Andrew Tate for A Teacher?

Some days ago I read a young girl's posting on a well known website, describing her worries about her boyfriend's obsessive admiration for Andrew Tate and his misogynistic "words of wisdom". I didn't know anything about Andrew Tate, but I soon found out that this American born, British citizen had an amazing load of male fans and followers who saw him as their teacher in maleness, "the art of seducing women" as well as in economics. At that point I just shrugged him and his obvious lack of everything I hold dear and worthwhile off. However, a couple of days later I read Greta Thunberg's murder by words of him, and that really made me prick up my ears, so to speak. I started  to read about him, and the more I read, the more I wondered at his status as a self made billionaire, who had obtained much of his riches by selling coarses in "maleness" on the internet through his firm, "Hustler's University. Right from the beginning this guy excelled in coarsenesses against women, and even his Incel-pupils should know that is not the road to follow as it doesn't lead anywhere near success. Contrary to what he preaches women do not belong to men as some sort of house slaves and living sex dolls. Also contrary to his preachings they are doing just fine at driving cars, running businesses, etc., etc..

Greta and Andrew are diametrically opposed to each other. I can't imagine that she has been following his carreer as a kick boxer or as a participant of Big Brother programs, but I may be wrong. Has she read about him being expelled from websites like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and with TikTok (most often) because of his misogynistic teachings? I suppose that made a splash big enough to be heard in Sweden, but it may not be the case. Anyway, she literally "killed him by words" as she attacked the symbol of everything he stands for: His penis.

Normally I wouldn't condone this special kind of body-shaming, but when it comes to Andrew it seems well deserved. The more we learn about his doings in or out of the internet, the more it's obvious that he is a woman exploiter in a more or less criminal manner. When he was accused of rape he and his brother, as well as business partner, Tristan Tate, fled to Romania because they "had a more lenient view on crimes like e.g. rape". That's what he thought, but the actions of tha Romanian authorities a few days ago proved him to be wrong: Andrew and Tristan Tate were arrested with some Romanian associates. The press published photos from their home revealing loads of weapons, ammunition, etc., etc., and what may be women held in captivity. One of the accusations they were hit with was "sex trafficking" with under age girls, and that's the part of the accusations I find the most interesting: Did he - or didn't he - make part of his millions by something that low???????

Part of the alleged crime is what's called "the lover boy method". Targeting women seems to have come natural to the brothers and they are accused of having created an organised crime organisation with the purpose of recruiting and exploiting women. These women were allegedly forced into taking pornographic photoes which were meant to be seen/sold on specialised websites. I take it that that means that either of the brothers seduced women into believing they were a couple of a woman with a boyfriend who just "loved her nude pictures". Some may not have known that these photos were sold on the net.

When Andrew tagged Greta, boasting of his riches and his many cars, he was seen sitting with a pizza box which led to the rumour that that was how he was caught, but it's a false impressions on the part of the press. His targeting Greta Thunberg may have had some bearing on his general attitude, but not on his whereabouts. The fact that his non-provoked attack on the 19 year old girl was noticed by the public led her to send him an ironic reply on Twitter: "This is what happens when you don't recycle your pizza boxes," but it had no bearing on his arrest. 

 

https://nsbpresets.com/andrew-tate-net-worth/ 

 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/12/30/has-andrew-tate-been-released/ 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/andrew-tate-arrested-jerrys-pizza-box/ 

Who Was Kushim???

 

Sitting erect, writing, even with something that might turn into a smile, it's obvious that this scribe is enjoying what he is doing. Maybe he is the Egyptian who wrote a warning against laughing at a cat??? Or could he be the notorious Kushim, counting his - or his boss's (?) - sale of beer? Naahhh, he looks too Egyptian to be from the Uruk period of Sumer which now is known as the South-Central of Iraq, then the Southern Mesopothamia.

This guy is more like what Kushim may have looked like. However, this is only guessing as nobody really knows who or what Kushim was, except that the name may belong to the very first human being in history with a name. There has been some speculations that "Kushim" may be the name of the beer or the brewery, but I don't find that likely. IF, as I for one, believe, "Kushim" is the name of an ancient scribe - e.g. an actual man - then he worked as a scribe and immortalized his name by signing it on several clay tablets that presumably date back to between c. 3500 and c. 3000 BC. For instance there are 77 other tablets signed by "Kushim" from the goddess Inanna temple so he must have been a very diligent scribe. This particular tablet reads: "29,086 measures barley 37 months Kushim."

As this tablet most likely offers the very first signature in history it's strange to know that it has been up for sale several times as for instance at Bloomsbury Auctions on July 8, 2022. The estimate was measley £70,000-90,00 but it was sold at auction for £175,000 ($229,000).

https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/print-edition/2020/june/2447/news/tablet-with-the-earliest-known-record-of-any-personal-name-in-history-offered-at-bloomsbury-auctions/

https://beer-studies.com/en/explorer?geo=87&chrono=136&theme=312

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/whos-the-first-person-in-history-whose-name-we-know 

 

https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/transcript-of-dont-laugh-cat 

 

Wikipedia

Not fair on the camel .....

 

Not a happy situation, and it should make it clear what life is about for RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. However, I bet most of them see their riches as the PROOF of their own merits as well as God's love for them as his "chosen people". That's NOT what Jesus teaches us: "[Mark 10:24-26]  24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”"

The urge to KNOW

 

Recently I read an interview with a Muslim man which made me rethink certain ideas that I've always held to be THE Truth. In my opinion Islam is much more logical than the Christian faith as it presumably was presented as one set of learnings brought to mankind by one so-called messenger from one deity, namely Allah. The Quoran is the story of the meeting of one human being (Muhammad) and one angelic messenger, the angel Gabriel, whereas The Bible is a conglomerate of scripts, legends, testimonials and something looking very much like fairy tales. 

As we know from readings of e.g. the so-called apocryphal scriptures The Bible has been subjected to a certain censorship by the Church and not everything was accepted as a true part of it: What we read as the Holy Scripture is in reality an "embroidery" of tales and testimonials, but The Bible as we know it is not all there is. That means that we may still be surprised by new revelations of what happened back then, several thousand years ago. Archeology may bring even more, also evidence that some of the legends don't hold water when set up against science and  scientific proofs. Would we for instance be surprised to find out that Jesus wasn't killed, but that he escaped the Romans and lived happily with his wife, Mary Magdalene, in France until he died of old age? That's one of the seemingly wilder theorizes about The Crucifixion, but it takes much more than that to prove it. As reported by Isaiah 53 Jesus claimed that he was Messiah and he said that he would be betrayed, condemned and killed, but come back to life. If that testimony was a lie by Isaiah and that the still alive Jesus maybe was left for dead in the grave chamber of the rich man, Joseph, then the Christian teachings are null and void.

There is evidence of crucifixions, namely the penetrated heel bone of a poor, nameless man who died on the cross, but that's no evidence that the same happened to Jesus - or that this specific bone came from his leg ....

Right now many people all over the world, but first and foremost in America, cling to the belief that what was said in the scriptures about Jesus is true, e.g. that it might be scientifically proven if only we found some more evidence. However, to find the remains of Jesus himself would put an end to the Christian faith because then there wasn't any Resurrection, no Ascendance and thus no Eternal Life.
 

Being an Agnostic I always felt that the answers to religious questions would be science. To me that meant that if the sayings of the "Holy Scriptures" didn't hold water to our scientific knowledge then they should be put in the same box as fairy tales, myths and ancient beliefs in non-Christian gods and heroes. However, I've come to understand that sometimes even science doesn't hold water to superstition, religion and the like. The Muslim man in the above mentioned interview said something about "science changing all the time" which in his opinion makes it untrustworthy. That means that what I always have seen as an ongoing, natural development of knowledge often are in fact as delusional as religious tales of supernatural events. Something like that was not what I wanted to hear, but I agree that it can't be denied altogether: Neither religion nor science is the one and only, e.g. undeniable TRUTH human beings always have wanted to find ....

 

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ 

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2020.1786221 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/a-scientific-approach-to-life-a-science-toolkit/convince-me-how-strong-is-the-evidence/

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/the-core-of-science-relating-evidence-and-ideas/ 

 

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/what-is-science/science-has-limits-a-few-things-that-science-does-not-do/ 

 

Wikipedia

The Richest Man On This Planet Was A Muslim Emperor

Mammon by George Frederick Watts, 1885

The world being what it is the chosen value signifyer of our society, namely the chemical element gold, is awesome: We, the humans, have given this otherwise worthless metal power over us. Some have been engulfed by this power and does everything to make it known that they are "golden boys" or "golden girls". One of these people is the former president of USA, Donald Trump, who has a toilet in gold, gold plates, a "gold room" and the image of having been born a "golden boy", i. e. someone who is not only rich, but also super charming and always lucky in whatever he does. Now we know that's not the truth, he never was as "golden" as he set himself up to be ....

Are we surprised that this well-known coxcomb does everything in his power to attain the image of a "golden boy"? No, not really, because now we know more about him and see what he stands for, but what about this man, Winston Churchill:
  

I, for one, was surprised to learn that there was a theft of a 18-karat-gold-toilet from the family home of Blenheim Palace in 2019. Well, it was part of an exhibition of the works by the Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, but still, it was set up to work the way toilets do so those who got to use it were "enthroned" on an artwork worth $6 million solid gold.  

However, no matter what, neither the Trump nor the Churchill families may compete with the 14th-century African emperor Mansa Musa. His wealth has been described as "unimaginable" as well as "incalculable". Something that he himself explained by telling people that in his country gold was growing like plants. If that really was the case, it would lose value, as it's the rarity of gold that makes it valuable .... 

Gold is normally protected in any way possible, but when it comes to Mansa Musa he gave a lot of his belongings out to ferment his power as well as his status. Well, he could afford it as his riches have been estimated to have been $400 BILLION. Neither Trump or the sheiks of SaudiArabia are able to compete with that.

Mansa Musa, The Muslim Emperor of Mali 

Wikipedia

https://toilet-guru.com/trump.html 

https://www.history.com/news/winston-churchill-blenheim-palace-toilet 

 

Women and Body Size

Well, this situation might involve a woman, but she wouldn't be able to do what this woman does. Actually, nobody, neither man nor woman, could fight an entire army, but that's not really the point to me: What I see is a woman of another type than the girlish, flirty and deeply childish art that has been favored by our society for many years. Women are pretending to be younger and weaker, more helpless than they are because it pays off in a patriarchy that salutes these traits in the female gender. Is that why so many men are found to be pedophiles these days? I don't know, but I shouldn't wonder as women have been taught to pretend childishness and helplesness bordering on stupidity for ages. The reason for this is that kind of women may cater up to certain kinds of men whereof many are powerful"pillars of society". It pays off for women to turn oneself into someone weaker than they really are, namely "child-women". The body to go with this type of woman is super-slim, sometimes almost looking frail enough to break.

I once read that the American Wallis Simpson, who enticed Edward VIII and became his wife as the Duchess of Windsor, said that a woman could never be too thin. She felt that to be feminine women should be slender and that was what she herself was all her life. 

Even though many women work out they are still supposed to be smaller and less muscular than men. They themselves tend to see the ideal man as a tall and strong individual who dotes on their feminine smallness just like they love their masculine tallness. Woman will do much to attain the "body of today", but recently I've read some of them give vent to a new and unforeseen problem. One of them said: "I hate that I could write a paper on all the ways weighing less makes me feel like I'm in danger at all times." What kind of danger is that? Well, it seems that it's all kinds of dangers, but first and foremost it's the danger of being overrun, attacked, raped and maybe even killed because being thin the way society tells her is the feminine ideal makes her vulnareble. Actually, fatness or just chubbiness also makes her vulnerable because she may not be able to defend herself if she isn't fit. However, no matter what, attaining the so-called bodily ideal of slimness or thinness seems to pose a totally new and unexpected problem for some women ....

 

"The American Dream"

 

I used to like Americans, but now I'm not so sure anymore: Somehow the jolly worker who definitely is obtaining the cosy house with the white fence for himself and his family has turned into a bitter and overworked slave. As I see it Americans are down the wrong lane when it comes to non-exploitative social settings as people may have several jobs, but still not the income that keeps things going. If diligent workers have to live paycheck to paycheck the system isn't working the way it should.

"As income inequality has increased substantially since the 1970s, the American Dream has begun to seem less attainable for those who aren't already affluent or born into affluence. According to U.S. Census family income data, real family income began to grow much more among the top income group than among other segments of American society.3 For example, the Federal Reserve's 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances shows that the top 10% of the income distribution earned roughly a quarter of all income and held more than three-quarters of all wealth."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/american-dream.asp

That is not a healthy situation for a society, but still, that doesn't kill off that silly "American Dream": Americans don't unite to break the power system of their exploiters, no, instead of breaking it they dream of how they themselves may become rich. Sadly enough that damned TrickleDown scam that started out as a joke has gotten into them ....

USA is spending more on the military than any other country in the world. Health Care like in other Western countries is non-existent. Also it seems that Americans can't study without getting deep in debt and that too is different from other countries. Ask aquestion that takes a scientific answer and you may get a quote from The Bible. It's weird, also because most Americans seem to have a very strange opinion of the Biblical sayings. I always said that Americans confuse Jesus with Santa and they have a way of seeing all their deeds - good or bad alike - as sanctioned by their god. THAT's not religion, but more like "kidnapping" of the god they are purporting to believe in ....

Science is not popular, and more Americans believe in Genesis than in scientific findings. Why? Are they dumb? No, but this kind of (primarily verbal) "siding with God" gives the ultimate authorization of their own life, beliefs and habits where science puts a question mark with everything they are or believe in. Most likely, everyone all over the world likes to be RIGHT, but the Americans took that preference a bit longer, thus turning themselves into (unconscious or naive) hypocrites ....

America is the only country in the world which fought a war about the ultimate exploitation of their fellow men, namely the Civil War about slavery. However, the point is that when that happened, most other Western countries already had given up the ugly habit of exploting dark-skinned people in a gruesome slavery system ....

Yup, and that's very sad, because then we have come to a very costly standstill ....

 

Periods, Male Chauvenism and the Pope .....

Somebody said that if men had periods bleeding would be an Olympic sport and there would be free or tax-deductible menstrual cups, pads or tampons. Everyone would sport jewelry celebrating the happy event of a period instead of feeling ashamed or worried about what's happening.

Those women who hate the idea of this natural, feminine process may have found this part of The Bible troublesome. Actually it may be part of their feelings on the subject:

Leviticus 15: 19-33: "¹⁹ ‘If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be ^[a]set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. ²⁰ Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. ²¹ Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. ²² And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. ²³ If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. ²⁴ And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be ^[b]unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean. 

²⁵ ‘If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, other than at the time of her customary impurity, or if it runs beyond her usual time of impurity, all the days of her unclean discharge shall be as the days of her customary impurity. She shall be unclean. ²⁶ Every bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and whatever she sits on shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her impurity. ²⁷ Whoever touches those things shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.

²⁸ ‘But if she is cleansed of her discharge, then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. ²⁹ And on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. ³⁰ Then the priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for the discharge of her uncleanness.

³¹ ‘Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness when they defile My tabernacle that is among them. ³² This is the law for one who has a discharge, and for him who emits semen and is unclean thereby, ³³ and for her who is indisposed because of her customary impurity, and for one who has a discharge, either man or woman, and for him who lies with her who is unclean.’ ”

While Leviticus obviously was an idiot or, to say the least, very, very unknowable in the female anatomy this guy with the box of Tampax looks like one who knows enough about what's going on to deal with it in a rational manner. And, of course, that's how it should be in our modern society of science and knowledge. 

Women should not be made to feel "unclean" by the bodily process, and they are the only ones who should be allowed make jokes about periods if there are situations where that's what's called for.

However, I feel pretty sure that most - but not all - women would prefer never to have periods. Actually, that's possible and has been so for the last 40 years or so, but the pope was against this "unnatural" development in the lives of women: The hormonal birth control pills were designed in a manner so that those who used it had something that looked like, but wasn't a natural period. Women had to bleed to appease the pope. That's quite interesting: 1) Leviticus is very clear about what makes women "unclean" and thus socially unacceptable, and 2) the pope wants to keep it that way ....

https://www.simplehealth.com/blog/the-pope-and-your-birth-control

https://www.brmc.com.au/portfolio-posts/was-the-pills-21-7-regime-really-invented-to-please-the-pope/ 

 https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-11-due-masculine-dominance-gynecological-science.html 

Strength and Beauty in Female Type Castings

 

Bodybuilder Relna Brewer showing her strength by ripping a phone book apart, 1938

Relna Brewer stood at 5'2 with a weight of 115 pounds, but she was very strong and sported some big muscles. At one point she was dubbed "The Strongest Woman of the World", but at the same time her feminine beauty didn't go unnoticed: In 1939 she won the Miss Venetia beauty pageant. Also she was the stunt double for Marilyn Monroe. All of this means that she wasn't fended off as the female cliché "a strong, but ugly woman". Usually that cliché has been a stop in the career and private lives of many women who have been afraid to lose out in the usual type casting of women that goes more after what's considered "beautiful" than inherent or aquired strength. However, there is no way that kind of social femininity controls might work with someone like Relna Brewer. She is both a very strong and very beautiful woman and nobody can deny it, not even today.

Relna was able to lift four people at the same time, rip telephone books, etc., etc. without losing her feminine grace. That meant that she was someone who surpassed the stereotyped women who were popular at the time. She was no "Sleeping Beauty waiting for the Prince", but an active and strong woman. Her body builder type, so to speak, wasn't the most popular one, namely the "Good Girl", who ended up a housewife and mother. This type didn't in any ways compete with the stereotyped male which was what most men wanted. 

Should women do body building? Well, should men?

 https://www.girlsgonestrong.com/blog/articles/the-original-girl-gone-strong-part-2-relna-brewer-mcrae/ 

https://thedailycrisp.com/a-therapist-tells-us-the-11-types-of-women-and-how-to-deal-with-them/ 

https://thoughtcatalog.com/luke-bennington/2015/03/10-types-of-women-who-make-the-best-wives/ 

https://liveboldandbloom.com/12/relationships/qualities-good-woman

Sportskvinden, der var en mand

 

De Olympiske Lege i Berlin 1936 bød på mange interessante, men ikke specielt Nazi-glamouriserende begivenheder samt resultater. F.eks. vandt den farvede amerikaner Jesse Owens suverænt over den tyske favorit Erich Borchmeyer. Føreren blive vred, da man henstiller til ham om at lykønske sejrherren og siger angiveligt: "Amerikanerne skulle skamme sig over, at de vinder deres medaljer med negre. Jeg giver ikke denne neger hånden." Da den tyske sportskvinde, der stiller op til højdespring for kvinder, viser sig at være jøde, skyndte man sig at udtage hende og finde en erstatning. Man glemte dog at tjekke kønnet, for denne nye deltager, Dora Ratjen, var slet ikke kvinde, men mand. Hvem - og hvor mange - vidste det, og gjaldt det også top-nazisterne? Netop det punkt hersker der stadig en vis usikkerhed om, men Nazi-Tyskland fik i hvert fald én medalje, der ikke var efter reglerne - og det handlede ikke om hudfarve eller religiøsitet, men om køn - og hun/han blev ikke engang nr. 1, men "kun" nr. 4 .... 

Skandalen blev først afsløret senere, men da fortalte flere, at "Dora" altid var meget genert, når sportskvinderne badede og skiftede tøj: ingen havde rigtig set på hende, men nogle havde dog mistænkt, at der var et eller andet suspekt ved denne atletiske højdespringer. Da hun/han blev født i 1918, havde alle været i tvivl om kønnet, også lægen, og hun/han blev derfor opdraget som pige, gik i pige-tøj, etc., så fra starten af var der egentlig ikke tale om et egentligt bedrageri, men en misforståelse. Læger, der kom ind i billedet senere, var også karrige med deres diagnose, men én sagde dog noget om, at visse deformiteter ville forhindre, at kønsorganernes ejerman, dvs. Dora, kunne blive far. Hvorom alting er, så skiftede Dora navn + køn og blev til Heinrich/Heinz. Det skete dog først efter, at hun/han i 1938 vandt i "The European Athletics Championship" med et spring på 1,67 m, hvilket var verdensrekord. Noget, der ikke huede hans/hendes højdespringskonkurrent, Dorothy Tyler-Odam, der skrev og klagede over at blive frataget verdensrekorden af en mand. Denne protest førte til en mere omfattende undersøgelse af Dora, der endte med, at "hun" blev omklassificeret som mand.

For at være ærlig undrer det mig nu også, at "Dora" blev regnet for en ægte kvinde, da "hun" helt sikkert virkede temmelig maskulin i sit ydre. Spørgsmålet er dog, om "hun" snød for at skaffe tyskerne en medalje? Mange har spurgt, og der er opstået en teori om, at "hun" blev tvunget til at forblive i den kvinde-rolle, "hun" var havnet i ved sin fødsel. Da jeg jo tror alt ondt om nazisterne, er jeg fristet til at støtte denne teori, men beviser er der ingen af .....

 

https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kultur/berlin-1936-mandag-den-3.-august-1936 

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/olympic-cheats-through-history/27867140.html

 

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qkyvym/sex-and-gender-in-hitlers-shadow-dora-ratjen-and-the-1936-olympics 

 

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/tag/dora-ratjen/ 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

Jahve, the one and only god?

Presumably Jahve enthroned on a winged wheel

 

I once read that there presumably has been around 3000 gods and goddesses up till now. Actually, I'm sure there must have been even more, but most of these old religious figures have been forgotten or have been absorbed by other deities. One of the reasons for this is that faith changes over time. Once people believed in gods who, for them were as genuine, powerful, and important as Jahve became for us. We tend to laugh a little at those who worshipped these "pagan" gods and goddesses of the past, but that's not fair. To them their gods, and their myths were as true as those that go with The Bible is - or were - for Christian believers. What's interesting is that people tend to build a pantheon in most societies and to fight those who don't believe in their god/gods - that is unless they include the non-believers's deities in their own religion. One thing is for sure, all over the world religions change and develop over time ....

 

When the Jews didn't destroy the inhabitants of Canaan as they had been told to do, but stayed and even married Canaanite women they were exposed to the foreign gods that were incorporated into their pantheon. One of these foreign gods was the Canaanite El who was the consort of the mighty goddess Asherah. Actually, she seems to have had several consorts which makes it interesting that with time Jahve blended in with El: Actually, most - but not all - scholars believe that El and Jahve were - or became - one ....

Asherah

Findings indicate that when entering Canaan the Jews were polytheistic: Jahve was not the omnipotent "sky-Daddy", but was part of a Divine Counsil which ended up being absorbed by him. There are references to Jahve's presiding over a pantheon e.g. in some of The Psalms, and he is called "Elohim". Also other parts of The Old Testament have references to Jahve and his "council". One must not forget that "The Bible" came into being not in a flash, but as a lengthy process of 1000 years: Circa 1200 BC-circa 200 BC. As to Abraham and the other old patriarchs they seem to have come into existence around 721 BC when Israel fell to Assyria. Originally Jahve was connected with the exodus from Egypt, Moses and the Ten Commandments.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council 

 

https://www.openbible.info/topics/jahve 

 

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/ 

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh 

 

 

Askepot og hendes sko

 

Eventyrprinsesserne Askepot og Snehvide føles som søstre, der har mistet kontakten med hinanden, men som stadig har en masse til fælles. Resultatet af alle deres prøvelser med onde stedmødre og misundelige stedsøstre er i hvert fald nogenlunde det samme: de vinder den flotte prins's kærlighed og bevæger sig op ad den sociale rangstige som hans brud, hvilket har været regnet for idealet for kvinder i århundreder. Man stiger ikke i graderne ved at udrette store ting, men ved at være smuk og behagelig, så andre føler sig godt tilpas med én ....

Nej, nej, nej, sådan er det ikke: Askepot er bundet af  aftalen med den gode fe, der forvandlede hende fra undertrykt hushjælp i sin stedmors palads til en dårende dejlig skønhed, der fik chancen for at danse med den skønne prins, som alle kvinder er ude efter at erobre, da han er vejen til social fremgang - foruden at han altså er en laber fyr.
 

Det er faktisk billigt for resterne af det køretøj, som feen udstyrede Askepot med, så hun kunne komme med til ballet, hvor hun mødte prinsen. Trylleri gjorde det muligt, men trolddom har sine begrænsninger, for den virkede kun til midnat, hvor Askepot ville miste sit fine føj og den flotte karet. Surt show, må man sige, men så tabte hun heldigvis sin ene forheksede sko, og den førte prinsen ud på en større eftersøgning, der dog virker ret suspekt i mine øjne.

Ak ja, den mandlige hjerne + hukommelse er ikke altid, hvad den burde være, dvs. set fra et feminint synspunkt. Parterne forenes dog, efter at han har ledt og ledt overalt efter den skønne pige, der forsvandt så brat under ballet. Dermed forventes man at godtage forklaringen om, at de levede lykkeligt til deres dages ende, og det får én til at tænke lidt over sandhedsværdien i dette gamle eventyr: kan det være sket i virkeligheden, eller er det bare en myte? 

Ifølge den græske historiker Strabo og hans ‘Geography, Book XVII.33’ var der faktisk en kvinde, der kom ud for noget lignende. Hendes historie er senere blevet set som en forløber for det velkendte eventyr, men sandhedsværdien betvivles: var der engang en underskøn slavinde og/eller hetære ved navn Rhodopis, der fik stjålet en sko af en ørn, der tabte den ned i skødet på den ægyptiske farao, eller var der ikke??? Og blev denne farao så betaget af skoen, at han gik i gang med en eftersøgning af dens ejerinde? Ikke nok med det, men giftede han sig også med hende??????

Det er en skøn beretning om en kvindes sociale opstigen, der kommer i stand via en total mangel på egen indsats: ørnen gør arbejdet, og skoens ejerinde høster, hvor hun ikke såede ....

Prey of Book Vultures .....

 

The first book I wrote was published with a traditional, Danish publisher, Munksgaard. It was a scholarly treatise turned book about teen  magazines. I'm still proud of it as it was something new: "Ungdomsblade", 1977. Later on I published several other scholarly books with traditional, Danish publishers so I was used to this publishing system which worked fine for me. However, for some time I had been writing fiction in English and as I didn't want to try my luck with traditional publishers in either England or USA I started to look for other possibilities. In a sort of happy-go-lucky moment I decided to publish these books with AutorHouse, UK. Actually, I published four books with them in 2011. At that time I had never seen anything to worry about so I took for granted that this publishing house was a decent and trustworthy company, or put another way: They hadn't been unmasked the way they are now ....

AuthorHouse was fun - and very expensive without doing much for the payment they expected ....

After book four I stumbled upon a platform for free publishing: LULU. Here I published several ebooks, both for children and for grown-ups. This was the "dawn of the ebook" and I enjoyed publishing a lot of books, both with LULU and the Danish publishing firm SAXO like, e.g.:

 

I miss the innocence of that time as one published as one felt like, but alas, it's gone forever. Now a lot of criminal people and devious companies developed within the branch of publishing, and they seem to be waging a sort of war against writers: People posing as agents or publishers trick them into costly and fruitless projects. Recently this new kind of robbers - and that's actually  what they are - have grown a new branch: Criminals lure authors into weird schemes of turning their books into movies. Even though I'm not all that naive I fell for such a ruse because it, presumably, was instituted by a genuine film director:

It appered that The Spotlight Media Productions were considering one of my many children's books, "The Naughty Peteyboy, Sonya and The Magic Word", for a movie. I was surprised as I never had seen this book as movie material, but also I was flattered so I fell for the ruse. Someone wiser than me, Victoria Strauss, was approached too with another scheme, but she didn't fall for it:

https://twitter.com/victoriastrauss/status/1577402465531461632?s=20&t=8PkPopl74Ac4jshbURTl8w 

After reading what she wrote it dawned upon me that I had been duped. Before that I had written to the so-called "Charlie" to tell him off as I found it weird that the company didn't pay for the option of my book or sent me a contract, but it  was Victoria Strauss who made it clear to me what was going on. After some investigation I now see the scam as it is: Someone, maybe in the Phillipines, commits identity theft and poses as Charlie McDowell hoping that sooner og later his victim (me!!!!) would be flattered into sending him money for the movie they are (NOT!!!!) making over one of their books. That I would never have done, but still, I might have given him the rights of my book which is small and old ....

https://justpublishingadvice.com/author-solutions-gets-the-chop-about-time/

https://justpublishingadvice.com/vanity-book-publishing-and-self-publishing-are-not-the-same/ 

https://www.usp.ac.fj/research/research/output-and-awards/identifying-reputable-publishers/

https://www.sfwa.org/other-resources/for-authors/writer-beware/pod/

https://twitter.com/cedar3ec/status/1569547081261682689?s=20&t=2UORxJC5Fk5_qAIie00pFA

Wikipedia