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 and the HDS: Hercules Derangement Syndrome – Laying the Background Part 1

Ancient Greeks did not see Gods in the same way most modern religions conceive of them: perfect and all knowing and all powerful and (sometimes) all benevolent. Rather, they saw them as larger-than-life figures who may have had special powers, but they also each possessed very human qualities and very human failings.

Ancient Greek Gods are all manifestations of human archetypes, iconic illustrations of human nature. Perhaps the very essence of human nature.

Aphrodite (Romanized as Venus) is the goddess of beauty, love and, frankly, frivolity and vanity. She is married to Hephaestus (Romanized as Vulcan) who is the ugly and deformed god of smithing, metalwork, craftsmanship and fire. He is known to make the most beautiful jewelry (as well as very useful tools) which Aphrodite loves, rather loving him, so she is constantly unfaithful to him.

In modern terms, Aphrodite would be the cheating trophy wife and Hephaestus would be the physically inferior uber-rich man who overlooks his wife’s infidelity, because he knows she will always return to him and that is enough.  

We all know modern day couples like that!

Aside:  Aphrodite’s most common lover is said to be Aries (Romanized as Mars), the God of War, the ultimate warrior.  This is an ancient encapsulation of the archetype of ‘the prostitute and the soldier’:  Hers is the personification of femininity without a goal beyond sexuality, his is the personification of brutal masculinity without a goal beyond obeying orders of your superior commanders.

And, yes, most of us have also known couples like that.

Let’s consider Athena (Romanized as Minerva) who is the goddess of wisdom, war and crafts.  Wisdom and wars – that makes sense:  she is the personification of the wisdom when to enter into a war.  She is not the goddess of combat, the way Aries is:  she is the one whose wisdom directs whether Aries ought to be unleashed or not.  

Yet, Athena’s wisdom was shadowed by her jealousy when her mastery of crafts had been questioned.  A young woman named Arachne said she could weave better that Athena, so, Athena showed up for the challenge with her weaving loom and when it looked like Arachne was going to win, Athena – in a fit of jealousy – turned Arachne into a spider who can only weave webs.

Aside:  I think it is ironic that I paid for a big part of my University education by designing one-of-a-knit-ware (at really, really high prices) – and I am rather very arachnophobic – or is it really ‘Arachne-phobia’? 

Welfare is a form of slavery

Charity is good – just like Shakespeare spoke of mercy (paraphrasing): it blesses him who receives it as well as him who provides it.

Yet, in order for this to be true, it needs to be personal: one person choses to help another, one way or another.

When governments get involved – we are taking on a whole new thing.

Governments decide who is to ‘receive funds’ and who is to ‘surrender funds’ – you cannot give someone money without first taking it from someone else. Governments have a monopoly on taking money from some individuals (taxes) and they are permitted to use force to extract these funds.

Nay, they have a monopoly on violence to extract taxes.

These are collected from all citizens, willing or not. (We shall focus on the ‘not’ ones in just a bit.)

Then, a portion of these tax-collected funds are given out to people who do not work (cannot or are not willing to – sad, but irrelevant to the point of my argument).

So, some people work without compensation (taxes taken away) for a period of time (part of the year) only to support the lifestyle of other people who do not work.

In other words: people who are on welfare are ‘slave owners’ who do not need to work yet have their living needs provided for by other people who do work, but who would not support them if it were not for the threat of force (in this case, by the tax collecting governments).

If working/doing things for the benefit of others under the threat of force is not THE definition of ‘slavery’, then I do not know what is: and I would like your input – please correct me if I am wrong!

Senator John Kennedy on Covid-19

Usually, I cherish in commenting on the videos I post.

This time, I’d like to let this one stand on its own merits.

(Sorry not to embed, but please, do click through. It is worth it. In case the link stops working, here is the original video address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQFU_CU6q18)

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:

Proportional Representation – thoughts?

Many European countries have adopted ‘proportional representation’ as their means of electing their elected representatives.

Yes, there are many variations of how ‘proportional representation’ is implemented, so, let me be at least a little bit specific.

I am referring to a system where registered parties are listed on the voting ballot and voters (again, the qualifications for who is ‘a voter’ may vary, but that is not a path I want to explore in this post) cast their votes for a specific party.

If ‘Party A’ receives 20% of the vote, they are allotted 20% of the seats in the house/chamber/etc. of the representatives. The party that received that portion of the votes/seats (the translation may not be 100% accurate, but as close as possible without chopping representatives into fractions, figuratively – or time based) then names its members who will take these seats and represent the voters who had chosen this party.

This seems like a very fair system in one aspect: the populace is represented proportionally. If your party got only 8% of the votes overall, that party would still get 8% of the representatives.

Let’s compare one alternative, which is based mostly on the Anglosphere culture: a country is divided up into areas – hopefully representing roughly similar number of voters per area (but, again, this and jerrymandering are topics for another post). Real world is not ideal and burdened with history, but, the ideal would be for each ‘riding’ to represent roughly similar number of voters. Then, the voters chose candidates in ‘their’ riding – where they reside – based on the character and political positions that candidate has put forward.

Some candidates (most, these days) are affiliated with political parties: political parties will actually have internal contests as to who can represent that party in a specific riding. But, independents are just as able to put their name on the ballot, and, if they appeal to enough voters, they can win ‘the seat’ to represent their constituents.

The benefit of this system is that the voters have chosen to represent them in the legislative body – and, that person is personally responsible to them for each and every vote they cast, each and every piece of legislation they put forward.

If their constituents overwhelmingly disagree with the way their elected representative’s party is moving forward, they are (theoretically) free to vote their conscience rather than the party line, because they are (again, theoretically) responsible to the voters in their riding, not the party they are affiliated with. It happens seldom, but it does happen.

It also happens that elected representatives, if their party becomes too extreme, leave their party and sit as independents or members of another party. This is not an everyday thing, nor is it rare or unheard of. The point is, whatever they do, these folks are answerable (theoretically) primarily to the people wo directly elected them, and only secondarily to their party.

The problem with this system is that with multiple parties, a person can win a seat with 30% of the vote in a multi-candidate race and a party can form a government with barely 33% of the popular vote. So, yes, a party with 51+% of the popular vote can lose, if the contested ridings are skin tight loses while the ridings they win in are blowouts. More votes does not translate to more seats, and the seats have it.

In this light, proportional representation sounds rather nice…except that…

In proportional representation, it is the party that gets the seats and appoints its members to it. These members now have no responsibility to any group of actual voters – their only responsibility is to the party, as it is at the pleasure of the party that they have their seats.

Yes, I have used the term ‘theoretical’ rather frequently regarding party vs voter affiliation/responsibility/responsiveness. And, yes, the parties ‘whip’ the vote of members by threats of all kinds, but, the members are still responsible to the people who elected them and a representative that crosses their will too far will be voted out, regardless the party. Not often, but it has been done.

Still, the primary responsibility of an elected representative is to champion the causes the majority of their constituents support.

This is the problem with proportional representation: the sitting member is not responsible to any group of voters, only to the party that appointed them to one of the seats they had won.

Being responsible to voters is one thing. Being responsible to the party that placed you into your seat is quite another.

Yes, in both systems, it is a balancing act.

And, the more powerful parties become, the less responsive representatives will be to their members.

So, let us strive for a system where the majority of representatives are independent of parties as much as possible and responsive to the will of their voters, whom they are supposed to represent.

Just Because One Guy Is Evil Does Not Mean His Opponent Is not Just As – or More Evil

Vladimir Putin is a bad person – perhaps evil. You do not get to head up the KGB by being nice or kind person – or barely registering as human. So, let me state this from the very beginning.

I have no illusions about who and what Putin is.

But that does not mean that I have to be blind to who and what Zelensky is, and that he might be just as bad – or, perhaps, worse, than Putin.

I have it on good authority that Zelensky’s luxury villa in Italy is on the same street, and only 4 houses down, from Putin’s luxury villa in Italy. If that does not bring things into perspective, I don’t know what will.

Please if you can, prove or disprove this claim in the comments – we all should know.

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…

Romania arrests election winner, cancels election results

Well, this does not bode well…

Romania held elections, and the ‘wrong’ party won

What to do, what to do, what to do…

Oh – here is an idea: arrest and criminally charge the leader of said party!

Then, cancel the election altogether!

That is exactly what had happened to Romania’s Calin Georgecu…

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1894713321422721070

Just because it is called ‘a democracy’ does not mean it is, actually, a democracy. Think DDR – the Democratic Republic of Germany, there are many. It’s newspeak – call things by the opposite of what they are.

In the EU, the elected politicians are not allowed to reject the laws drafted by the unelected bureaucrats: they may only vote ‘yes’ or request a delay to re-negotiate the terms in the proposed law, to be re-crafted by the same bureaucrats who engineered the original proposed law.

OK – we have a bit of a pattern here: in Czech, the opposition leader is being criminally charged (just ahead of the elections) for opposing the ruling coalition’s policies, because even though ‘opposing’ is actually in his job title as an opposition leader in Parliament, ‘actually opposing’ is … ‘divisive’.

In Romania, the ‘wrong’ party wins, so the election is cancelled and the winning party leader is criminally charged and arrested.

In Germany, the most popular party in current elections has flipped on the issues that it ran on, and the second most popular party that has held true on these same issues is being frozen out of the governing structure…

This makes it look like President Trump – having been charged with a no-victim crime and convicted just prior to the US elections – got off easy. OK, the assasination attempts against him were not ‘getting away easy’, of course, and I am in no way making light of that. All I mean is that despite the establishment ruling interests, Trump won despite their lawfare.

Now, we will have to see how – now criminally charged opposition leader in the Czech Republic, Mr. Tomio Okamura, and Mr. Calin Georgescu, the winning candidate now arrested in Romania, will fare.

End well, this will not…