Throwing out Baby with the Bathwater, Part 2

There has to be an external structure driving this attitude, or perhaps more tellingly, society's approval of it. To identify this structure, the old advice of "follow the money" could be aptly translated into "who benefits by this?" The turned-out children certainly don't -- yes, some of them may learn hard lessons, avoid catastrophic incidents, and somehow pull themselves up by their bootstraps (which has never happened quite as much as some would have you believe -- we ALL need other people most of the time). Even if the parents do get a small thrill out of having more pocket money available by turning out a child, it is hard to imagine that in the psychological long run, a parent is really going to feel good about the situation, particularly if the child doesn't turn out better or comes to a bad end.

Employers. Now here's a class who can really benefit from this practice. Herds of kids with few skills turned out every year and very ripe for economic exploitation. Interestingly, republicans and other American conservatives are the ones who most often trumpet the need for tossing the children out of the house. The republicans . . . the political best friend of American big business, also known as practically unrestrained capitalism.

Honestly, it is hard to imagine other parties who benefit from the practice of expelling children from the house at a given age. Having come to this conclusion, one must of necessity begin to wake up and smell the propaganda -- a propaganda that has been successfully foisted onto American society for decades -- a propaganda that tells parents it is okay to ignore their deepest instincts and to turn their backs on their own flesh and blood. All in the name of a specious "self-sufficiency" (how many people are really self-sufficient, for crying out loud, we all draw various services and products from other people), a "self-sufficiency" that in fact makes the child dependent on employers and other strangers.

But then, if the powers that be want control, the inherent strengths of that society must first be defeated. The most basic strength a society has is the family structure. It is our true tribe, and in a functional family, the members know that they can always rely on one another. Break that tribe up, and its members are at the mercy of practically everything. And there is nothing good about that.

Yes, this practice stinks. Through vile propaganda, families have been duped into a form of self-destruction and the provision of their own children, in distinctly unfavorable circumstances, to employers who think nothing of exploiting the children to the hilt. As anyone who has looked for work knows, the best way to find decent work is through the influence of colleagues -- but this practice almost completely rules out such influence. This practice throws the kids to the wolves, and we are told this is good. As most kids are given notice by their parents around the age of 12 or 13 that they will have to earn their own income after age 18, one also wonders if that does not tremendously corrupt the children's sense of security and feelings of trust in their parents -- with a nice five to six-year period for the kid to think it over, and likely not to have anyone with whom they can share their angst about the coming change.

This practice might be good for a capitalist economy, but it is poison for families and ultimately, society itself. Don't be misled by the propaganda. Know this practice for what it is, and arm yourself with the knowledge. Your children may benefit from it.

Throwing out Baby with the Bathwater, Part 1

In the USA, there is a widespread belief that a child should be turned out of the house at the legally (and arbitrarily) defined age of majority, i.e., 18. This author has heard the sentiment often expressed, and while it seems to cut across economic lines, the sentiment is most often expressed regarding sons. One supposes that daughters are expected to get married and thus relieve the parents of an economic burden in a different fashion.

Is this a harsh assessment of these sentiments? Well, considering the following comments pulled from the internet, there appears to be a definite financial aspect to the mentality:

Then, from the onset, make sure that each child understands that when he turns 18, he is responsible for his own life, including earning his own tuition for college through loans or scholarships, and all other living expenses. There can be no free ride for children once they reach their majority.

Yes, as if "18" is some magic age whereby every child instantly realizes their role in life, and knows how they are going to financially hack the incredible expenses involved with attending college.

If the child fails to get a job, don't let them back into the house. A few nights spent sleeping on a cold park bench is likely to provide a lot of motivation. ( And in the long run, is likely to be better for the child than continued coddling.)

Wow! Let's put them on the park benches, that'll teach those lazy young-un's! Hopefully, they won't get raped, robbed, or murdered while learning what street life is like. Depending on the police attitude of a locality, they may even be jailed for vagrancy. Certainly, there are many fine things for a young person to learn in jail, especially from the more experienced inmates.

Along these lines, why not make a MySpace account dedicated to your slacker kid and post his sad life for all to see?

Ah, humiliation. Well, a big red A is certainly better than pointing to a park bench.

Sheesh, looking at these comments, one would be hard put to believe that people are talking about their children. But then, this is the USA we're looking at in these instances. Not that Americans are particularly bad parents, but I have to believe that American society has been propagandized on this point. Let's consider a couple of facts:

Fact: No wealthy family would EVER adopt any of the proposals quoted above. Okay, the wealthy have money, so financial pressure isn't a real issue. But there is more than meets the eye here -- as many middle-class families could also support their children longer, but have been socially trained that it is inappropriate to do so. And yet, it IS appropriate for the wealthy to shelter their children as long as necessary?

Fact: Other modern societies do not advocate turning children out of the house at some magic age, to the contrary, children tend to stay much longer in their family's houses in these countries -- causing no apparent damage to their societies. In some of these countries, multiple generations live together quite happily in the same house -- might one dare suggest these are healthy, functional families?

Well, it is apparent that parental money and who gets it is a driver in this attitude, leading one to conclude that there is some personal greed involved. Greed is certainly nothing new, but what is interesting in the "boot them out" attitude is that this attitude, while destructive to society's most basic unit (the family), is generally approved by society when it is applied to middle- and lower-class children. Call me skeptical, but historically, societies that have engaged in self-destructive behavior haven't been long for this world. Conversely, those societies that have treasured the family above all else tend to be around for a long time, even if they aren't the king of the hill all of the time.

(Continues in Part 2)

A Fascist Masterpiece

(Pictured: Polish 18th Uhlan Regiment)

Of all the nations that fought in the Second World War, Poland has perhaps had the most lies told and pervasive myths spread about it. The bare facts of Poland's participation in the war are grim: Over six million dead (more or less evenly split between Jews and Christians) and the highest per capita civilian losses of the war. The various Polish armies of the war hold the distinction of being the sole allied force to have fought on every major front in Europe.

How is it, then, that in popular western memory, the Poles are remembered as romantic (or worse) fools whose most memorable action of the war were the cavalry charges against German tanks in 1939?

In fact, horse cavalry troops were used by every army (yes, even the Germans had horse cavalry divisions) on the eastern front during the Second World War. Indeed, the Soviets did not disband their horse cavalry units until the 1950s! There is no mystery, incompetence, or misplaced romanticism here. The use of mounted troops was driven by the vastness of the land on the eastern front, and the relative lack of good roads in the region. Put another way, horse mounted troops were exceedingly useful to all combatants in eastern Europe. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Polish army of 1939 counted several brigades of horse cavalry.

The legend of the Polish cavalry charges against the German tanks is just that: a legend. It is a legend that had its birth in the foul practice of wartime propaganda, and as such, it has represented an enduring triumph of fascist propaganda since so many people continue to believe what is essentially a lie.

A good description of the battle that led to the propaganda can be found here, but the essence of the action follows.

On the first day of the war, German infantry of the 20th Motorised Division paused near the village of Krojanty to rest in a nearby wood. The Germans made the mistake of letting their guard down, and were surprised and routed by a mounted cavalry charge of the Polish 18th Uhlan Regiment. Here is an essential clue that what we have heard all along is wrong somehow -- the Poles are initially victors, not hapless fools better suited to an earlier era. But, as the Polish cavalry completed their charge against the German infantry (cavalry charges can't be stopped at a moment's notice), German armored vehicles entered the battlefield. Before the Poles could get their horses out of the area, the German armored vehicles fired on them using machine-guns, causing predictably high casualties given the high profile of the mounted troops. There was no cavalry charge against tanks. The resulting Polish casualties laid the foundation for the propaganda blitz that followed.

German and Italian journalists were brought to the scene of the battle and shown the German armored vehicles and the fallen Polish cavalrymen and their horses. Reports to the press soon followed that described a mythical battle in which the Polish cavalry heroically but stupidly charged German tanks with lances and sabers. According to the site mentioned above, the Soviets continued to fan the flames of this particular bit of propaganda after the war, as they wished to make the prewar (republican) Polish army look ridiculous in the eyes of a people who still mourned for their dead and honored in particular those who had fallen in 1939.

Ironically, in 1945, the 1st Army of the Polish People's Armed Forces counted among its major units the 1st Cavalry Brigade. Among its more famous actions was a horse-mounted charge near Berlin that stormed and overran a German antitank gun position near Schönefeld, proving that the era of horse-mounted troops was not yet quite over. Another irony is that though the fascists made much (falsified) hay of the Krojanty battle, there is no shortage of modern Nazi sympathizers who adore the horse-mounted troops of the 8. SS-Kavallerie-Division.

Yes, even the notorious SS had horse cavalry troops. My, how the myths of World War II collapse when given even only a cursory examination . . .

Remembering The Dead

(Pictured: The monument to the Cathars at Montségur)

And the horrible crimes of the Pope's men were not only directed against the living:

As soon as the Inquisitors were back in Toulouse the trials began again, with increased violence. A large number of people were denounced by a former perfectus, Raymond Gros, who had of his own free will become a Catholic convert. His revelations caused a good many posthumous trials to be held: many of the corpses that were dug up and committed to the flames had belonged to the nobility or higher bourgeoisie. In September 1237, too, the cemeteries were subjected to a most thorough official search; the graves of twenty or so of the most highly respected people in Toulouse were violated, and their bones or decomposing carcasses dragged through the streets on hurdles, while the public crier recited the names of the deceased, adding: Qui atal fara, atal pendra [Whoso does the like, will suffer a like fate].

(Zoe Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montségur, Pantheon Books, New York, 1961).

As I mentioned in my first post, these men of the Church and the nobility were monsters, and fully deserve to be remembered as such -- and certainly, they should have never been given the multiple free passes that have been bestowed upon them by a corrupt establishment throughout history. Know the truth, and should you ever have the sweet fortune to journey to Montségur, kneel before the monument to the Cathars, and recall the courageous example they set for us all.

A Breath of Truth

(Pictured: Ruins of the Cathar citadel of Montségur)

Happily, there are saner viewpoints to be found in print, but not in standard historical works:

By 1244, over 100,000 Cathars were slaughtered by the specially named Albigensian Crusade that began in 1208, in what was effectively the first act of European genocide -- although this fact is rarely, if ever, taught in schools, even in France. Yet this crusade was remarkable for many reasons, not least because it involved Christians murdering other Christians in a Christian country on the pope's orders, and the dignity which the thousands of Cathars met abominable torture and an agonizing, fiery death. . . . The Church -- and in particular Pope Innocent III -- cast its avaricious eyes upon the land of milk and honey that was the Languedoc in those days and decided to take it for itself: the heresy of its inhabitants being a useful excuse for such dire depredations that the area never recovered. Today it is still the most economically depressed area of France, in stark contrast to the more famous 'south of France', the moneyed lushness of neighboring Biarritz and Monte Carlo. The genocide that ended in the killing fields below the citadel of Montségur in 1244 created shock waves that reverberate to this day, including -- although the area is outwardly Catholic, a distinctly wary attitude to the Church.

(Lynn Picknett, Mary Magdelene, Carroll and Graf Publishers, New York, 2003)

Wow! Finally, an author with some grasp of morality and basic human decency; how utterly refreshing after confronting the entrenched lies of the establishment. Note how Picknett's appraisal of Languedoc's "recovery" makes a mockery of C. Warren Hollister's curious notion that everything in "southern France" was swiftly set right once the "real" church had properly triumphed. Amusingly, in Picknett's reporting of these events, Pope Innocent III doesn't come off as so heroic, or dare I say, innocent. And thankfully again, Picknett calls the crusade for what it was -- a holocaust directed against the Cathars, and a ruthless pillaging of Languedoc.

and God-Damned Lies.

(Pictured: Cathars being marched to their deaths)

As the thirteenth century dawned, the Albigensian heresy was expanding so swiftly that it posed a dangerous threat to the unity of Christendom and the authority of the Church. Orthodox Christians regarded it as a horrible infection spreading through the body of Christendom and threatening it with death. Pope Innocent III, recognizing the gravity of the situation, tried with every means in his power to eradicate the heresy. . . . When none of these measures succeeded, he responded to the murder of a papal legate in southern France in 1209 by summoning a Crusade against the Albigensians. . . . Southern France recovered quickly from the ravages of the Crusade, with some help from the Kings of France . . .

(Medieval Europe, C. Warren Hollister, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994)

Whoa! Hey Warren, maybe those people in Languedoc* wanted to think differently, maybe they wanted a different life! So why did they have to burn at the stake for such basic desires? Then, one is treated to a view of Pope Innocent III as a "Captain Action" figure who heroically rescues Christian Europe from the clutches of these awful heretics (nice, Warren, how you decline to recognize the Cathars as having had their own church). And finally, we are treated to the absolute nonsensical notion that Languedoc, after having had its greatest cities reduced to ruins, something like 100,000 of its citizens murdered by this criminal enterprise that history has falsely honored with the name "crusade", and its land raped by repeated use of scorched earth tactics by the Crusaders, "recovered quickly from the ravages of the Crusade". If C. Warren Hollister were to experience what the Cathars went through -- wife burned at the stake for being a heretic, house burned down, himself robbed and thrown out of town (a virtual death sentence for a town-dweller given the conditions of the Crusade) -- if he could experience such things, one has to wonder if his statement on the recovery of Languedoc would be half so glib. This is precisely the kind of "oh, it wasn't so bad" crap that is peddled as objective history with overwheening arrogance and astonishing immorality.

*NOT "southern France", for with this false geographical phrasing Hollister implies that, after all, this region is part of France -- but it was NOT part of France until the French king conquered Languedoc in an equally brutal continuation of the first Albigensian Crusade.

Damned Lies,

(Pictured: Simon de Montfort, leader of the "noblemen" who ravaged the Cathars and Languedoc in search of plunder and at the behest of Pope Innocent III)

Fearing to rely on the secular sword and vainly hoping to persuade, the church was slow to act. But repeated missionary failures eventually forced its hand. By 1209 a crusade had to be launched against the heretics in Languedoc, and in the 1230's the new papal inquisition was instituted there and in Lombardy, whence it slowly spread through much of Europe. . . . None of these were more than threats, however, until another triumph of this happy age had borne its fruit . . .

(The Columbia History of the World, John A. Garraty and Peter Gay as Editors, Harper & Row, New York, 1972)

Note the suggestion that the crusade had to be launched, how wonderfully suggestive. Naturally, the propagandist who wrote this masterpiece of confusion fails to mention how utterly corrupt the Church in Languedoc was during that period, or how the papal legate, whose murder served as the pretext for the crusade, was a virulently disliked extremist who was reknowned for his provocations and confident that his status as a papal legate would protect him from well-deserved retribution. It was precisely because the state of the Church was so rotten in Languedoc that the Cathar Church took firm root. And then, that bit about "this happy age" -- but not happy for the Cathars who were burned in the name of fanatical intolerance, eh? Interestingly, I could not determine the author of the chapters in the Columbia work; their names are mentioned in the front of the book, but the various works in the book are not attributed to any particular author. Another example of how frail this book is as a work of history is that, some 700 years later in the narrative, it completely fails to mention the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews in any form!

History of the World? Not my world.

Lies,

(Pictured: The execution of two Cathars)

So what do mainstream historical works say about the Albigensian Crusade? Let us take a casual survey.

In 1244, at Montségur, the holy place of Perfects, 200 recalcitrants were burned alive in one vast pyre.

(Europe, Norman Davies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996)

One has to wince at the use of the word recalcitrants. How sweetly Christian of you, Norman, to take a nasty little slap at people, 750 years gone, who, loyal to their faith unto death, chose to be burned by "good Christians" rather than renounce their faith. These ones who burned were the clergy of the Cathar Church, the Perfecti. Their faith had not been taken lightly, and recanting it was not an option for them. So, after, a siege of months, they finally capitulated, knowing full well the flames were waiting for them. These Perfecti, who enjoyed a reputation for morality and integrity far stronger than that of the Catholic clergy in Languedoc, were true to their faith, and, true to the Cathar perception that the Vatican was the seat of Satan on earth, the Vatican's soldiers destroyed the Cathar Perfecti with fire, the devil's chosen weapon.

Opening Comments

This blog will seem to wander between odd and arbitrary topics -- but, there will be an underlying theme.

The central theme is that I am fatigued. With propaganda, that is. I've come to the (admittedly jaded) conclusion that we are all relentlessly propagandized from birth to death. And I'm tired of it. Now, past the statistically-predicted halfway point of my life, I have grown sick of being told how I should think about things, and I am weary of seeing how often the same old ideas are reinforced in numerous types of communication and media.

The image in this post is symbolic of one example of the propaganda. It may appear to depict events of long ago, but one doesn't have to search long on terms like Cathar and Albigensian Crusade to realize that there is no shortage of opinions supporting the actions of the Church in this period.

So as not be coy, I'll say straight out that the actions of the Church and the "noblemen" they employed to execute the crusade were those of remarkably intolerant, power-fixated monsters. A telling quote about this disgusting episode of history is revealing:

The history of the deeds and actions of these persecuted [Cathar religious leaders] might well have proved as rich in inspiration and instruction as that of a Francis of Assisi: they too were messengers of God's love. It is not immaterial to recall that these torches were put out for ever, their faces obliterated and their example lost to all those whose lives they might have guided during the centuries that followed. Nothing can make reparations for this crime against the Spirit.

(from Z. Oldenbourg's Massacre at Montségur, Pantheon Books, New York, 1961)

The propaganda about the Albigensian Crusade is designed to excuse the Church for its responsibility in calling for the Crusade, and to excuse the reprehensible actions of clerical fanatics whose inhumane behavior justified the Cathar belief that the Church in Rome was the seat of Satan. Amazingly, it is still easy to find those who will defend the Church's actions during this period with gusto! Well known historians continue to present the Church's case, refusing to consider how things must have looked through Cathar eyes in the dark days of the 1200's.

Next post, I will present a couple examples of this. It is just more of the propaganda of which I have grown exceedingly tired, and I feel compelled to share some of these insights.