Hera: the Ultimate Hercules Derangement Syndrome (Part 5)

So far, I hope to have established that Ancient Greeks tried a path to integrate the peoples they had conquered by matching their head god with Zeus, the Ancient Greek’s head god, which worked rather well for the larger integration, but created the problem of all the ‘goddess queens’ that were now left over…

These became, in the mythology, human women Zeus had affairs with.

The conquered men had only to blame their head god (who became fused with Zeus) for being capricious, but, whom did the conquered women have?

One of their own – a human woman from their tribe – was so awesome as to cause Zeus, the to dog god, to fall in love with her, carry her off, do all kinds of dangerous things for the love of this woman – one of their own.

In comes Hera.

She is the Goddess of ‘family’ – yet she is always being cheated on by her husband, Zeus. And with human women – to add insult to the injury!

Hera is the Goddess of protecting the nuclear family – and she cannot do it with her own family!

This rather turns Hera nasty: she cannot control her husband, the king of Gods, from cheating on her, but she still is a goddess and has the powers that come along with it. Hera, not able to punish her husband, takes her anger out on his human lovers and their children.

And she does it in very, very mean ways. There are books written just about the ways Hera punished the women Zeus romanced (whether they were willing or not).

But…let us remember: Hera threw away her son (Hephaestus/Vulcan) to what she thought would be his death simply because he was born deformed. She may be the goddess of the hearth, family and childbirth, but she did throw away her baby for having been born deformed.

So, how did she treat the children of her husband, Zeus, and human women?

Not nicely.

When there arose a particularly awesome specimen of humanity, the son of Zeus and a human woman, Hera was not happy. Like, a lot ‘not happy’.

And, she made Hercules suffer, every chance she got.

There was nothing anyone could say to her to convince her that Hercules was actually a good guy, who did good things to help people.

Yes, he had been given a bunch of tasks to do, and he did them well and cleverly, but, outside of that, he is said to have helped folks who needed help, lending his muscle power as well as his intelligence, where and when needed.

Perhaps we can argue about his worth – but, the one not willing to engage in such an argument was Hera.

For her, Hercules was a symbol of her husband’s infidelity. He had to be destroyed.

The more famous Hercules got, the more necessary it was for Hera to absolutely destroy him.

And she did – in the most devious way possible.

Hercules had a wife and two children. He loved them and protected them.

Hera knew this.

And, she had her goddess powers.

She used these powers.

When Hercules came home one day, he saw a big monster and two little monsters attacking his home – and, loving his family, he slew them to protect his wife and children.

Except that, these were not monsters, they were his wife and children. Hera’s magic made him see them as monsters. So, he slew them.

Hera’s magic made Hercules kill his own family. His wife and children…

It destroyed Hercules.

This is a sad end to an epic story – but it is really important in our times.

Hera suffered from ‘Hercules derangement syndrome’ because she had been wronged. Her role as the protector goddess of the family was challenged by her husband’s infidelity and his bastard child’s excellence.

There was no way to talk Hera down from her vengeance.

Her very being as the queen of the gods, as the patroness of the family, was completely uprooted by the very existence of Hercules. Her very essence, her reason for being, is undermined by the very existence of Hercules.

These are high stakes, for a goddess, a top goddess.

Somehow, I do not think that chatting with her about the good things Hercules did would change her mind. Rather, I think the person doing the chatting would end up in a bit of smoke…

Hera: Hercules Derangement Syndrome Part 4

As we enter the story, Hera is the Queen Goddess – but her husband , Zeus, is habitually with other women.

This is not so much a function of who Zeus is, as it is a by-product of fusing Ancient Greek’s mythology with their conquered peoples, matching their head god with Zeus to facilitate their integration into the Hellenic culture, but having the previous head queen goddess left over.

‘Obviously’, these were women Zeus had had affairs with, which challenged Hera’s position in the pantheon of deities.

OK, nasty but…

She had to keep her position, both as a goddess and as the queen of the Gods, being the wife of Zeus.

So, Hera had to ‘fight back’ to remain who she was.

I suspect that this is where this aspect of Hera, as the patron of wronged women, came from.

Regardless, Hera was the ultimate step-mother-from hell.

Is it really coincidence that her step-son was the ultimate masculine embodiment?

Hera: Hercules derangement syndrome part 3

Hera (Romanized as Juno).

She is the long suffering wife (and sister – this is the Egyptian influence on Greek mythology, where the Pharaoh married his sister to ‘keep the bloodlines pure’) who is the goddess of marriage, hearth (family home) and protector of women (especially during childbirth).

When Ancient Greeks conquered a people, they integrated their main god into Zeus, claiming they were really one and the same and making the cultural/social integration of the conquered peoples that much more possible. 

‘Integrating’ the ‘queen consort’ was much more difficult.  

The way that Ancient Greeks integrated their ‘head god’ Zeus into being just another interpretation of the conquered peoples’ ‘head god’ in order to harmonize the conquered people’s mythology with the Greek one – well, it dealt a rather raw deal to the ‘head queen’ of the conquered people’s pantheon:  the ‘head god’, Zeus, had a queen (Hera), so, who or what was this other queen goddess of the conquered peoples’ pantheon?

She became Zeus’s mistress.

They all did… and Hera ‘had to’ deal with it, within the constrains of the Ancient Greek Mythology – which she did, in epic Hera way, as has been recorded in myth of how she had treated Hercules.

Hera: Hercules Derangement Syndrome Background Part 2

When the Ancient Greeks would conquer another peoples, they would claim that their main God, the head of their pantheon, is just another manifestation of the Greek head god, Zeus (Romanized as Jupiter), so, there really is not that much of a difference between them.  They all worship the same capricious head god – this time, this side won, but if Zeus (by any other name) wanted, the other side would have won.  

No shame in defeat – God’s did it.  A way to ‘save face’…

We may not appreciate this now in our time, but, that is an extremely important aspect of integrating the defeated peoples’ culture into the winning one in a positive, constructive manner.

It seems that the Ancient Greeks understood (knowingly or not) that destroying a conquered culture’s ‘origin myth’ is devastating, for – what we now know – is a few generations.

So, whether by instinct, knowledge or wisdom, the Ancient Greeks avoided that.  

Instead of denigrating the defeated peoples’ mythology, they went out of their way to graft it on to their own mythology, thereby giving the conquered peoples’ a channel to integrate into the Greek culture.  This benefited both:  new blood, new ideas – but within the same overarching cultural framework that is necessary to hold a society together.

Which makes ‘integrating’ the various ‘goddess queens’ that much more difficult…(coming next)

Socialism vs Communism: what are the differences?

Growing up on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, I got a first hand education on the difference between communism and socialism.

Yet, having arrived on the right side of the curtain, and seeing it fall down, I still studied this topic: what differentiates communism from socialism. And, it has been a life-long study – which brought me back to the basics, as I had been taught them, in a communist propaganda school.

Which they actually were truthful about.

Communism can only come around when all of the populace agree to this co-mingling of effort vs benefit. According to Marx, this would mean the State is no longer needed, as the populace will just do what is needed, without anyone telling/directing them to do so.

People will produce things – from food on up – because they want to, and they will not be paid to do so because they love doing what it is they are doing. In return, they will get goods from everyone else, because they too are giving the results of their toil away for free!

In other words, one is expected to work hard, to the best of their abilities – without ever reaping the benefits, as those are reaped by the greater society.

And that should be award enough.

The problem is that this might have worked in our earliest societies – which is what socialism/communism is trying to emulate, even though this does not scale up, as we have seen in history, over and over.

So, what IS the difference between ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’?

VIOLENCE.

Communism can only be achieved by having a 100% brainwashed populace that works towards ‘the common goal’ – whatever that goal is put forth from above.

Socialism is the step before communism: the children are in school, being brain-washed (I was taught it will take a minimum of 5 generations to ‘perfect’ the children), but everyone else has communist ideals imposed on them by force.

This is not frivolous speak – it is what we had been taught in school. Socialism requires force to be imposed, until people are brainwashed enough for the force not to be needed.

In other words, socialism is communism imposed by force.

Winston Marshall hosts James Lindsay on his show: long, but very interesting listen

Dr. James Lindsay is a Mathematician who, along with friends Helen Pluckrose and Dr. Peter Boghossian noticed that there was a marked lack of rigour and scientific method in highly regarded, peer-reviewed papers published on a particular part of the Social Sciences, derogatorily referred to a Grievance Studies. To see if they were correct, they wrote a number of bogus papers with very poor scientific methods and a lot of popular buzzwords and claims of the Grievance Studies.

Surprise surprise, their papers (like how dog-owners react to male-on-female humping vs male-on-male humping in dog parks and how these reactions ‘prove’ inherent sexism in our culture) began to be published and acclaimed. I actually remember some of these papers being papers being touted in mainstream media (MSM) and rolling my eyes – and it is a sad commentary that so many people accepted them as ‘science’ because they were ‘peer-reviewed’…because none of us quite realized that the ‘peers’ doing the ‘reviewing’ were not scientists but ideologues.

When what they thought were transparently fake and somewhat satirical papers began to be cited and nominated for scientific excellence awards, the trio pulled the plug on the project and revealed what they had done.

Perhaps some of my details of the story are fuzzy by the flow of time, but the major point remains.

Since then Dr. Lindsay has taken a deep dive into the world of Grievance Studies and what were the underlying principles that let to them and their open disdain in rejecting the scientific method and instead treating purely political screeds as ‘science’. He has gone to many primary sources and slugged through them, as well as some excellent analyst like Maj. Stephen Coughlin of Unconstrained Analytics. Here is one of Stephen Coughlin’s ‘briefs’:

Winston Marshall prides himself on being a banjo player in some band, but had to quit because he liked a book written by a journalist who was seriously injured by Antifa. Now, he has a wildly successful program here he interviews the greatest thinkers of our times and helps unlock the complexity of their arguments to those of us just learning about the topic can follow with ease – but they are complex topics.

For example, in the video below, James Lindsay and Winston Marshall delve into what is wokism (best explanation so far is that it is Critical Constructionist Epistemology, where the ‘way of knowing’ is constructed on the foundation of the Critical Theory as evolved from the original Frankfurt School teachings – yes, big words – but they really explain them) and the difference between the ‘woke right’ and the ‘woke left’ as well as the different flavours of conservatism and leftism/progressivism in our current political milieu and how the second coming of Donald Trump to the Presidency disrupts how the various groups are evolving.

It is only an hour-and-a-bit long, but is is distilled information that is made comprehensible and Winston Marshall asks all the questions I would have asked for clarification when the wording got too technical.

Warning: James Lindsay – in any of his videos/podcasts/interviews will stretch your mind. But, Winston Marshall is such a skilled interviewer, he makes it enjoyable.

So, please, do enjoy this video:

Things almost came to ‘fistycuffs’ at a local coffee shop

Perhaps the most ubiquitous coffee chain in Canada is Tim Hortons. It used to be good, got bought our and their fare cheeped out, but it is still a fun neutral place for us Canucks to go grab a coffee or a quick lunch with friends.

Today was such a day.

We are a family politically divided by generations and the friends we were having lunch with are a wonderful couple that is more politically aligned with our son, and have a particular hate on for President Trump and Elon Musk.

To their credit, unlike many people in that camp, they do not look down on us – rather, they engage us in a political discussion in a very amicable way, just as it should be. Just because we do not agree politically does not mean we cannot be friends – something rather lacking in many places today, so I am very grateful for that.

We were having our lunch, sitting at a table with our backs to the ordering line. And, we strode into the Elon Musk DOGE area of discussion where our friends and our son agreed, but my hubby and I defended the idea of rooting out corruption in the Administrative State.

I was even bringing in examples of the Canadian Administrative State overreach that I had witnessed first hand in one of my previous careers (I hopped around a lot – based on my needs at the time…I would start little to spend time with the kids and get suckered in deep, so I’d leave and start little again, get suckered in deep – I have boundary issues and a bit of an alpha thing going).

Re-focusing: we were talking about Musk and DOGE and what they were doing and one of our friends was expressing serious doubts about trusting Elon Musk with, well, anything.

A customer in the ordering line – just behind us – leaned in and laid in to the conversation, saying we need Musk and DOGE here in Canada because our taxpayer money was being used badly and in the wrong places. He got a bit of a push back from our friend, but, to be honest, our friend seemed rather taken aback that a complete stranger at a coffee shop would interject himself into our conversation.

And, our conversation was very civil and with no raised voices – which could not be said for, shall we call him Customer 1, C1 for ease of typing. My hubby and I were giving him silent thumbs up, but, none of us were ready for what happened next.

Another person, let’s call him Customer 2, C2. Well, C2 clearly overheard C1’s comments and took very, very loud issue with them. Including calling C1 and ‘idiot’ and a lot of rude words, to which C1 suggested to C2 that he go ‘f’ himself.

By this point, the whole coffee shop was riveted by their exchange and it looked like things might turn to fistycuffs!

Except that they were both holding Timmy’s coffee, which complicated the potential carnage. Don’t want to spill Timmy’s coffee!

In the end, there was no actual violence and though I may make light of it, it is because the potential for violence was there and very palpable.

This is in Canada.

Not the USA that is dealing with this breakdown in civility first hand.

Makes one wonder how it will all end…

The Zionist Limerick League

This goes back a decade or so, but, for a while, I was the President of the Zionist Limerick League.

It was not a huge movement, but, for a bit, I headed it (yes, please, all the jokes as to lack of better candidates are correct, but I hope they will also be witty, because limerick league and all).

Here is my contribution that got me elected as president:

There once was a lady in Tel Aviv

Who liked to wear her hair in a weave.

To Islam she objected

The hijab she rejected

And now the UN says she must leave.

Yes, poor poetry – but to the point politically.

Please, do contribute your best Zionist limericks here!

Monotheism vs Monolatry

This is a bit of a technical – is that the right term? – musing.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God.

Monolatry is the worship of only one God to the exclusion of all the others.

It is my proposition that Abrahamic religions are all a form of Monolatry and not at all Monotheism.

Abrahamic religions typically include Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There may be other off-shoots, but these three are the big ones – three of the main world religions.

So, let’s start at the beginning:

Jews made a pact with a specific God, Jehova: they will worship him exclusively and he will make them prosperous.

That is actually in the Ten Commandments: Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

OK – that clearly defines that the primary loyalty is to this particular God, but does not in any way state that this is the only God, nor does it prohibit a secondary worship of any other God(s).

In other words, it is a statement of loyalty. It is in no way a declaration of monotheism.

Islam is a bit stickier, but, please, do bear with me.

Laat and her sisters were, at one point, declared by Mohammed to be the daughters of Allah – Satanic verses and all that. So, some people argue that these verses may not have been dictated to Mohammed by Satan because he did not originally recognize any difference between these verses and the verses dictated to him by the Angel messenger of Allah.

Very controversial, so, let’s set it aside.

It has been decades since I have studied this and the easily accessible links are, well, burried too deep. But, there is a point in The Sunnah where Mohammed is said to have said that ‘Christians and Jews worship the same God – WE worship the other one’.

That is why they differentiate themselves, having a beard without a mustache, men sitting down to pee and a host of other ways to differentiate Muslims from Christians and Jews.

And this states that Islam (even if we omit the daughters of Allah) is not Monotheism but, at least, Duotheism.

Of course, I do acknowledge that there may, indeed , be monotheistic religions.

Sikhism comes to mind – but, Sikhism is an artificial religion.

It arose as Muslim armies were invading Hindu India. The king who ruled the kingdom which turned out to be a buffer-state between the Islamic invasion and the Hindu kingdoms. Having learned that Muslims would not kill monotheists, he took drastic action: he went on a hunger strike.

At the time, it was the custom of Hindu men in this kingdom to wear a ‘string’, a thin sashe, over one shoulder (think Miss Universe sashe type thing, but thinner). This king sat on one platform of a balance scale, fasting, until men of his kingdom placed their sashes on the other platform of the scale to signal they had rejected Hinduism and accepted monotheistic Sikhism…he sat there, fasting, until the weight of the sashes balanced his own.

Then, they could oppose the Muslim invaders as Monotheists and earn better terms: this was a political move, a loyalty test, and in no way a religious monotheistic belief system.

Source: I went to my local Gurdwara and let the elders teach me the history of their faith.

In conclusion: all Abrahamic faiths are all forms of monolatry, NOT monotheism. Sikhism is a political ideology in its inception, not a religious one.

I do not know of any religions that seek the nomicker ‘monotheistic’ whose doctrine actually supports this claim. If you know of some, please, do let me know and I will research it and repot back to you.

Please, do let me know your thoughts!

Why do we think God is ‘omnipotent’, ‘omniscient’?

OK, I am going on in a bit of a theological manner, but, I have had a few existential moments lately, so, perhaps that is why. For example, just a few hours ago, I was in a car accident – not hurt, just shaken a bit. A fender-bender.

The previous fender-bender I was in happened when I was taking my puppy in for cancer surgery and a philosophy student on her way to an exam lost control of her car in the snow…yes, a philosophy student.

Today’s fender-bender was minor, but the lady who backed into me in the parking lot did not understand why her car would no longer move backwards – she was so unaware that she had hit my car that she kept trying to back up into it, even as I was standing by her window and waving my arms to try to get her attention.

This sent me musing in so many directions…why do we do what we do, just how limited are we in both our observations and reasoning and why do we project so many of our fears into religions?

Because at the very root of it all, religions are about projecting fears and having them collectively assuaged. They cannot all be true – they are mutually exclusive, so…

Which makes me wonder: why do some religions – at least the most popular ones these days – have omniscient, omnipotent deities?

Yes, one per religion, that is rather definitional – cannot have two omnipotent beings, that would be a contradiction.

But, how did we arrive at this?

Ancient religions regarded Gods as sort of immortal humans with a few extra powers tossed in for good measure, but none of them were considered all powerful, all knowing…and certainly not all good.

Even the Abrahamic faiths are rooted in a view of God that is very much more limited and less unique than what most current Abrahamic worshippers I have spoken to about this are convinced of.

‘God’ did not know that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. He had to question them to find out. He was shocked that they were hiding from him because they were ashamed of their nakedness…

Then, he rushed off to tell ‘the others’.

That is not ‘omniscient’ – or he would have known, without questioning Adam and Eve.

Then we come to ‘omnipotent’ – that directly contradicts the whole ‘free will’ idea for humans.

This one is a little more complex, so, please, bear with me.

God gives humans free will – to do as they wish, even if it means disobeying him.

But, he is also all-powerful, with the ability to control everything, yet he choses not to control the thought processes of humans.

This is a contradiction: if God wanted perfect slaves (of the mind), he could have created humans to both have freedom of thought and only think in patterns that do not cause him to condemn some of the most eternal suffering.

It is impossible to fully and willingly grant freedom of thought, then punish people with eternal suffering for exercising it – unless you are actually setting people up to fail so you can have an excuse to torture them.

So, why did we ever arrive at a point where we think God(s) are omnipotent?

Certainly not from The Bible – pick the one you prefer, from the Catholic to the Gnostic to the Old Testament: nothing in these religious texts suggests an onmiscient and omnipotent God: so, why do so many people believe that?