Viking Rape And Fate

 

Yup, they did come around, so I would be all that surprised if they went there too ....

Those old Scandinavian Vikings do have a reputation of cruelty and what is considered "bad manners" in modern times, but they also had an allure, that can't be denied. Besides, they furnished us with some interesting love/hate-stories, that even sort of comment and highlight modern day life. One of these stories is the one about the Danish Viking Helge, who was the brother of King Roar. According to legend he may have died very young, but in the "Skjoldungesaga-fragment" he is depicted as a very active man, doing what Vikings do. He is considered a hero, although he is the one who raped and impregnated Olof, who was the wife of a Saxon earl. It seems that somehow Olof and Helge had fallen out, and this rape was supposed to be his revenge for her scorning him. - My verdict? Shame upon you, stupid Helge, your "deed" proves that rape isn't the way to go!!!

 

NB: This is not a picture of Olof, but of another famous woman from the sagas, the Valkyrie, Brunnhilde.

Anyway, Helge's vile rape of Olof led to the birth of a daughter, who was so hated by her mother that she named her after her dog, Yrsa. When she grew up, she became very beautiful, and "fate" had her father - who didn't know anything about her existence - meet her and fell in love with her. 

He brought her back to Denmark, married her, and they were happy together, until the vengeful Olof told Yrsa that Helge is her biological father, and that their son, Rolf Krake, thus not only is her child, but also her brother. Incest was not acceptable to a proud Viking-woman, and the unhappy Yrsa leaves her husband-father, but is later married to the Swedish king Adils. 

This king may have been jealous of both Helge and his son with Yrsa, Rolf Krake, because he sets out to kill both of them, but in vain. Actually, the seemingly ever-lecherous Helge has one more daughter, Skuld, by some not high-ranking or maybe even criminal woman. (Some see her as a fairy, an elf, a witch or something like that). This daughter is nothing like Yrsa, on the contrary, she is demonic and cruel, and later on she takes part in the killing of her brother, Rolf Krake, who by that time has become one of the super-heroes in the Viking-sagas. He is also supposed to have been one of the early kings of Denmark, but it's difficult to know for sure as all these old-time heroes seem to be mixed-up characters, so that one finds it impossible to discern between them: WHO did what, and why? The one who was considered a hero with the Vikings appears to be nothing but, when we take a closer look at him ....

However, some are interesting as archaeological objects, like e.g. this guy:

 
 

 

When The News Suck

Yeah, that might be necessary these days, although some swear by binge-eating cookies to get through: Whatever works for you, my friend! I, for one, have a feeling that sleep is the answer: One lies down, fall asleep in the happy hope that "tomorrow will be better", and that one is going to wake up to a new and transformed world. Sadly enough, it hasn't happened yet.

 

Yup, that's one of the main problems with the so-called truth: It doesn't always keep truthful, and what's true for e.g. The Republicans isn't true for e.g. the Democrats. It's annoying as well as unsettling for people who do see the difference between THE TRUTH, the HALF-truth, and the very, very much "doctored truth". These days, people who want the "truest of Truths" are being offered what obviously enough doesn't qualify as anything but lies. Only liars hold lies in some kind of esteem, but only those of their own making, and they will - like in magic - be renamed "the truth". 
 

 

Yes, I'm sorry to say so, but a lot of those who were considered (mainly) "truthful" just a few years ago have lost their credibility. Doctoring facts to fit into some political programs does that to something as fragile as credibility, especially when it comes to politics. It's very sad, also because that trend may be set to stay with us for a very, very long time - yup, maybe even forever. And whom are these politicians, for whom "THE TRUTH" is being killed? Well, first and foremost this one, who strangely enough hasn't ended up in jail several years back in time:

Very, very strange indeed, as bending "The Truth" at will, and being found out over and over again, usually leads to the ultimate loss of TRUST. In this case, there are still people who swear by the liar.

Sex Offenders

 

How does one recognize a sex offender? Unfortunately, he or she doesn't sprout warts, horns or anything else indicating that he/she is guilty of sex offenses, and may be very dangerous to some people. Besides, what's considered a grave sex offense in one culture - or time period - isn't seen as such in another. A fact, that makes it much more difficult to discern between, e.g. flirt and rape. Actually, that may be one of the main reasons why some men call the actions, that women see as rape, "flirt". 

 

In an old interview of tRump and his oldest daughter, Ivanka, he obviously is very proud of being called a "sexual predator" by her. Something which most women find grotesque. As he sees it, a "predator" is a "Don Juan" or a "Casanova", someone full of testosterone and thus "a real man", and nothing like a criminal. 

 

Convicted sex offenders of various art

It seems that sex offenders are often being seen as extremely deviant in attitude and behavior, which may be a total misunderstanding of what they do. Anyway, it's a convenient way to discern between "normal" and "abnormal" when it comes to sex offenses: "They" and "Us" are very useful markers for those who need to see their own behavior normalized. Some may even "get a little help by the "God" they and their judges claim to worship".

 

That's disgusting, but we see something like that over and over: Either money, a presumably awesome family tree or good political connections are the key to open the doos of the jail, which these criminals were sent to, and it sucks! That sort of "normalizes" the actions whech are clearly predatory crimes.

 

When talking about sexual exploiters, these are most often seen as men, but that isn't quite right. For instance, police officer Maegan Hall was fired for sexual acts with (at least) four colleagues. As there was no raping these guys, I don't see her as a criminal, but fired she was, and I suppose it all comes down to that special kind of prudishment, that America is so rich in. 

This, on the other hand, looks very, very criminal

https://www.nsopw.gov/ 

 

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/sex-offender-registry 

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/donald-trump-e-jean-carroll-trial/ 

 

https://texascriminaldefensegroup.com/texas-sex-offender-tier-overview/

 

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/criminal-justice/001-societys-lepers/ 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-officer-fired-sex-scandal-sues-tennessee-department-alleging-sexual-rcna72825 

 

 

 

 

 

The Death of Epstein

 

Two pals on the so-called "Lolita Express": A Boeing 727-100 aircraft that was owned by one of them, namely the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, to the left

As the whole world knows by now, these two men, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald tRump, enjoyed some "carnal pleasures" with under-age girls. (In some cases, there may also have been boys of a tender age, but they were not the main target of these two, who went for very young girls). Some years ago, Snopes gave its verdict on some of the allegations as "Mostly false", so there may not have been any male victims. On the other hand, there may have been at least three boys:

Now, tRump is once more resorting to his favorite "sport": Lying. He is claiming that he never even went to the private island of Epstein, which is either a joke in very bad taste or an attempt to appeal to his MAGA-supporters. 

The "playmates", Epstein and tRump, met several times for "fun" with under-age girls, and some accused them of rape. Actually, there seems to be witnesses to (some of) these crimes, but it took much too long for the authorities to do what it should have done several years back in time.

However: On July 6, 2019, Epstein was arrested and taken into federal custody. After what looks like an attempted suicide on July 23, he is put under surveillance, although he says that he didn't try to kill himself, but was attacked by someone. His cell-mate is a former police officer, and he denies having attacked Epstein. Somehow, this incident is classified as an attempted suicide, but the wounds from it don't seem to have been kept as evidence of what happened. On July 29 the suicide watch is stopped, and Epstein is moved back to a regular cell in the SHU-department. He gets a new cell-mate, but he is removed the night of August 9, and as the video of the cell (all of a sudden???) doesn't work anymore, nobody knows for sure how he died. Anyway, in the early morning of August 10, he is found dead/unconscious in a cell with 11 orange sheets.

What are those sheets doing there, and who brought them? One of the two guards who were to keep an eye on him, but who allegedly fell asleep? Were the sheets forced upon him as a "hint" to commit suicide, or did they come to use when the door of his cell may have opened to let in a murderer? And, if he was murdered, who did - or ordered - it?

Those who say it was a suicide are having a hard time explaining why the marks on his neck don't look like "normal" marks when people hang themselves. No, as confirmed by the NYC medical examiner who was set to observe the autopsy, they look much more like those one sees in cases of manual strangulation. Also, there found fractures in the hyoid bone and both horns of the thyroid cartilage that aren't consistent with hangings.

And, of course, all kinds of conspiracy theories abound. Discussions go from murder allegations to suggestions of an assisted escape to Israel. Some of those who don't believe that he died make references to this photo of what presumably is his dead body:

The non-believers point out some details of his nose and ears which, according to them, "proves" that the corpse belongs to someone else and not Epstein. His girlfriend and business partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, has told her family that Epstein "would never commit suicide", others find it "natural" that he did as he was facing an unpleasant trial and a long sentence. One thing is for sure, what he did, others did too, and his death will not put an end to the case. 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped 

 

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/epsteins-ghost-the-coffee-klatch/comments 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/25/trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-timeline  

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/QuiverQuantitative/comments/1mcw4lt/cbs_news_reporting_that_the_missing_minute_isnt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button 

 

Wikipedia 

The Bride Was Nine!

 

Cosy time of 9 years old Eunice Winstead and 22/24 years old Charlie Johns, doing the dishes. Brother and sister? Cousins or just neighbors? No, a newly married couple from January 1937

How was that even possible? Well, it was legal in Tennessee where there were no age limits in marriage at that time. As it is, it was the marriage of this couple that brought about a change in the legal system: The new minimum age of marriage was set at 16 years. This change in the legal system also was introduced in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C.. 

Who in his/her right mind could find this couple acceptable as bride and bridegroom, and how were they married? Well, it seems that Charlie bought his way into the married stage by paying a Baptist preacher one dollar to conduct the wedding after falsifying the age of his bride. As to the parents of the 9 years old bride, then their devious daughter told them a tall tale of her going to the store to buy a doll, but instead she ran off and got married - and stayed married. At first, both her and Charlie's mothers were against this marriage, but they came to accept it as Eunice's mother had married at 16, and her sister at 13, so there was a tradition for very young brides in the family.

 

However, the marriage drew attention in the press. Charlie tried to stay out of the discussions, and - as far as I can see - there were no serious attempts of splitting the couple. Actually, they had nine children, the first one, the daughter Evelyn, was born when Eunice was 15 years old. When she was 17 she outraged her father by eloping with 20 years old John Antrican, and he accused him of falsifying her age to get a valid marriage license. 

 

Charlie died in 1997 and Eunice in 2006, but they seem to have had a happy marriage

 

https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/the-vault/minnesota-women-demanded-change-when-9-year-old-girl-got-married-in-1937 

 

Wikipedia

When Irony Is Or Looks Heartless

That's cruel, or would be cruel, if it was said without irony, which I think it is - or rather, I choose to think it is. On the other hand, there is no real proof that it wasn't said in earnest, and - as some events over the years have proved - were a very, very earnest comment to a sad situation. No doubt about it, homeless people are not the favorites of those who have a home. I think that one of the main reasons for that is that the utter vulnerability of the homeless or just poor people feels like a warning to those who are neither. They see that they themselves may end up on a public bench somewhere, but without being welcome:

 

To be without a home may mean losing one's life because one being a "have-not" turns one into a target for fed up-"haves" who may even blame one for whatever is wrong in his/her life. That may turn one into someone who is totally at the mercy of people who hates and fears one as a social scapegoat for whatever is wrong in society. Also, it will be difficult to leave one's life as a homeless, e.g. by getting a job because to apply for one it's necessary to bathe and earn decent clothes: Those who have are to get more, and those who have not are to lose what they have .... 

That's quite thought-provoking, especially in these years of what looks like very evil and suspicious Trumpian plannings. To turn former landowners into abject homeless hordes may enrich the rich people who come to own their lost property. Also, it furnishes those rich individuals with the access to cheap labor, as homeless or very poor people will be a easy prey to them. 

 

Was it planned for years as is stated in the above statement? I shouldn't wonder if that is the case, but I lack substantial proofs of those plans.  

This guy, sleeping on the pavement, can do that when it's not freezing, and if he/she knows where to get free or extremely cheap food. Something I don't think is all that easy to come by, also because many are out for the same.

Yup, instead of one Don the Con, these people need another FDR, but where is he/she? The right man/woman doesn't seem to come easy these days.

 

That's a smart man, but he isn't an everyday-guy. Not many would be able to pull such a stunt off

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ending-crime-and-disorder-on-americas-streets/ 

Poem by Else Cederborg

 

Poem by Else Cederborg: "Building Humans"

Close in on empty buildings
you find them everywhere
although shaped in human form, they erode
all that's left is fleshy rubble

Don't let anybody else take possession
fill them with laughter, smiles and love
maybe the soul will return in due time
the erosion may be halted, love reinstalled
rejoice, one human rebuilt and saved
actually, a whole breathing city may be rebuilt

ALL rights reserved © Else Cederborg

 

Exploitation of A Teenage-Queen

Lady Jane Grey (1536/1537–1554), Aka Lady Jane Dudley, Aka "The Nine Days Queen"

Being the cousin of Edward VI (1537-1553), and his half-sisters, Mary (I) and Elizabeth (I) didn't save the life of this great-granddaughter of Henry VII through his youngest daughter, Mary Tudor. Neither did it save her to become the heiress of king Edward VI and thus inheriting his throne as the Queen of England and Ireland on the 10th of July, 1553. On the contrary, it cost her her life as she was deposed by the Privy Council of England on the 19th of July, 1553, and beheaded in the morning of the 12th of February, 1554.

 

The irony of this sad tale of a young queen's downfall was that Jane didn't even want to inherit the throne of her cousin. She, who was brought up to be a dedicated Protestant, was a very learned and intellectual, young woman for her time, speaking and studying Latin, Hebrew and Greek. Hunting and other normal pastimes for people of her class didn't appeal to her as much as various academic studies. Nothing indicates that she was pining for the exalted status of the monarchy or that she had even thought about who was to inherit the throne of her cousin, Edward VI.

The son of Henry VIII and his third wife, Jane Seymour, Edward VI was brought up to believe that his half-sisters, Mary (I) and Elizabeth (I) were disowned by their father and that they were "illegitimate". As it was, Henry VIII had been married to their mothers, but the circumstances of both these marriages had turned the king against his daughters. In the opinion of Edward, and out of respect for his late father, none of them were acceptable as queens of England. Thus the natural heir to his throne would be his cousin, namely the great-granddaughter of Henry VII, 16 or 17 year old Jane Grey. However, one of his ulterior motives for choosing Jane over his eldest half-sister, Mary, was that she was a protestant, whereas Mary was a staunch Catholic.

 

Edward VI's "devise for the Succession"

Jane had not yet been crowned as a queen, and that may have given those who supported Mary's claim to the throne hope. The Privy Council, which had accepted the choice by Edward VI and thus honored Jane as the queen, suddenly changed sides and deposed her, only ten days after proclaiming her his heiress. That meant that Mary won the game, so to speak, and became the new queen on 19 July 1553. 

 

Mary I 

Poor Jane, she obviously was more of a puppet for her very ambitious father-in-law, John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. Mary knew that and intended to spare her life as an innocent victim of her father-in-law's machinations, but then Jane's father did something in her opinion unforgivable: He became involved with Wyatt's rebellion against Mary's intention of marrying her maternal relative, Philip of Spain. As Mary was set upon this marriage his "treason" became the last straw, so to speak, and both Jane and her husband were executed on 12 February 1554. I see that as very unfair to the teenager who didn't have the ambitions of becoming the new monarch, but was talked into accepting the throne that was handed her by the late king, Edward VI. 

 This portrait may be of Jane as she looked at the time of her death. If so, then there is a strong resemblance to her cousin, Elizabeth I

 

https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/lady-jane-grey/ 

 

Wikipedia 

 

Britannica 

The American Bonaparte

 

 

The beautiful American heiress Elizabeth Patterson (1785-1879) was considered a "catch" as her Maryland-family was affluent and of good standing with many influential people of their own class. Her father, William Patterson, was an Irish immigrant who had done well in his new country of America, as he was the second richest man in Maryland. His son, Robert, got married to the daughter, namely Marianne Caton, of the richest man in Maryland, Charles Carroll. The Caroll-family could boast an arch bishop, and the 24th of December, 1803, he married a young couple, 18 and 20 years old. The young bride, Elizabeth Patterson, wore what was considered a "risque" gown, but that wasn't the reason why the First Consul from 1799 to 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) was enraged by this wedding. And yup, this was that enraged Bonaparte:

 

Napoleon Bonaparte who was to become Emperor Napoleon I on the 2nd of December 1804

 

 

 

Napoleon's enormous ambitions were not only for himself, but for his entire family, and he had other plans for the young man who married Elizabeth Patterson, namely his youngest brother, Jerome (1784-1860). There was no way Napoleon would accept this young, American woman as his sister-in-law, heiress and beauty or not.

 

 

 

Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Bonaparte

 

Before the wedding, Elizabeth's father, William Patterson, had received several more or less anonymous letters, some of them telling him that Jerome was a Casanova, out to seduce and then leave his daughter. All these letters were aimed at putting a stop to the wedding, but that didn't happen: Married they were, and then the threats from France changed into demands for an annulment. Obviously, there was no way, that the by now French emperor, Napoleon I, would accept the American marriage of his youngest brother. When the young couple set off to France to reason with him, he ushered a prohibition of her as much as setting foot on any country, that he ruled. It didn't exactly help the situation that she by now was pregnant: He still demanded an annulment of the otherwise fully legal marriage.

 

 

 

Jerome went to France, but Elizabeth chose to give birth to their son, Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte (1805-1870) in England. At the same time, Napoleon I did his best to make the then Pope annul the marriage of his brother and "that unfit American girl". When he didn't succeed, he simply annulled it himself in his capacity of Emperor, just as he himself, and not the pope, had crowned himself. As to the young father, Jerome Bonaparte, then he didn't put up much of a fight for his American wife. A fact that most likely stems from his "wild life" when a bachelor: He didn't have any money, but was landed with a substantial debt. Napoleon I, being so very ambitious for his family, made his brother marry the German princess Catharina of Wurttemberg. Also he was made a prince of Montfort and the king of Westphalen.

 

 

 

Jerome and his new wife, Catharina

 

Well, Napoleon I met his Waterloo in 1815, and his power over the royal houses of Europe which he had used for marrying his siblings off, was evaporating into thin air. His brother, Jerome, only kept his kingdom of Westphalen for six years, but in his marriage to Catharina he had two more sons and one daughter. When Catharina died in 1835, he married a very wealthy Italian noblewoman, Giustina Pecori-Suárez, in 1840, but whom he, for reasons unknown, kept secret for a long time. However, legally she was his wife, but he ended up divorcing her for an alleged adultery with one of his own illegitimate sons.

 

 

 

Giustina Pecori-Suárez 

 

At the same time, he tried to get some kind of reconciliation with Elizabeth who never remarried. He wanted her to send their son to him, but she refused: Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte stayed with her, becoming a successful American. 

 

Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte  

 

Even though Jerome studied law, he never practiced, but turned into what may be called a "gentleman-farmer". In his marriage to the heiress, Susan May Williams, he became the father of two sons, one of them was Charles Joseph Bonaparte (1851–1921), who also became a lawyer. He was a well-known liberal, fighting for humane laws, e.g. for blacks. When Theodore Roosevelt was the president, he was one of his men, and as such he started "The Bureau of Investigation", which became the FBI of today. 

 

 

 

Charles Joseph Bonaparte 

 

Wonder what Napoleon I would have said had he known that his intricate web of royal houses of Europe would crumble, but the American one, which he had refused to accept, would thrive and even grow stronger. That might have been a mental Waterloo for the once so mighty Emperor of France.

 

 Charles Joseph Bonaparte

 

https://www.geriwalton.com/elizabeth-patterson-bonaparte-wife-of-jerome-bonaparte/ 

 

https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/biographies/bonaparte-jerome/ 

 

http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/napoleon-francois-charles-joseph-bonaparte-napoleon-ii/ 

 

https://geneee.org/charles+joseph/bonaparte?lang=da 

 

Wikipedia, etc.