliefs went a little too far even for Hitler.  

The main crime of the Church in this period was overlooking the Nazis' plans for the Jewish people.  Many have argued back and forth that while the Church didn't try to put its foot down and condemn what the Nazis were doing, that they did seem to try to save individual Jews.

Also, there is the times themselves.  Its easy to look back in hindsight and make judgements but in 1940, it really did look like Nazi Germany had won!  They had overrun France, Poland and several other countries in Europe.  Britain was purely on the defensive with few choices for offensive action.  And Germany had recently signed a deal with the Soviets (fully planning to reneg this deal and attack very soon).  

The Church was assuming that the Nazis were the new bullies on the block (they'd seen a lot of them come and go over the centuries) and were just getting themselves in a position to try and deal with them.  It was a mistake to try and think they could "handle" them though, mold them.  Nazi Germany was being led not even by megalomaniac dictators but by full on psychopaths and sociopaths who were totally out of touch with reality.  

There was also the fact that the Vatican was smack dab in the heart of fascist Italy and only a stone's throw from Germany.  Any true attempt to stand up against Hitler would probably have brought violent and total retribution.  In fact, Hitler did threaten at one point to send his forces into the Vatican and clear the place out.   

This is the point at which more moral and brave people would have stood up and been counted.  Oh, its easy for us, sitting comfortably behind our computers to say "Yeah, I would have stood up, even if I had been shot, people would have known which side I was on!"  Perhaps Pius XII and his followers were a little cowardly if they did fear provoking Hitler to invade the Vatican and drag them away.  After all, such an act would have turned Catholics worldwide against the Nazis.  Of course, it would have meant the end of Pius XII and his officials' lives, and I suppose Pius XII wasn't ready for that level of martyrdom.  

In conclusion, I do not think Pius XII and the Vatican were Nazi sympathizers.  Scared for their own skin, yes.  Arrogantly and naively thinking they could somehow get some control over a bunch of frothing and foaming psychopaths, yes.   All these accusations and others can be made against them.

And like with the modern scandal, it would have been so much better for the Church to have stood up and been counted.  Even at danger of their own lives.  It would have been so much better for the Church to say "Yes, here's these sicko priests, take them away and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law!"  It would also have been better for the Vatican to have told Hitler to shove his kampf up his stupid butt, even if it meant getting on his shit list.  Lots of cool people and innocents got on his shit list and Pius XII would have been in good company.

Are you a male or a female?

I was trying to learn some Japanese lately and picked up a book called Japanese The Manga Way by Wayne Lammers.  Its a very interesting book and I quite enjoy using it.  

I was reading with interest how Japanese has distinct differences between the way men and women speak, as well as different levels of honorific language.   While these distinctions are not as absolute as they once were, they are still very much a part of Japanese culture and must be taken into account.  

I was thinking to myself how its cool that English doesn't have very many weird distinctions like that... until I noticed something in the way Lammers was writing his book.  

In many European languages there are words and expressions that are distinctly used for people and for animals.  It is considered very rude and wrong to use these words for the wrong thing.  In fact, in French, there's a very nasty phrase Beau cul, belle gueule (sp?) which I don't remember how to spell, mostly on account of it being shortened in speech to BCBG.  It means "nice face, nice ass" and is applied when leering over a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, I suppose, if you're attracted to them).  Its like swearing and nasty, but mainly because cul and guele (sp?) are words that would only be used with animals, never with humans.

This is seen also in German and in English.  For instance, no one would ever use the verb breed with people, unless they were trying to be insulting.  

Getting back to Lammers, I noticed in his book that he always refered to the differences between men and women speech with 'male' and 'female.'  Not that strange except that's how he always expresses it.

"Males would use..."  "Females would say..."  instead of "Men would use" or "Women would say..."

Seeing this usage over and over in the book was causing me some cognitive dissonance.  Like a trompe d'oeil or a pothole in the road.

It just struck me that, at least in my experience, English speakers usually do not refer to men and women as males and females in general speech.  Its not really rude, I suppose, just strange.  No one asks where the male bathroom is.  No one asks if a shirt is for females or males.  At least not native speakers. 

Au contraire, you say, what about girls and boys?   When one say s "men would say..." does that apply to boys as well?  

Oh come on, other than being a troll pain in the ass, everyone is going to know that "Men say atsui da yo" applies to boys as well since they are just men who's toys are smaller and a lot less expensive.   As far as I know (which could be more, I'm sure) there has never been a human language with age distinctions between men and boys, women and girls. 

So I guess English does have lots of weird distinctions.  I just never notice because I'm a native speaker, and it isn't until another supposed native speaker starts using words in a strange way that I notice. 

Who Cares?

We've all seen weird and wonderful posts and comments on internet blogs, facebook comments, yahoo news story boards, mod download comment areas, and all sorts of places.  There seems to be one particular quote that is often seen again and again, usually in things that are a bit sweet, glurgy, or "human interest."  Personally, I consider them trolls and trolling posts when I see them.   Yes, its the "Who Cares?" brigade!


It always seems to be the same people or the same kinds of people that do this.  

>"The Queen sends people who reach 100 a birthday card."
Who Cares!

>"Dog saves baby's life by barking the family awake."
Who Cares?

>"Man bites dog, startling photos, story at 11!"
Who Cares?!?

Now, for a moment, let me put on my armchair psychologist, amateur intellectual, hat.  What are these trolls really saying?   Oh I think its the same old story.  If the troll truly didn't "care" about the post, then why even post a response?  Why even acknowledge it?  I don't care about beer making in Bangladesh but I don't go around seeking out people who post about it only to shout out "WHO CARES!"

I think these Trolls are reacting to something else.  They don't want to react to some story: the queen, the noble dog, the strange dog-biting man.  They are desperately trying not to feel.  They are outsiders (hence trolls) and have to try to spread around some of their anti-social feelings.  Its not that they don't care, they want everyone else not to care either, just so we'll be like them.  Or they'll be like us.  And we'll all be together, co-co-kee-choo.

As you can tell by my unflattering analysis of the type of person who knee-jerk reaction posts "Who Cares!" to everything, I find them very annoying.  There's another thing I don't care about: anti-social trolls who try to alleviate their alienation from society by tearing down everything around them screaming "who cares!"  

So, instead of trying to get everyone around you not to care, dare to feel!  Dare to integrate!  Dare to stick your heart out there on display and say "But does the Queen send a birthday card to dogs who save baby's lives only to get bitten by strange men?"  

I do that all the time.  Often I get bitch-slapped down and told to shut up, and that's when people even take the time to notice me.  But the last thing I'm going to do is not care.

An Irony of the Information Age

Way back in 1991, when I was young and had a creative imagination still, I wrote a series of stories about a fictitious people that I called "The Sea People."  I wrote the stories in a 5" x 8" sketchbook.

Since then, I have written various stories, and the beginnings of my 'Great American Novel', typed on computers and stored electronically.  Almost all of these later sketches and writings have been lost in hard drive failures, computer deaths, computer moves, lost loose-leaf printouts.  Almost nothing survives from these later 1990s early 2000s stories.

However, this old 1991 notebook is still with me!  It was in the garage for the longest time until today, I pulled it out to look at it.  This pen and ink (and sometimes pencil) sketch survives where modern information technology does not.  To be fair, I only started using the internet a few years back, and even less actually blogging and recording things online.  But that old 1991 notebook with handwritten stories turned out to be the most resilient of all!

Love Cleaning... yeah right!

I was poking around the 'net as I often do and found a listing of self-help self-hypnosis files you could order.  They were the usual thing: Learn Japanese, Be Successful, Seduce The Entire Lineup of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders... 

Then I saw one that said "Love Cleaning!"

I guffawed.  Yeah, right!  I'm sure these files might help some people, but make me love cleaning?!?  I'd sooner believe the instant seduction and become a millionaire recordings would happen before that!!!

The Ancient Alien Bandwagon

I'm a long time watcher of the History Channel's Ancient Aliens.  There have been many regular 'talking heads' on that show for some time.  However, upon reading their own published works, I've discovered something rather interesting.  Many of the guests and 'talking heads' that come on the show with Giorgio Tsoukalos (a true believer, heir to Erich Von Daniken, and closest thing to a 'leader' in the Ancient Alien Theorist community as you can get) don't actually believe what they are saying when they appear on Ancient Aliens.  For instance:

Graham Hancock:  Very clearly states in his books that he thinks there was a prior human civilization (or civilizations) on Earth that got to a very high level of technological development but then disappeared due to war and/or natural disaster.  Atlantis was one of them.  But no alien interventions were needed and probably did not happen.

David Hatcher Childress: While giving lipservice to the possibility of ancient aliens, his views are very simular to Hancock's.  There were flesh and blood Ice Age (or earlier) human civilizations which are now lost in the sands of time.  

Phillip Coppens: Sadly, he passed away in 2012, Coppens writes in his book, The Ancient Alien Question, that he very much doubts there was actual physical contact between ancient humans and ancient aliens.  If there was some sort of contact, it must have been channeling or some sort of spiritual communication.  

Andrew Collins: In his books "Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods", he refers to the ancient alien theory as a "fanciful notion" which he does not hold with, in this book at least.  Collins sees a world-wide disaster occurring during the Younger Dryas Boundary (when mega-fauna went extinct in huge numbers such as the sabre-tooth tigers and mastodons).  This disaster, probably a meteor or comet, caused shell-shocked human survivors to wander the world.  One such group which already had knowledge of astronomy and agriculture, arrived in the middle east and swiftly became the elites of this area through coercion and conquest.   They were behind Gobekli Tepe.  No aliens, just a slightly more advanced human culture from what is now Southwest Russia that moved down into East Turkey and Northern Iraq.   Collins does stray more into the Occult than Coppens does but still does not think aliens had anything to do with us.

So, it seems to me that when these writers, and others, appear on Ancient Aliens, its only in the understanding that they will agree with the subject matter.  Whether anyone with the show knows their true beliefs, or cares about them, is anyone's guess.   I figure that as long as they tout up the ancient alien line when they come in the studio and make the show interesting, they are welcome. 

The Solutreans: It Wasn't Murder!

I've been reading the book Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods by Andrew Collins.  In it, he analyses the 12,000 year old ruins and tries to explain why hunter-gatherers suddenly begin building complex and highly sophisticated stone circles at Gobekli Tepe.

The book is wide ranging and Collins talks about the Younger Dryas Boundary Event.  Its becoming more and more accepted in archaeology and geological science that something happened around 10,900BC to 10,300BC.  This "event", possibly a comet strike or multiple strikes from a broken up comet, really badly trashed the planet.  The impact event caused the extinction of the ice age megafauna: the wooly mammoths, dire wolves, giant flightless birds, sabre-toothed tigers, and many others.

Collins also mentions: 

"Also around the same time North America's Paleo-Indians, represented by the Clovis culture, abruptly disappear from the archaeological record."

This caused me to suddenly think about the Solutrean Hypothesis.  In a nutshell, it is a hypothesis that says that paleolithic Europeans, maybe as much as 18,000 years ago, had managed to cross from Europe to North America, settling there.  It is a hotly contested theory, being presented in a Discovery Channel documentary called Ice-Age Columbus and other books.   The theory has also been used to try and explain anomalous discoveries such as Kennewick Man.

However, unfortunately, the theory has been subverted and adopted by less savory types such as Neo-Nazis and white nationalists to try and justify their murderous and genocidal wishes.   The unsavory types also conclude, since there were no Caucasian type people in North America when the modern discovery of the continent occurred, that they must have been killed: a genocide carried out by the peoples we now know as Native Americans.  A particularly unsavory young man (now a lawyer practicing in the Midwest) wrote a nasty book outlining this theory, advocating getting revenge on Native Americans and Hispanics with terrible acts of violence. 

The "Clovis Culture", however, is supposed to have been the Solutreans.  The whole theory is posited on the similarity of the arrowheads and stone tools of the Clovis peoples with the Solutrean cultures of northren France and other areas in Europe.  

But for a moment, lets take it as read that the theory is real.  It is now known that Caucasian European types got into areas just west of China, the Tocharians, who's burials have been found in what is now Western China.  The language they spoke, Tocharian, is identified as an Indo-European language.  So, lets for a moment say that some Caucasians from Europe did somehow get over to North America several thousand years before the Younger Dryas Boundary Event.

And now lets take it for granted that the Younger Dryas Boundary Event did occur.  That there was some sort of comet or meteorite impact, or several of them, occurring at one time or over time (there is a possibility that debris kept impacting the planet for some time).  

If Andrew Collins' offhand observation that at this same time, the Clovis people vanished, then I think we can theorize what happened to the Solutreans.  They were not genocided.  They were not murdered by the Native Americans.  

The impacts of so many pieces of comet or meteor would have set off incredible fires, possibly a nuclear winter event.  There would have been widespread devistation, especially in areas hardest hit by the impacts.  And it seems that North America was especially badly effected by this Younger Dryas Boundary Event.  Almost all the megafauna of North America went extinct at this time, vanished without a trace.  Along with them, if they were there, would be the European derived Clovis people.

If the Solutreans in North America were real (which it seems could have been possible) and if some world-wide devastating event happened at the Younger-Dryas Boundary around 10,900 BCE did occur (which is seeming more and more likely), then the unsavory types are wrong.  It wasn't murder.  The Clovis Culture Solutreans were wiped out (probably close to the point of total extinction) by a terrible, horrible, cosmic accident. It effected the whole planet and caused untoward devastation.   

It wasn't murder.  There was no "white genocide."  It was a meteor storm where most of the meteors (or comet fragments or whatever) actually impacted all over the planet.  The Solutreans, caucasians of North America, like the mastadon and sabre tooth tiger, went extinct.