Playing by - Or Discarding - The Rules?

I know that's the general impression, and I admit that so much speak for it being the truth about a large part of this group of Trump-followers. However, I don't find this condescending statement to be the only "truth" about his boisterous and seemingly non-informed fans. 

From all that has been made known years ago about Donald J. Trump as a person, a public figure as well as a politician he is not someone one should expect to stand a chance of ever becoming the president of USA. Nonetheless, that's what happened and now he is desperate enough to opt for one more chance of gaining access to The White House and thus the "immunity" he needs. Everything considered the chances of that wish coming true ought to be slim, but after all, that's up to the voters. As it is, what strikes most of his non-followers as extremely strange is that not only has he fans, but they seem to adore him, yes, even think of him as some sort of "savior" which means that they will be voting for him. How is that even possible when he, to all accounts, is a sociopatic egomaniac who only thinks of himself and his own gains, neither his country nor his voters? Not even all of his followers deny that that's the case, but they don't seem to take the knowledge of his culpability to heart and back away from any association with him: WHY???????

This man is anything but a new "Jesus", and it's obvious to non-followers that he is not even a friend of people like the ones that appear at his rallies or who vote for him. Actually, before he gained his president status of power and importance, he has uttered contempt for people like those who now are following him and who aim to secure his position. For instance, he complained that they "looked poor" and poverty is something he abhors. To be poor to him means being what he shuns at all costs: One turns into a loser, a fool, and thus a laughing stock.

OK, Mr. Ex-president, follow your own advice on women and try to grab the feminine main symbol of America by the pussy as that's how you see your country

Well, one thing is what this man does both in his private life and in The White House, another is how his followers feel about him. Although they don't seem to be blind to his many flaws, I have a strong impression that they love him for them. That means that these flaws are something they like about him i.e. because they "translate" them into something they are not: A sort of "freedom fight". Seemingly he got away with a lot many of his followers got caught up doing and that's what they like about him. He is not even ashamed of what he is or has done: Normally people who have done what he has, both in his private as well as his political life feel ashamed at being caught in the act. After being caught these people blush, stammer, and excuse their misbehavior as best they can, but not Trump. No, normal excuses or explanations are not for him, as he just turns around and accuses those who exposed him and his various misdeeds. Actually, that's the tactic of Goebbels which he seems to have taken to heart and uses without regrets even when people prove that he is lying: He doesn't follow the rules, tacit or general, which proves that he doesn't feel they are his concern, and his followers love it.

All rules for socially acceptable behavior go on some kind of tacit adherence to the understanding of good-behavior in that country and time. In former times in our part of the world everything went by Christian doctrines that fenced in people and their lives: "You're a good person if you do this or that, but not if you do something else." Everybody knew these doctrines as they were common knowledge and thus their guidelines in life. However, in the recent centuries much of that has been assailed by new teachings that disrupt the impression of a safe world to many, and many individuals of today hate it. Somehow the philanderer, the (presumably) pedophile, the rapist, the fraud, the bankrupt "billionaire", the snob, etc., etc. has come to represent the opposite of what he is. People feel that he is their safeguard against all kinds of social changes which they fear as e.g. the freedom of women, abortion, non-religion, racial acceptance, etc., etc.. The so-called American school system have prepared them for someone who are more words than genuine promises of a better world, and it's very, very sad.

 

https://www.playbytherules.net.au/about-pbtr 

 

https://www.thinkingbusinessblog.com/2018/08/09/play-by-the-rules-but-be-ferocious/ 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/trump-supporters-republican-approval-cnn-town-hall/674142/ 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/18/the-biden-harris-campaign-already-has-more-followers-on-truth-social-than-the-trump-campaign/?sh=29e793bd139e 

 

Wikipedia

 

The Presumed Honor of Being Sacrificed

 

A well-known scenery for Christians and others who know of the Christian religion: Crucifixion was a severe punishment, and two of these men, hanging on a cross, were considered sinners, i.e. thieves and robbers, who (more or less) deserved to be punished by death. The execution of them had nothing to do with a sacrifice to a god or anyone else which means that it had no special symbolic value as it was nothing but society getting rid of them. Actually, that also was the purpose of the execution of the third man, but he was neither a thief nor a robber. He was executed as another kind of criminal, actually a sort of social rebel who had set out to turn society upside-down by changing many of the ideologies it was run by. However, the death sentence of him is double- or triple-layered as his execution on the cross not only was a punishment by those in power, but something much more. As the presumed son of "God", i.e. Yahweh, he is not only a victim being murdered for his ideas by his superiors, no, he is a godly sacrifice no less. Someone who has been chosen by the ultimate figure of power in society: "God". Most often that is seen as a great honor to the individual who is sacrificed although his/her death in itself may be squalid and cruel.

                                    Yahweh on a winged wheel

In many, if not all, religions one meets the concept of "sacrifices" to the deity. Normally, that means that some hapless human or animal is killed to honor god, but not by their own choice. As to Jesus, hanging there on the cross, he is not only sacrificed by his presumed godly father, but he also plays along by allowing himself to be killed as a sacrifice. Something which in a way renders his  death meaningless as he chooses to die with a belief in his resurrection. One might say that all of this drama is a weird sort of playacting to the gallery.

"La Doncella" from Llullaillaco didn't die to honor Yahweh, whom neither she nor her Inka countrymen had ever as much as heard of, but sacrificed she was at the age of 15 sometime around 1500. Hopefully, she either knew and accepted her fate or she had absolutely no idea of what was in store for her and the two other children that followed her on that fateful journey up on the mountaintop. She was extremely well-preserved and still has an aura of her inborn personality: This is a person who lost her life at a very young age because she was chosen by someone else who sacrificed her in the hope that the gods (whom I don't know) would endow her family and countrymen with the luck they may have felt that they had lost or needed to secure. 

  The mummies of the three Inka children who were sacrificed together 

To me the main point of a sacrifice is who found someone - human or animal - and decided that his/her death would bring him- or herself luck or happiness as it would please his/her gods. I understand a self-inflicted sacrifice because then you yourself chose to give you as a gift to the god you believe in. However, it totally escapes me how the same effect in a supposed act of "pleasing god" is secured by killing someone else and call it a "sacrifice" because the one who is killed didn't chose that kind of death: In that case there is no sacrifice, but only a murder. Even though it was considered a great honor to die as a sacrifice to the gods and these children were surrounded by rich gifts in form of gold, shell and silver statues, textiles and pottery that doesn't bring them back to life so that they themselves may - or may not - chose to sacrifice themselves, e.g. in some brave act that might save their society.

 

That becomes very obvious when we take a closer look at another one of the three children of Llullaillaco, i.e. "El Nino". The eldest of them, the 15 year old "La Doncella", was heavily drugged and seems to have died in her drug induced sleep which after all is a merciful death, but not so with "El Nino". He was an approximately four year old boy who must have fought desperately to save his life as he was severely injured. Several of his ribs were broken and his hip was dislocated. As to the cause of his death he seems to have been strangled by the clothes he was wearing. 

This poor child was tied up which in my opinion is an indication that his untimely death was an assault which he did not participate in willingly. One shouldn't let oneself be deluded by the holy term "sacrifice" no matter whom does the killing to honor what god. The legend of Jesus makes him out to have chosen to let himself get sacrificed as part of his teachings, but - as I said - his death is meaningless as he is supposed to get resurrected. 

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/130729-inca-mummy-maiden-sacrifice-coca-alcohol-drug-mountain-andes-children 

 

Wikipedia

Zana - The Exploited Ape-Woman

When one reads or hear of mermaids, trolls or supermen and -women one knows that one has crossed the threshold to the world of myths and fairy tales. As to well-known figures like e.g. Bigfoot then he/she exists for those who believe in the possibility of his/her existence although he/she appears to be more of a mythical than a realistic figure. The same goes for ghosts who, just like e.g. Bigfoot, may or may not exist as realities. One thing is for sure: The BELIEF in them is what keeps them "alive" in our mind.

However, there are individuals/persons/creatures who once were a living part of our world, but who still seem to be someone out of a fairy tale. One of these creatures is The Ape Woman Zana, whose life and very existence is difficult to get hold of. Tarzan was called "The Ape Man", but he was nothing but a literary character, whereas Zana was a living, breathing being in the world of humans. Her descendants have been investigated, e.g. with eleborate DNA-studies, and we still don't know what and who she was. The Russian merchant, Edgi Genaba, who allegedly found and caught her in the 1870s in the frozen wilderness between Georgia and Russia where she seems to have lived all her life up till then, must have seen her as some kind of animal who, not being human, had no rights to preserve her freedom. According to legend she lived by herself, all naked, and although people of the area knew of her they didn't talk with her. Apparently she was covered in thick red hair, and she was very strong and muscular. Besides, at 6 feet 6 inches she towered over the local residents. When they gave her clothes, she would have non of that, but simply shred them. Her captor, Edgi Genaba, let people come and gawk at her for money, and at some point she was raped by locals and got pregnant at least six times when drunk. As two of her six children died when she went to the river to wash them after giving birth none of the surviving four children were allowed to stay with her. At that point she had become an abused alcoholic who may not have been able to fend for herself or her children. However, with time she became an "unpaid servant" - or rather a slave - who was kept drugged by alcohol to do chores and serve as a sexual outlet for men. Thus, with her the word "abuse" attains a special sombre tone ....

 

By now many scientists think that she was either some kind of "yeti" (i.e. a "Bigfoot") or a surviving Neanderthal, but nobody seems to know for sure what she was. However, also her descendants were uncommonly strong and muscular, but apparently not as hairy as she was. The legend has it that one of her sons was so strong that he might lift a chair with someone sitting on it, just using his teeth. Also he - and maybe more of her descendants, seems to have had an extra bone in his neck as well as very large eyes. In my opinion he is quite handsome and not more "ape like" than many modern men of e.g. Eastern Europe.

Zana and her eldest, surviving son, Khwith

 

The children of Zana talked and more or less found their way in society. She, on the other hand, grew more and more alcoholic, and eventually she died after 20 years of captivity and abuse. As was to be expected science has taken her life and case up in many studies, but without any clear conclusion.

One of the granddaughters of Zana

 

https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/zanas-story-78541727cd93 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3025466/Was-19th-Century-Siberian-apewoman-yeti-6ft-6in-Russian-serf-outrun-horse-not-human-according-DNA-tests.html 

 

https://dna-explained.com/2021/07/30/the-origins-of-zana-of-abkhazia/

 

https://medium.com/the-mystery-box/zanas-story-78541727cd93 

 

https://soldat.pro/en/2019/03/20/zana-chto-vyiasnili-sovetskie-ychenye-o-jenshine-ieti-iz-abhazii/ 

 

Wikipedia

 

Relating to A Corpse

 

All are alike in death? Naaahhh, some were buried outside of the ordinary churchyard for being "bad", poor or just not part of what was considered socially acceptable. Many, many people lived hard lives, toiling for very little and they were scorned by society as such for being powerless in a world in which money, family and relationships were the general keys to respect. There they are, eternal witnesses to the abuse they not only saw, but endured in what in the most cases were short lived lives. Were they loved? Yes, maybe by relatives who shared their lives, but in the most cases they were just forgotten.

 

Embalming surgeon at work on dead soldier (WWI)

 

That was not an option that was open to poor people, but a wealthy family may pay to have it done, maybe to have their son brought home from where he died. They felt that he still was who he had been when alive ans this was a way to keep him with them. Very understandable, but what if he had looked like this? 

I take it that this is the beheaded murder victim that is under investigation by FBI or the like. It obviously isn't a fresh corpse, so this dead person has lost some of his normal human looks. Actually, that is part of what baffles me when it comes to corpses and the way living persons relate to them. For the police this is somebody who lost his life in a non-natural manner and they are to find out what happened as that's their job. He is a CORPSE and as such he is dissolving, changing and thus losing his personality. However, to the people who loved him when he was alive he may still be that person although he has changed looks, smells, is dissolving for their very eyes, thus becoming more and more an object of disgust to others. After all, corpses both are - and are NOT - whom they were before death ....

A woman moving to another village takes with her the bones of her dead son. (Balkan Front, June 1916) 

To me this is a touching as well as very, very strange photo. OK, the bones she is carrying are of her dead son, but it takes some imagination to see the face of the living in the skull of a dead man. He sure isn't what he used to be so what makes her recognize him in these dried and fragile bones? Is it some kind of wishful thinking that some day they shall be together, both of them "arisen from the dead"? I shouldn't be surprised if that's how she feels, but still it takes some imagination to see the person she obviously loved in his remains. Actually, I don't think many of us would feel that way: We may love someone who died and worship them by visiting their graves, but I think that's the limit for most of us ....

http://crossbones.org.uk/history/

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

Writers And Money

Being an author leads to many weird situations that involves the critical or just curious eye of people who might consider buying your work. Some of it we, the writers, do a lot to direct as we want it to be seen: Entertaining, ingenious or "something new to this planet". We go from our solitary workplace by the computer, struggling to give life to fictional characters and plots of our own making to go craving for some kind of publicity. Without publicity the book will still be there, but only for our own personal enjoyment and without the stamp of success: Sales that prove that we were right in calling this, our work, our bosom baby.  

A lot of people know that this makes us vulnerable to scams that tear into our finances, robbing us without giving us what we were told that we were buying: Publicity, contracts with good and legitimate publishers or, for instance, screen writers, etc., etc.. A lot of disappointments may be waiting for the hopeful writer and it's not fair to us or the trade as such.

However, the publicity part of the game may be less burdensome moneywise if we involve ourselves in certain measures that we perform ourselves: 

1. I don't believe in listing people who might review our books for free, using emails to incite them to buy the book. To me that's looking unfair to those we approach as writers. However, honest reviews on platforms like e.g. Amazon and Goodreads are a wonderful boost to the sale process. Some writers may build a business partnership with other authors for cross-promotions or guest posts on each other's blogs.

2. Attend book conventions: OK, but that's not cheap. I's been invited to two conventions in Europe, but did not feel tempted to attend ....

3. a) Be a blogger or b) get someone who has a blog to read and review your book.

4. One may utilize platforms like e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to engage with readers. Maybe that strategy may even lead to the building of a community of followers, but that may be pushing one's luck too far ....

5. Some writers participate in book club discussions of various art. 

And what have I done up till now? Not much, even though I, who have a long list of self published works, ought to do something about the actual promotion of my works. Well, sometimes I do sell something, but I wouldn't be able to make a living by writing books which also goes for many other authors: This is not an industry for most of the people who are out to get riches. Some do, but not most of us ....

"Crooked Joe" or "Crooked And Culpable" Donald?

Is President Biden a disaster in his job, is he "Crooked" as Eks-president Trump calls him? No, neither the one nor the other, he is toiling along as best he can, but he is not showy: No extreme utterings, no blatant threats or insane plans for the future like his adversary.

To be "showy" like Trump doesn't turn anybody into "Hitlers", but words count, and he has said a lot of things that's beneath the allowable in normal conversations of normal people and it should be remembered. However, somehow it seems that he is mimicking Hitler by uttering plans and ideologies that means abuse of power, cruelty to innocent people, etc., etc. and his followers don't hear what he is saying just like many Germans in the 1930s-1940s. To talk about "freeing Germany of Jews" was said over and over, but seemingly these utterances weren't taken at face value. The speeches were just words to many and they might not have been able to envisage the possibility of coming to see them being turned into realities.

Who would have thought that USA would have had a president that might get accused of any of these felonies or childish (???) traits? America had dignity, but sadly enough it seems gone with this blatant blemish on the list of presidents. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-used-to-keep-a-book-of-hitler-s-speeches-by-his-bed-according-to-his-exwife-a6765391.html?utm_source=reddit.com 

The Political (Ab-)Use of Religion

 

Well put - and that was even before Christianity won the game of becoming the very best and extremely useful tool for those in power. 

As we know it also works very well for those who are seeking power, like e.g. Donald Trump who all of a sudden is flaunting Christian beliefs he has never before exhibited any trust in. Smart? Yes, up to a point, but that trick only works in certain contexts and societies ....

I didn't know that about Thomas Paine, but I fully agree, especially in one aspect of the quote: Those who preach religious doctrines may not have chosen to do so in order to suppress others, but those doctrines - which they may or may not have believed in themselves - always have served that purpose. It's smart to team up with the ultimate authority which many see as the deity we in The West inherited from The Middle East: Yahwe. Up till now this planet has seen c. 4000-6000 "gods" (that we know of as there may be many more!!!), but somehow we, who are not desert people like the Jews, decided that the legend of the former war god, Yahwe, was the one we would adhere to. Former times worshipped other gods:

I find that extremely interesting historically and philosophically, but very, very Christian people hate to see this. For instance, many/most don't seem to understand that the so-called "Mother Goddess" was GOD and not only the consort of some male god.  

When politicians nowadays claim being "God's people" who "speak for God" I find that both preposterous, hypocritical and sacrilegious. To be a proclaimed Christian isn't the same as being the authorized mouthpiece of the god they say they are serving. I've always felt - and said - that Americans have a way of confusing their god with Santa and that goes for most of these so-called American, Christian politicians.