The Shame of Giving Birth

Giving birth has been considered noble in patriarchy for ages. However, unfortunately, this notion, being part of a wide-spread ideology, has played its part in subduing women in all kinds of societies. "Have many children, preferably blonde and blue-eyed" was the message to German women in the 1930-1940s as it had been before in former historical settings. No matter where or when, some babies were not seen as the "bonus" of having sex because they were born without the consent of the patriarchal society: Women had to get married to have sex, and children born out of wedlock were considered illegitimate which would reduce their - as well as their mother's - status in these patriarchal societies. Strange to think of some famous and wealthy women who were children of unwed mothers. That goes e.g. for the singer and actress Eartha Kitt who in her heydays was considered one of the sexiest women on this planet.

When Eartha was born in 1927 her Mom was 16 years old, and, presumably, she didn't know who the father of her daughter was. The child grew up with her aunt and didn't even know that she wasn't her birth mother. This seems to have been the most common way of deluding the world when it came to illegitimacy, but the children still had to bear the sting of "not having a father". That's ridiculous as nobody is without a father, even though they may not know his name. In Eartha's case there were rumours that this elusive - and spoilt! - male was either a Chinese or a white man who may have raped her mother.  

When it comes to Loretta Young she had a daughter, Judy Lewis, after a date rape by the "King of Hollywood", Mr. Clark Gable. He never acknowledged her allegations of either rape or fatherhood, and I've even seen some denials by his great-grandson that seems ridiculous to me as the girl was his spitting image.

The "shame" of giving birth to this out-of-wedlock-daughter forced Loretta to deny everything concerning her existence. She "wasn't her daughter, but a child she had ADOPTED". Poor Judy, both of her parents lied, but as far as I know she had a good and loving childhood with her mother when she was adopted by her. However, the fact that her mother felt obliged to deny her daughter speaks strongly against the patriarchal rules when it comes to giving birth. They were more than double-tilted towards saving the man and his reputation while ruining the social standing of the woman: "Give birth, but only on our terms, and you shall be rewarded with a social status." That's not ruling with the rod, but with the carrot, and it worked for ages ....

Merle Oberon was a stunning figure in Hollywood, but also a mystery woman to many people. For instance, who was that Indian woman who served her as her lady's maid? Why was she with her, doing her biddings? The truth was that this Indian woman was the mother of the beautiful star, Merle Oberon, and that she had given birth to her when she was only 12 years old. Her father - as is usual in these cases - had disappeared long ago, but no matter who he was he must have been a pedophilia, taking advantage of a child of 11-12. To conceal what had happened, Merle grew up believing that her grandmother was her mother, and her birth mother was her sister. Like in the case of Eartha Kitt and Loretta Young the name of the English pedophilia who had fathered her was blotted out on her birth certificate: The system protected him, but the women had to fend for themselves which they did by denying her race as well as her ancestry. Disgusting that that was necessary to get accepted by society ....

 

Wikipedia

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2468832/Eartha-Kitts-daughter-mothers-attempt-father.html

Take GOD to court???

 

The very idea of taking "God" to court looks like a joke, but sometimes it's not, and what's more, many feel that "he" deserves it because they blame "him" for wars, earthquakes, gruesome death, etc., etc.. Actually, Betty Penrose didn't only find it reasonable to blame God for various personal grievancies and difficulties in her life, but she really took "him" to court. However, as far as I can see there never was any God-given promises of an easy life, because what humans were asked - or rather demanded to do - was to serve their God, not to enjoy their own individual lives. An easy and pleasureable life is something we humans expect as our birthright, but it was not part of the deal until modern man began to see "God" as some kind of "Santa". We should know better, because "he" is not ....

OK, then is it possible to sue someone over one's own un-fulfilled expectations when these never was part of a legal agreement? Naaahhh, not really, still Betty did just that:

Most likely Russel T. Tansie made this complaint on behalf of Betty who was his secretary, tongue in mouth: He knew all along that "God" wouldn't turn up in court and that "he" never felt guilty no matter what disasters "he" was under suspicion for having orchestrated. It was a joke - and at the same time a serious complaint about a grave accident.

I suppose that if you see your "God" as a father then it's natural for you to expect protection and a lot of good things from "him". When you receive none of what you covet as a human being then it's very understandable that you feel let down, yeah, even cheated. However, that seems to happen to all kinds of people so you are not the stepchild of your "Sky-Daddy" ....

https://ng.opera.news/ng/en/others-natural-disaster/244cfdf5be149ab204ebae0acd0ebd74

 

 

WHY did Lawrence Singleton dismember 15 Year Old Mary?

Mary Vincent was a lovely, young girl of 15 who lost both her hands because a man three times her age decided to cut them off after having raped her. What had she done to deserve that? NOTHING, except maybe being a little naive and too trustworthy when she climbed into his truck, attempting to hitchhike from Las Vegas to California. After this attack on the young teenager the attacker, Lawrence Singleton, left her for dead, even though she hadn't died, but only fainted. After coming to she managed to stumble away from the cruel scenery, holding her stumped arms up to keep the blood from gushing out. Luckily enough she met two women who helped her get to a hospital. After being attended by doctors she told the police what had happened to her and who did it. Contrary to Lawrence Singleton's belief in his ability to escape the law he was soon found and arrested as his neighbour recognized him from Mary's description of him.

Lawrence Bernard "Larry" Singleton (July 28, 1927 – December 28, 2001) who became nicknamed the "Mad Chopper" in the media, was an abominable American criminal, but behaving well while in jail he only served eigth years of his fourteen years sentence before being released. Sadly enough that was what gave him the chance of committing another crime, this time both rape and murder of a lovely, young mother of three kids, Roxanne Hayes. The authorities thought he was reformed when he behaved so nicely in jail, but no, he was the same sadistic rapist as before going to jail. 

Roxanne Hayes 

To think of this ugly and disgusting man with either of the two women he molested is difficult as it obviously is a "Beauty versus Beast"-situation. None of these women would have had anything to do with him on their own and now they were forced into submitting their life and/or health to him and his weird urges. It's both disgusting and crazy, but it made me think of a claim that we hear from many young men these years: "See me, sleep with me, be MINE!" Many of these men will be able to find a girlfriend or maybe a wife in the future, but some are so physically or mentally non-attractive that they will find such an exploit impossible. The point is, that that has been the fate for many women who ended up as "spinsters" which was considered "low class" for women.

This man, Lawrence Singleton, is not in any way lovable which means that he can't claim love of women who didn't chose him, but whom he still felt that he had the right to use for sex. In court over the Vincent-case he postulated that the young girl of 15 was a $10 hooker, and that someone else who, according to him, also was named "Larry" had been with her in his car, abusing and maiming her. He, on the other hand, "was totally innocent of all crimes". In court he was overheard threatening Mary, assuring her "that I will finish the job even if it takes the rest of my life!" 

Luckily enough that threat came to nothing. Mary lived to have a son, but all her life she fought to handle her handicap as best she could. From what I've read about her she is someone I would deem a "beautiful soul", whereas the thoroughly evil and selfish Lawrence Singleton is the opposite of her. 

However, asserting that doesn't solve the riddle of some men's feelings about their "right" to expect love from women who don't in the least feel attracted to them. When Mary asked him to "set her free" after being tied up and raped by him he changed from a rapist to a monster. Both her arms were chopped off when she said that and he tried to kill her, but didn't succeed. It makes me suspect that he was offended by her wish to get away and that that was the reason for his behaviour. Many other rapists and/or murderers, like e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, behave in the same manner, and in my opinion that's very weird, especially as I suspect that it may be part of the male psyche as it has become ....

 

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