Hard to Kill a Sacred Cow

Disentangling the Hyksos from the Hebrews and trying to figure out the pharaonic time line, which is way off. The Hyksos, Shepherd Kings, may be the Mongols in which case they are definitely not the Hebrews who had resided in Canaan for many years before the Hyksos invasion that split Egypt into two pharaonic lines of rule. There were the traditional rulers of Kemet (Egypt) forced to the south and the Hyksos rulers at the Nile delta in the north (according to the compass).

The difficulties lie with the Apis bull mummies, a tradition the Hyksos continued as they adopted Egyptian ways. Since archaeologists and historians see the Apis bull mummies as a single time line instead of parallel time lines they have muddied the actual time line and the line of ruling pharaohs. Kamose was pharaoh and expelled the Hyksos from Egypt, much of which has been chronicled in the Taita books by Wilbur Smith.

As a result of the erroneous ordering of the Egyptian royal families and the insertion of Ramesses as the pharaoh of the Exodus, much of history has been perverted, pinning the Exodus of the Hebrews much later than it actually happened as shown by archaeological digs at Avaris. The evidence of Joseph and the Hebrews in Egypt and their 400 years of slavery are readily seen at the earlier level which dates to the Middle Kingdom but have been deemed an anomaly because that level is long before the rise of Ramesses of the Late Kingdom era.

All the evidence is clear, just as the evidence from Canaan where Jericho once stood but again, it dates to the Middle Kingdom. All the evidence mirrors what is written in the Torah and so all of the Hebrew history is deemed an exercise in mythology and faith not to be confused with actual history because the proof is too early in the supposed time line and before Ramesses.

Aah, Sacred Cows.

In writing authors call them their darlings and resist killing them off to make the narrative better. In history and archaeology these sacred cows pervert the time line and the accepted history and thus what is right in front of the eyes is relegated to anomalies, mistakes, or in many cases tossed aside because the evidence does not fit the accepted version of history. How often such sacred cows get in the way and force historians and archaeologists and scientists to risk destruction of their career or giving in to the accepted version because they refuse to kill the sacred cows and rewrite history again because it makes everything they have written invalid.

How would scientists react when physics' sacred cows are impeding knowledge and the scientific method, such as Einstein's seminal E=mc2 equation when it is shown as invalid? Do scientists reorder the universe or do they ridicule, criticize, and dismiss the new findings that prove Einstein's equations were wrong to protect their sacred cows? Should scientists have sacred cows? Doesn't the scientific method prevent sacred cows by following the data?

When I was a child, I spoke as a child and saw as a child, but when I became an adult, I spoke as an adult and saw as an adult.

That is all. Disperse.

God Doesn't Need a Gun

Frank vs. God is a movie that we all should watch, especially if we avoid talking about god or watching or reading anything about god. There is a lot more to the story than a man whose house and dog were destroyed when a tornado took out his house, the only house on the block, and the insurance company wouldn't pay to rebuild the house because the house and dog were destroyed as an act of god. In plain business, insurance business, terms, David Frank was not covered because the insurance company had hedged their bets and cut their losses.

Do you realize that an act of god clause is so that insurance companies can limit their losses? Oh, you didn't realize that insurance companies are in the business of making money, that they are legalized corporate gamblers instituted for the sole purpose of making money? Too bad. David Frank didn't know that either and that is why he got screwed.

David Frank, determined to get restitution for his losses, decides to sue God since it was, according to the legal and binding contract he signed with the insurance company, God's fault his house was utterly destroyed and his dog, Brutus, killed. What the insurance company (and God) didn't count on is that David Frank is a corporate lawyer, a really good and successful corporate lawyer and he is serious about suing God.

And he does.

The judge, because of the advice his campaign manager gave him, decides against the usual way of dealing with what are termed frivolous lawsuits and throwing David Frank's lawsuit out the first day decides it would be good for his political career to hear the case. After all, the judge is certain David Frank will crash and burn and he will look good with the voters in the media. What does he have to lose?

That is the real point of this movie and this post. What does anyone have to lose when they sign a social contract and take on the evil opposition?

To the sign-carrying individuals outside the courtroom every day calling David Frank a heretic and a sinner blaspheming against God and begging God to strike David Frank down, they are righteous because they are defending God and anything they do to David Frank because he mocks God is justified. Everything is justified when standing up for God -- even killing David Frank and taking his life. Nothing is against the law and everything is justified under God to protect the sanctity of God.

That same righteous argument is used in defense of violence every time someone calls someone else a name, slanders and libels someone else, threatens to bomb someone's house or their car, sets someone's property on fire, pillages someone's store, steals or destroys someone's property, or guns someone down, or rapes and murders someone. Everything is justified when the other person is in the wrong and you are in the right -- even when what you believe is based on a lie.

Here in the United States of America were are at war. The right side is the side that protects women's rights, children, and the sanctity of human civil rights. The wrong side is the other side that has committed crimes from "...questionable business dealings to allegations of sexual assault."  At least that is what The Atlantic Monthly claimed.

Trump will also leave people without health care as he destroys the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Well, he did say so when he was on the campaign trail and, unlike every other politician that promised Hope and Change and delivered nothing once they were sworn into office, the opposition believes Trump because he's not a politician and he doesn't understand how politics works or how to run a country like the USA.

How many people screaming for Trump's impeachment before he even took office bothered to look at what Trump actually said and did? Did they read Trump's position on the Affordable Care Act or health care?

First and foremost, did any of Trump's opposition stop to think about what happens when a bill passed by Congress is repealed? Trump cannot just say the Affordable Care Act is dead. He must first ask Congress to set in motion the actions necessary by law and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution to repeal the law. Trump may ask, but Congress must act. The President of the United States cannot repeal Obamacare -- or indeed any law. He must follow the process laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

The same process must be followed if the President of the United States decides to repeal Roe v. Wade. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Roe v. Wade is constitutional, Trump must ask Congress to initiate the action to repeal the law before Roe v. Wade can be repealed or erased from the books. The same is true of any laws on the books that have been legally enacted by Congress and ratified by the sitting President.

The same is not true of Executive Orders signed by the President. Executive Orders can be erased by the sitting President signing an Executive Order of his own that strikes down his predecessors' executive orders. In fact, a single Executive Order signed by the sitting President can invalidate all the executive orders signed into existence by any and all predecessors, such as the provisions to the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) that Obama signed into existence
with his own Executive Pen, including turning over control of the Internet to the United Nations that became effective October 1, 2016 and every other questionable part of the TPP Obama flourished his Executive Pen over, including handing over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. because that will enhance US security. The point of all this is that what you think is right is not the only measure of what is actually right -- or righteous.

Trump has been vilified, ridiculed, denounced, and blamed for the direction the United States is pursuing. He has been denounced as a violator of women's rights and called on to answer for his assault on women because of a video where he claimed to be a stud in front of other men who could have any woman he wanted. How many men and boys have claimed the same from the time they hit puberty? How many men claimed to be a chick magnet, a stud, a real player in front of women they intended to seduce?

Men claim to be sensitive to women's rights and women's needs, but that is a more recent phenomenon especially in a culture where women are chattel to be bartered and sold like cattle. Women have feminists now who will knock a man down when he asserts his rights in modern times in the Western world, but there are plenty of cultures where women are still objects to be bought and sold in alleys and in broad daylight where they must hide their hair, their faces, and their bodies to keep men from being overcome by a woman's power and it has nothing to do with protecting women's chastity since in those same cultures, if a woman is raped she is judged to have incited the rape and is put to death or stoned or both. Where are the women's marches in those countries?

What we see in the mainstream media is little more than propaganda meant to inflame the people and enrage them by spouting half truths and outright lies in order to incite violence that will hopefully burst into civil war and then world war. Mob mentality rules.

Being moved to violence is the goal and the tactics strike at our emotions, often through graphic video and photos, most of which are Photoshopped, faked, and staged, in order to shut down common sense and rational thought. Why else would a protest for women's rights, the same rights that women have enjoyed in the United States and other civilized western nations, when no woman's right have been violated. Women are free to vote, free to choose abortion or adoption or having a child, free to protest, free to run for office, free to own and operate a business, a home, and a career, free to be police officers, soldier, and pilots, and free to serve as officers or enlisted soldiers. No one can take that away without the majority consent and votes of Congress and the president does not have the authority to take those rights away.

How many tens of thousands of women marched safely in protest? How many knew they were marching for the Democratic National Convention or the Democratic Party trying to de-legitimize Donald Trump's presidency? How many of those women knew they were marching for Hillary and Democrats and the loss of the November 2016 political races where the voters chose Republicans over Democrats at the polls? How many of those tens of thousands of women listening to incendiary speeches by female celebrities threatening to bomb the White House knew they had marched for threats of bombings the White House and harming President Trump, his wife, and his family? How many of those tens of thousands of women helped to set fires, impede emergency vehicles, or assaulted police officers? Is that what those women signed up for when they planned to march for women's rights? What about the rights of the people they harmed?

In the movie Frank vs. God, Corporate Attorney David Frank stated that God was omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient -- all powerful, present everywhere, and all knowing. The protesters outside the courthouse, and especially the man who shot David Frank in the name of God, evidently did not know that God had that much power. After all, why would an all power, all knowing God who is always everywhere need with a gun or a man filled with hate to do his dirty work? Maybe his believers don't believe in God's power any more than David Frank does. That is why they took it into their own hands.

The protesters don't believe in freedom or the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or the rule of law any more than God's messengers did. Beware your message of gets lost the moment you hammer your point across when you assault another person, take his life, his property, his voice, and his constitutional and legal rights in the name of peace. Your message of peace and love has been trumped by hate born of ego.

That is all. Disperse.

Does Love Trump Hate?

Throughout the latter part of the campaign season just past as Hillary and Trump stumped for votes, Hillary's Stronger Together message took on another slogan: Love Trumps Hate.

Hillary lost and the message that Love Trumps Hate continues as tens of thousands of people, many who never voted for Hillary or Trump, continue to carry signs and chant the slogan: Love trumps Hate.

These activists protested up to December 19, 2016, begged electors to change their votes to Hillary and declare her the new President of the United States (POTUS), abandoning their sworn oaths as electors to do their duty to their country by declaring Hillary the winner. There were claims that electors were offered money to offset the fines in those states that impose fines for faithless electors. I watched video of two electors already pledged to Donald Trump state they would not cast their electoral votes for Trump because of the claims that Trump was a hateful person who disrespected women, threatened them with grabbing their pussies, and in general was a reprehensible demagogue who was unfit for the office of President and unable to steer a straight course for the American ship of state.

Out of the 306 electoral votes Trump won during the election he ended up with 304 after the electors in all states had cast their votes, clearly well over the 270 votes Trump needed to win the election fair and square. When the Electoral College votes were tabulated, 7 electors voted against their pledge candidate: 2 against Trump and 5 against Hillary. According to Wikipedia,"A further three electors attempted to vote against Clinton but were replaced or forced to vote again. Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227, while Colin Powell won three, and John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one."  Though Trump did not win the popular vote, it was the Electoral College votes that handily resulted in declaring Trump President, which is the way the United State Constitution set up the voting process because, as Thomas Jefferson stated, pure democracies are doomed to failure. 

The Founding Fathers chose a democratic republic for the their brand new country and set up the Electoral College to ensure the USA would not end up at the mercy of the mob -- the popular vote. As Hillary ably showed, Trump won most of the country's votes while Hillary cleaned up in New York, California, and Wisconsin, states with the largest population centers in the country. Had Hillary won, the future of this country would have been determined by the majority, the mob. The Electoral College votes, even with 7 faithless electors, was determined by 538 electoral votes that spread the deciding vote across all the states and not just the states with the highest population. The 227 electoral votes Hillary won wasn't even close to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. 

The anguished cries of "Hillary won the popular vote" crashed against the solid bulwark of the Founding Fathers' foresight in instituting the Electoral College. It is the same mistake when Hillary campaigned against Obama in 2008, failing to garner sufficient numbers of delegate votes to win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. She won the popular vote, but in the end lost the delegates to Obama in the same fashion that Bernie Sanders won the popular vote and failed to get enough of the delegate votes to capture the Democratic Party nomination.  

Disgruntled Hillary supporters, as well as disenfranchised Bernie Sanders's supporters still smarting after being summarily handed over to Hillary in a demonstration of Democratic Party solidarity, howled and screamed their rage when it became clear Trump had won by a narrow margin. Trump was not their president they declared, shouting "Love trumps Hate" as they marched, demonstrated, rioted, looted, burned, and impeded even emergency vehicle traffic. Holding their placards and banners high, "Love trumps Hate," these supporters assaulted everyone they believed had betrayed the country by voting for Trump, often without listening when their victims declared they had voted for Johnson or Stein or abstained from voting. The "Love trumps Hates" gangs took their rage out on everyone and anyone they believed had allowed Trump to triumph over the people's choice, Hillary Clinton. 

The violent mob mentality continued until Thursday, January 19, 2017 when Donald J. Trump took the oath of office and was sworn in as President of the United States in spite of boycotts, marches, demonstrations, burnings, looting, violence, and assaults on civilians and police still chanting "Love trumps Hate"! Many members of the mob admittedly never voted for Hillary or Trump during the election. They didn't vote for Gov. Gary Johnson or Dr. Jill Stein either. They chose not to make their choices known at the ballot box, but they were determined to make their voices heard loudly and clearly right up to and beyond Inauguration Day. "Love trumps Hate"!

The "Love trumps Hate" crowd have made it plain that President Donald J. Trump is not their representative and have vowed to make sure the next 4 years they will obstruct, impede, and refuse to obey whatever President Trump does and says during his tenure in the White House the same way that those voters who declared President Barack Obama was not their representative when he entered the White House after he was inaugurated in January 2009. The difference is President Obama's opposition created the Tea Party Movement to voice their opposition to Obama's tenure and held Obama's feet to the fire on every issue. The fact that the Republican Party candidates took control of both houses of Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate) in the autumn of 2009 is proof of their opposition to Obama. Even though Trump failed to win the popular vote during the 2016 campaign, the Republican Party candidates won at every level of government: local, state, and federal, a resounding defeat for the Democratic Party across the board. Both houses of Congress picked up more Republicans during 2016 delivering a stunning defeat to Democrats throughout the country, not only to Hillary but to outgoing President Obama.  

Amid unsubstantiated claims that the Russians and President Vladimir Putin tampered with the presidential race, disaffected voters (and nonvoters protesting Trump's election) cling to that hope that some shred of evidence will prove that Trump cheated to win in the same what opposition to Obama claimed that Obama was not born in the United States and was not an eligible candidate for President of the United States. The fact that Obama's much publicized State of Hawaii birth certificate posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website was proven to be a fake has been lost in the claims that Trump has never held public office and is therefore unsuited to hold the highest office in the land. It does not matter that Obama's experience in public office is in a term as an Illinois state senator and an uncompleted sophomore term in the U.S. Senate are not much more experience than the 40 years Trump spent as a businessman and real estate mogul. 

We, the people, tend to forget the men who first took office in the United States of America's fledgling government were not politicians but printers, publishers, ministers, soldiers, silversmiths, farmers, and business owners, men who had no experience in politics other than what they learned as they broke away from England and set up their own government, sending farmers and lawyers and publishers as ambassadors to European countries to make treaties, make loans, and make peace or ready for war, the same farmers, ministers, and businessmen who took their muskets and fought the trained soldiers, the Red Coats, sent by King George (mad King George) to put down the colonists' rebellion and restore British order. 

We all start from somewhere, often choosing a path different than the one we originally set out on, learning as we go. The future is a not set in stone and often seems to be set in water beginning down the mountains as snow melts into rivulets, creeks, and streams, joining the rushing rivers and cascading in torrents, picking up stones, pecking away at mountains, eating the sand and soil along its path until it ends in the sea, frequently widening river banks, cutting new streams, and changing the course of rivers along the way. Nothing stands in the way for long and few things remain unchanged by the relentless headlong dash to the sea. 

We have seen frontiersmen like Daniel Boone, and soldiers like Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Grant, slaves like Fredrick Douglass, and men and women of different backgrounds take their place in the U.S. government to contribute their time and talents in service to the people. Not until more recent times have we seen men and women graduate from school to take their seats in government, not for a term or two, but for 30, 40, and 50 years, no longer serving the people, but serving themselves at the expense of the people. Maybe it is time for a change, a chance to go back to the roots out of which this country, the United States of America, grew and give the people the chance to speak through their elected representatives, men and women who have worked in the world and are not merely the latest generation of a long line of lawyers and politicians who work for themselves. 

We may see disaster over the next 4 years or we may see a brighter future. The only thing we will know is by keeping our eyes, the peoples' eyes, on what proceeds from President Trump's policies. Only that way will we, the people, know for sure whether this President, like so many others before him, are speaking for the country or are merely a mouthpiece for the Powers That Be. Only then will we be able to decide whether to love or hate Trump. 

That is all. Disperse. 

Turning The Other Cheek

I was trying to explain how to deal with violence, abuse, and negativity from others. Dictating into the tablet is not as clear for me as typing it into my laptop. I'm sure I confused them terribly.

What I was trying to explain -- and it has been a hard lesson for me to learn -- is that we affect people around us by OUR attitude and thoughts. I finally get what 'turn the other cheek' really means and it is not the act of turning your cheek when accosted by an opponent intent on violence and subjugation. Maybe that is going a bit far in describing opposition from others . . . and maybe not.

The change has to come from within you. If you turn the other cheek when slapped or struck and you grit your teeth and force yourself to back down while holding resentment, anger, rage, and violence against them (I'll get you whenever I get the chance kind of feelings) then you've missed the point of turning your cheek. Turning your cheek is not dismissing the assault on you nor is it backing down, swallowing your pride, giving up control, or any of those negative activities and feelings. Turning your cheek is the outward symbol of not returning their assault with a mental or verbal assault of your own. Turning your cheek is not about you, but about what you express within yourself.

Maybe writing it out won't help anyone either because I cannot find or do not have the words to express what I feel.

It is not pity or understanding of the other person's motives and actions. It is something within yourself -- within me -- that has happened and continues to happen because it is an ongoing process.

Though I may in time come to understand what drives the other person to act as they have, it doesn't matter because what I feel within myself is peace and calm. And even love. Not the airy-fairy kind of peace and love I once made fun of and joked about, but a deep down peace and love that has changed me inside.

We are all connected. Every person, child, animal, plant, rock, and mineral on this planet and throughout the Universe because we are all the same. We are different facets of the Universal Thought that created us all.

Before you call for the men in white coats and dismiss me as needing a wraparound jacket that buckles in the back and look for a padded cell, stop and think about it. You can change the world ad the people around you, but you must first change yourself at the quantum level. People will still be the way they are until they change themselves fundamentally.

I was verbally and mentally, and sometimes physically, abused as a child. I have spent most of my life on the defensive, ready to defend my position and my body even before anyone said or did anything to me because that is all I knew from the time I was very young. My parents were overtly cruel, although everyone offered my their pity for the way they saw me being treated, shaking their heads because they didn't understand why I was being abused, especially not in public. They didn't get and neither did I. All the people who claimed I was full of rage confused me. I wasn't full of rage or anger or violence. I didn't feel that way and I'd certainly never harbored feelings like that, except that I did in a way. I was always defending myself, proving myself, giving evidence as though on trial that I was not a liar and that was where I lived -- always on trial, a whipped dog cowering and waiting for the next kick, the next slap, the next abusive word, criticism, and ridicule. I didn't know how deep that went until I began to change myself.

That old story about the woman who keeps getting dumped and dumped on by men is asked what the one thing all those men had in common finally made sense to me. What did all those jerks, liars, abusive, and violent men have in common? The woman.

As above, so below.

What you give, you receive.

Turn the other cheek.

They are all the same and emanate from the same source. You.

And me and everyone else in this reality.

When I forgave my abuser, even though the abuser was dead, I began to change. I began to be at peace and became calmer. It's like Carrie Fisher says in her one woman show, "Wishful Drinking." Resentment is drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

People still ridicule, criticize, and abuse me but I no longer feel the need to defend myself. That is why when a discussion veers into that place where names are called, violence is offered, and ridicule is heaped, I let go and walk away. Without a focus for the name calling, violence, criticism, and ridicule, the other person will still fume, froth at the mouth, and be angry and will eventually move on and the flames will die down. With no focus for their negativity, there is no longer any point.

I find myself avoiding those situations more and more. I've nothing to prove and nothing to defend. I hold no ill will towards my abusers and see no point in giving them fuel to rage on. It is not important that I win or that I prove my point. They will either see things as I do -- or they won't. The world will keep spinning and life will go on. If they don't learn now, they might later or in the next life, but eventually we all learn the one Truth. Love can conquer hate. Not the romantic and physical kind of love, but pure love. Peace comes from that pure love and that is what we think we're striving for when we talk about peace and goodwill toward men, even though we miss the point.

By becoming more peaceful myself and approaching that pure love that is available to us all, I approach the better part of me and hopefully become a source of that peace and love that will affect everything around me. It changes me a little more each time I choose that peace and get closer to that pure love. It is a struggle, but I'm getting there. I keep tripping over my old habits and defenses and I keep getting up, look at why I tripped, and find that peace inside of me.

I have so much to atone for and, though I think of myself, have always thought of myself, as a good person, I still have a long way to go. I'll get there because I feel myself change a little more every day, every time I pick myself up after I fall. And the rage inside me dies a little more, replaced by the peace that approaches that pure love. That airy-fairy stuff I used to laugh and joke about in others. It's not in religion or vegetarianism or marching and civil disobedience that I have found that peace. It is, and always has been, inside of me.

I turn the other cheek not because I need to feel I'm better than you but because I no longer feel the need for anything but peace and love. It makes everything and everyone around me look and feel different because I am different.

That is all. Disperse. 

The Night King or The Dragons

I don't know about you, but prophecies are riddles meant to fool and lead you astray, but only until you solve them or they play out.

In Game of Thrones, book and HBO series, Mirri Maz Duur told Dany she would see/reunite with Khal Drogo when certain conditions are met.

 "When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, when the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves, when your womb quickens again, and you bear a living child. Then he will return, and not before."  

I have read some of the comments and conjecture about the return of Khal Drogo, but I don't agree with them. I see it this way: "When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east..." 

When Daenerys reaches Westeros and becomes queen, she will rise in the west as she has risen in the east. She will set in the east when she leaves for Westeros. Dany is the sun, or at least her rule is the sun because she brings light into the darkness of slavery and overturns the old ways when she frees the slaves and abolishes slavery. 

"...[W]hen the seas go dry..." is a little more difficult to parse unless you look at the coming Winter and the rise of the White Walkers. The seas will indeed go dry when the long Winter comes and the seas freeze. This part of the prophecy may refer to how the coming Winter will affect the world and how far the Night King's reach will be. 

"...[A]nd mountains blow in the wind like leaves[.]"  The wall between the North and beyond the wall could be considered mountains. If the Night King breaks through the wall and gets through the spells keeping him out of Westeros, that would mean the wall would fall and the snow and ice would be like leaves in the wind when the winds of winter blow what remains of the wall. Then again, if Dany succeeds in destroying the Night King and all of his troops, dead and White Walkers as well, the wall may fall down and the cold still remaining from the Long Winter would freeze the ice and snow of the wall into shards that would be like leaves on the wind. Either way, I see the mountains as the wall and the wall will fall one way or the other, depending on how George R. R. Martin sees it in his mind's eye. The wall comes down and either the long winter and the Night King's power will shatter the wall or Dany and dragons will bring down the wall and send its remains flying like leaves on the winds. 

The Night King will march forward and the seas will freeze and the wall will eventually come down, but I am fairly certain the mountains in the prophecy are the heights of the wall that look like mountains of ice and snow. 

That's the thing about prophecies, the imagery is allegory but how the imagery is interpreted will show how the future plays out. 

Once the wall is down and the White Walkers and their Night King defeated, Dany will be free to have another child. It may be that Mirri Maz Duur was telling Dany that she would see Rhaego, her son, the son she gave up to pay for Drogo's life -- such as it was -- is whom she will see again. Now that Dany is free to bear another child, likely with Jon Snow, who is her nearest Targaryen blood relation (the Targaryens preferred to marry their kind), the living child Dany bears will be a boy, a dark-haired boy, that she will name Rhaego. The Stallion That Mounts the World will return, but Khal Drogo will not be his father, and the Stallion will be more fully of the Blood of the Dragon. 

I think it is Rhaego who will return, although she may name her new son Drogo, so Drogo will return -- or at least his soul will return. Daenerys, like many women before her, and like Jon Snow's mother, Lyanna Stark, may die after she gives birth to her son, a son to carry on her legacy and the legacy of the dragons she brought back to life, and that son will eventually be king once he comes of age. That's the thing about being a woman, even a strong woman who rides dragons and heads conquering armies, they can still die in childbirth. Lyanna Stark did as did Tyrion Lannister's mother and the millions upon millions of mothers before and after Lyanna Stark and Joanna Lannister when they give birth to the next generation. 

Maybe Daenerys Stormborn will live on to raise her next son, or maybe she won't. That is up to Martin's vision of the future and how he chooses to let the prophecy play out. Whether the fans would rather have Dany alive and riding Drogon through the skies of Westeros and the lands over the Narrow Sea, it is ultimately beyond their control. 

All we can do is wait and see. The story will end one way or the other and HBO's version or Martin's long awaited final books in the Song of Ice and Fire will give us the answers. 

That is all. Disperse. 

You Are What You Eat -- Toxic and Dead

I was looking for a link to a serious article about the dangers of farm-raised tilapia and read the information on the link -- as I usually do. I was horrified.

Why would anyone eat farm-raised anything? Feed lots and pen-bred and raised fish are dangerous to your health -- and the corporation know that going in? The problem is not just the unhealthy conditions in which the animals and fish are raised. The problem is that the corporate mindset is focused solely on profit. How can they raise food that looks edible but is completely inedible and damaging to the consumer's health?

The enormous levels of antibiotics used to keep the penned animals healthy is a serious problem in and of itself because the introduction of massive amounts of antibiotics have contributed to creating Super Bugs that are resistant to those same antibiotics in the same way that prescribing antibiotics for viruses and every minor illness contributes to creating Super Bugs.

Bottom line? With the amounts of animal feces, E. coli, and toxins in the pens as well as the practice of feeding livestock and fish with the remains of slaughtered animals and fish, it is no wonder there is a rise in autoimmune diseases like lupus, hepatitis C, autism, chronic pain syndrome, etc. and epidemic levels of obesity. The food is tainted and unhealthy and, although profitable for the corporations that have taken over farming and agriculture from the family farms, is not fit for consumption for any species. Maybe that is the point after all and the current lack of fitness and increase in childhood and lifelong obesity, diabetes, and cardiac disease from inflammation is understandable when what on the slaughter list is humanity, the corporate hit list that aims to annihilate 95% of us so there is more room and more resources for THEM. In the meantime, the Corporate Powers That Be are willing to use 95% of us as lab rats while making profit off us in the meantime.

It used to be that eating healthy was easy. Fresh vegetables and meat from animals raised by the farmer down the road with the occasional indulgence at holidays and parties were all you needed. We know more about the chemistry and biology of what is in the food we eat than we ever did before when we stuck to the food served at home and we are suffering from diseases we never heard of and suffer constantly on a diet of drugs to fix what ails us. The only problem is that we cannot trust the food in the market or at our favorite fast food joints because all the food is tainted or toxic. The only answer is to grow our own food, keep chickens in the back yard, and make friends with the local farmers to make arrangements to buy meat from them. There is a problem with that as well since government keeps changing the regulations and making it illegal to grow your own food and buy from local farmers. Where the government has gotten to your area yet, the local Homeowners Association has already got them covered in the name of yards that conform to the HOA's rules and regulations about how your lawn should look and what you can put in your yard, driveway, or in front of your home, forcing you to sell up, move out, or conform. Your life is no longer your own -- even when you think it is. 

Between geo-engineering the weather, chemtrails, and  poisoning the population by injecting food animals with antibiotics to deal with serious overcrowding, toxic chemicals, and feeding the animals the remains of previously slaughtered animals, not to mention prescription drugs in the water, along with the usual fluoride, and the destruction of our oceans and rivers, we can no longer trust what is in our food. No wonder governments have capitulated and introduced socialized medicine and the cost of health care and drugs in countries without socialized medicine have skyrocketed. What better way to control the people than with the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe? 

While we have been busily saving the planet by recycling, the governments of the world have been busier destroying the water, the air, and the food we eat and suggesting we blame each other for not reducing our carbon footprint and keeping hiking trails clear of debris. All along, it has been those same governments destroying the planet and us while using the human population as lab rats while they annihilate us. 

We are running out of options as the Powers That Be have for centuries experimented on us to find out the best ways to control us, cut us off from the source of life, tainted our food and water, and made the air poisonous to all life on this planet all the while destroying our environment, our animals, and our diversity. It's time for us to put an end to Their Agenda and take back control . . . and we won't be able to take back control at the voting booth or by the usual methods of getting involved in local, regional, and national government because the game has always been rigged. The only way to take back control is to revolt and refuse the yoke of servitude the same way that free people have always made their voices known at Thermopylae, Bunker Hill, and Standing Rock. 

If we do not take back our homes and our planet, we will end up the same way 20 million Jews, Gypsies, and undesirable Christians did in Hitler's concentration camps -- dead. We will be better fed, or rather fatter, but dead all the same. 

That is all. Disperse. 

Orwell's Animal Farm in the United States

I read Animal Farm in grade school and remember the book and the cover posted here. I don't remember having actually read the book and yet I must have since we discussed the themes in class and I wrote a book report that earned me an A. None of the book seemed familiar to me as I read the book again yesterday and that is even after having seen two movie versions of the book recently. It's the same story with George Orwell's other futuristic book, 1984, which I also failed to remember when I re-read it again recently, and yet I know I read 1984 as well.

That is the problem with teaching seminal books like Animal Farm and 1984 to middle grade students, they have no frame of reference and no experience to make sure the themes stick with them, the children.

As I read Animal Farm, I was first struck by the utter lack of familiarity with the story, even though I could repeat the tale verbatim. Then I realized as I read that though Communism was the basis of the book, the book might as well have been about Socialism or Democracy -- or even a Democratic Republic like the United States. You think I jest?

Napoleon's tactics are evident in U. S. politics and, like Napoleon's increasingly bolder stances, more obvious every day. I see it in the sheep bleating, "Four legs good, two legs bad," whenever anyone questions the status quo. "Four legs good, two legs bad" bleats have become the catcalls of conspiracy theorist, tin-foil hat wearer, liar, mental deficient, and ignorant idiot who will believe anything but the truth, the bleating sheep drowning out Snowball's voice of reason, except the bleating sheep are now televised news reporters who are paid to discredit and drown out the questions and demands for proof instead of conjecture and empty rhetoric. At least Napoleon with his barking dogs had the sense to say as little as possible while the pigeons spread lies and the sheep bleated loud enough to drown out any voice but Napoleon's until the barking dogs were set upon the nay-sayers and chased Snowball from the farm.

Like Napoleon, Obama and Hillary have set the Democrats bleating loudly while the dogs, Pelosi, Reid, Lynch, Holder, and the rest of the DNC pack, snarl and snap at everyone who offers a different view. Bernie Sanders found that out to his as the dogs and sheep cowed Bernie into submission and suffered for faltering in the traces like Boxer as he limped along until his hoof healed, repeating his mantras of "I will work harder" and "Napoleon is always right" with less confidence and belief.

I thought only Communism could be so duplicitous. I was wrong. Even a Democratic Republic like the United States will become corrupt as Napoleon's offspring spread out in an ever-widening tide of power fueled by mendacity and greed.

That greed can become a goal to strive toward and a virtue would seem impossible. That too is wrong as I have learned during a discussion with a man who believes we have greed to thank for the heights mankind has reached. He points to Michael Douglas's speech in the movie, Wall Street, when Gordon Gecko counts all the ways that greed has drive humanity and society toward ever greater heights. Though not Roman Catholic, I do know that greed is one of the seven deadly sins and marches alongside gluttony, pride, sloth, wrath, lust, and envy. In the Roman Catholic canon, one of those sins will end in an eternal roasting in Hell. But greed is good.

Napoleon would agree that greed is what made him more equal than most, as Squealer demonstrated when he changed the original 7 laws of Animal Farm to reflect Napoleon's new views from his new home in Farmer Jones's house while sleeping on Farmer Jones's bed (without sheets) and eating at Farmer Jones's table from the best of what the rest of the animals worked so hard to produce. Like the Tsars of Russia, the new ruling elite took from the working classes more than their share and bettered the Tsars by getting the working classes to love them as they continued to sacrifice in the name of progress.

Greed is not good. Greed did not propel humanity to reach farther, climb higher, or build greater. Greed is the parasite that demands more, more, more until it hurts as long as it doesn't hurt -- or even touch -- the powerful elite reaching for more, more, more until there is no more. Napoleon had Squealer add a new first law to the 7 laws on which the revolution was founded: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Napoleon had exceeded Farmer Jones in greed to the point where he and his followers chose two legs over the four they had been born with, donning Farmer Jones's Sunday best and parading their conversion from animal to man for the rest of the animals to marvel.

It is said Obama left his first meeting with the U. S. version of Napoleon and his vicious dogs to find a quiet place where he buried his head in his hands and wept before he became Napoleon's Squealer changing the original laws set down with his Executive Pen where he could and brushing off Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States when the Executive Pen failed him, parading his picture perfect family for Americans to marvel at his Saville Row and Armani Sunday best as he slipped the ever changing rules past the less equal workers. Napoleon at least was wise enough to know not to stop feeding his attack dogs the best available lest the dogs turn and rend his Sunday best, a lesson that Obama never learned or heeded as he tears down Farmer Jones's house before he leaves for good. Of course, Napoleon did not have to face Snowball again while the dogs he had raised from pups turned on him.

Reading Animal Farm again with the experience earned over the intervening nearly 50 years was a cold slap in the face as I witnessed Communism turn into the Democratic Republic of the United States with its slow slide into corruption and lies from Nixon all the way down to Obama. I do not know what Trump's inauguration will bring, and have little hope for a miracle to right the U.S. Ship of State, but I will keep Animal Farm handy lest Trump change the name back to The Manor Farm and dispossess those who worked for and believed in him enough to cast their precious votes for him. At least that illusion, the illusion that a democratic election sealed by Electoral College votes, has not yet crumbled to ashes.

That is all. Disperse.

American Fraud -- Redo

The first family has been at the center of controversy since Obama appeared out of nowhere on the national scene in 2008 when he ran for President of the United States (POTUS). In spite of recent memes claiming that the first family is the epitome of class and style, the claim that it is nice not having the first family beset by constant scandals.

Uh, what!?

Scandal has marked every step of Obama's two terms in office. Obama has stated on camera that he knew about Fast & Furious and a revolving door of scandals when everyone else found out -- on the news. Despite being disingenuous, lying straight faced has been the hallmark of Obama's legacy and not the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) that Pelosi famously jammed down congressional throats when she told lawmakers they would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, a complete turnaround to Obama's promise that he "... [would] not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity review and comment on the White House website for five days." The 1500+ page Affordable Care Act was not posted online for the American public to review and comment on and was signed into law on March 23, 2009, barely two months after Obama took office. So much for transparency right out of the gate.

There is no need to go into all the scandals that have rocked the United States during Obama's term in office. I'll concentrate on the scandal that surrounds the First Family. Obama has yet, as far as I now, commented on this because it has not hit the mainstream media or the public at large yet, so how could Obama know? Get ready for the obligatory "I found out when everyone else found out about it in the news" statement from Obama that sounds as ubiquitous as Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming the scandal is the result of Republicans out to get them. Same drivel, different day.

While the public has lined up on both sides of the birther conspiracy that claims Obama was born in Kenya, no Hawaii, no Kenya, etc., Obama pointed to his long form Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the White House website as proof he was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii became a state in August 1959. There are many ways to obtain a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii, including having a notice published in the newspaper by a relative and having a birth certificate issued based on the relatives' statement. In fact, let me count the ways.

Obama was born August 4, 1961. The name on the birth certificate published online is Barack Hussein Obama II. The online version of the birth certificate is a fake, as is Obama's social security number, which was issued in 1924 to Jean Paul Ludwig who was born in France in 1890 and emigrated to the USA when he was issued his social security number, the same number that Obama has used (?) since on or about March 1977. There was no record of Ludwig's death and he collected no benefits, so the social security number was active and anyone with access to the information could borrow Ludwig's Connecticut issued social security number. The birther story goes . . . "Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died.  

Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.  

The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.  

The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwig's Connecticut SSN for Obama.  

Though there is certainly more to the story, and definitely more to the obvious fraud, where Obama was born is not really the issue. I believe that Obama was born in Washington State where Stanley Ann Dunham was attending the university there, but in 1960 and not 1961 as claimed on the forgery posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website. Both of Obama's parents were American citizens, but Obama was not legitimate and that is where history becomes very interesting. The fiction of Obama's "father" was meant to keep the American public divided and focused on a non-issue so they missed what was really going on. Are you ready for some sleuthing? 

Over the past 8 years, I have followed the birther controversy, changing my views several times as I read and researched more. The most outlandish version claimed that Stanley Ann Dunham got pregnant with Malcolm X's love child, was reluctant to reveal the child's father's name and chose Kenyan exchange student, Barack Hussein Obama, to marry her and give Malcolm X's unborn child his name. Obama, Sr. would get in return a visa that would allow him to remain in the US longer as the husband of an American citizen. The story appealed to me on several levels, but I quickly dismissed it because why would anyone hide being the son of Malcolm X? Both parents were American citizens, though Malcolm X would disagree that he was a citizen since he was still the victim of having Plymouth Rock land on him. 

Malcolm X married Betty Sanders in Lansing, Michigan on January 14, 1958 and so was unavailable to give Dunham's illegitimate child his name. However Dunham and Malcolm X might have met, I doubt Malcolm X would have been so promiscuous as to get involved with an 18-year-old ingenue from Hawaii and allow her to have his child without being involved, except as a sperm donor. Then again, maybe I am giving Malcolm X too much credit for being an honorable and moral man. As far as I was concerned, the story had too much Harlequin Romance and not enough evidence, long on circumstantial gossip and short on verifiable facts. I did, however, not discount the unwed mother angle barely escaped a similar fate. 

The back and forth of the birthers and Obama Choir (born in Hawaii vs. born in Kenya) didn't really interest me as much as the historical implications of Dunham's marriage to the Kenyan Obama. In 1961, Kenya was still a British colony until 1963 and Obama was a British citizen. The US Constitution states that only a natural born citizen could run for president, much to Alexander Hamilton's distress since he was not born on American soil. 

John McCain had to supply his birth certificate to the Secretary of State and Congress because he was born in Panama, specifically at Coco Solo Naval Base in the Canal Zone, which was a U. S. protectorate. Both of McCain's parents were born in America and his father served in the U. S. Navy. Though born on American soil to American parents, there was still an issue of whether the treaty with Panama and being born in the Canal Zone gave McCain natural born status. There was the question of whether McCain would be considered legally a "natural born citizen," a point which has come up several times in the last century with other presidential candidates, like Goldwater who was born in the Arizona territory (not a state) and Romney who was born in Mexico. Since neither won the point is moot. McCain's situation was different, the child of a naval officer stationed in US territory, which was deemed sufficient evidence of being a natural born citizen. 

Less time and attention was given to Obama over this same issue and thus the controversy of where Obama was born, in Hawaii or in Kenya. I read a legal argument that put Obama out of the running because Obama, Sr. was a British citizen and therefore ineligible because of the War of 1812 when British naval officers were press ganging American citizens into the British navy because Great Britain still considered the colonists of the once British Empire British citizens and not citizens of the newly fledged United States of America. Obama, Sr.'s status as a British citizen ruled his son out no matter Dunham's status as a US Citizen as a natural born citizen. In fact, Hillary Clinton took a little trip to the United Kingdom to check out their historical records as to Obama, Sr.'s citizenship. She would have discovered as I did that Obama, Sr. was a British citizen and that made Obama, Jr. ineligible by the 1812 legal precedent. 

To be honest, since the U. S. courts cannot figure out the meaning of "natural born citizen" as stated in the U. S. Constitution, far be it for me to define what has tied up legal scholars for decades. 

In the end, it does not really matter what Obama, Sr.'s citizenship is because Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is not Obama's biological father, and we are right back to the illegitimate question of Obama's birth. As with everything related to Obama's past history and legal documentation, I will have to rely on educated guesses since no DNA evidence has ever been collected and likely will not be collected at this late date. As an artist and a student of history and medicine, I will rely on the evidence of my eyes and background to guide me here. 

One of the Dunhams' close friends was well known communist, Frank Davis Marshall. Obama mentions spending summers with Marshall as a teenager. The Dunhams were also communists and Stanley Ann knew Marshall very well since he was a frequent visitor in their home in Hawaii. 

If we go back to Washington State to when Dunham attended university after graduation, it is quite possible she was indeed pregnant, but not with Malcolm X's child. She was pregnant by Frank Davis Marshall and her pregnancy was covered up, as pregnancies in the 1960s invariably were, by sending Stanley Ann to Washington to have her illegitimate baby. She returned to Hawaii and enrolled in college where she met Obama, Sr. and married him on February 4, 1961, supposedly three months pregnant, giving birth to Obama, Jr. August 4, 1961. The other possibility is that Stanley Ann met Obama, Sr. in college but was already three months pregnant and made a deal with Obama, Sr. to marry her and give her child, Marshall's child, a name. In return, he would gain citizenship through his marriage and be able to stay in the US longer as the spouse of an American citizen and the father of her child. Being a communist at that point (Obama's political views were determined by which politics would benefit him the most), he would have been grateful for the association. There is also the possibility that, as has been suggested, Marshall raped the under aged Stanley Ann, and asked Obama, Sr. to help her out. 

Since Obama, Sr. was already married, his marriage to Dunham was not legal and may have been the reason Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya. Photos of Marshall show a marked resemblance to Obama, Jr. 

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Jr.

Obama and Frank Davis Marshall






Whether Marshall raped Dunham (or was guilty of statutory rape) or not, it was necessary to hide Obama's parentage. If Dunham's parents were aware of the deception before or after the fact, the truth is and has been hidden. If Marshall is indeed Obama's biological father, his status as a US citizen is no longer in question, as long as you don't count being adopted by Lolo Soetoro (Dunham's second husband) and being a citizen of Indonesia as relevant. Whatever the case, Obama returned to the US as a foreign student and received aid as a foreign student long enough to satisfy the residence status requirements.

The next fraud perpetrated by Obama is whether or not Malia and Sasha are his biological children. If conspiracy theorists are to be believed, and as Joan Rivers claimed shortly before her death, Michelle is transgender, born a man and underwent sexual reassignment surgery to become a woman, and therefore unable to bear children as she would not have a uterus or ovaries. Her biology would have come with a penis and testes, which would have made her unable to give birth, though would have been ideal to satisfy her husband's same sex tendencies. The Obama marriage under those conditions, same sex union, would have not been legal in Illinois until June 1, 2014, which would make Malia and Sasha, if the biological progeny of either Obama or Michelle by a surrogate mother, illegitimate.

Michelle said her obstetrician in Chicago was Dr. Anita Blanchard, though no record of either Malia or Sasha's birth can be found with or without Dr. Blanchard's signature as the doctor of record who delivered them. I am not convinced that Michelle is a transgender female, but after seeing photos of Dr. Blanchard and her husband, I am convinced that they are the biological parents of both girls.











Dr. Anita Blanchard and Martin Nesbitt are close friends of the Obamas.

The surprising part is not how close the Nesbitts are to the Obamas, but how much they resemble the Obama girls: Malia and Sasha.

You can really which couple the girls look like in this most recent picture. It's not Barack or Michelle. (click to resize)

It is obvious to me that Malia resembles Martin Nesbitt and Sasha looks very much like Dr. Blanchard. I suppose it is possible that Michelle gave birth to Malia after getting pregnant by Nesbitt and that Dr. Blanchard gave birth to Sasha after having an affair with Obama, but I seriously doubt that even the Obamas would have considered that option when they dreamed up their stories.

What it all boils down to is that the Obamas, for whatever reason, have perpetrated the greatest American Fraud in history, bigger than J. Edgar Hoover trolling the streets dressed as a woman, a very ugly woman in my estimation. This is bigger than Franklin Delano Roosevelt hiding the fact that he had been crippled by polio by getting around New York City by a specially built subway system so no one would see him in his wheelchair. FDR wanted people to think of him as still a healthy and vibrant man and not a cripple whereas the Obamas' only motive is to bilk the United States and the American public with their 8-year-old comedy of errors as they parade around the world portraying the perfect First Family while Obama guts the United States and brings the US to its knees financially, politically, and strength-wise, fulfilling Barack Obama, Sr.'s dream of bringing down the biggest and most powerful country in the world.

Forget the international apology tour that Obama went on during his 8 years in office or that he has been selling the man-made climate change policy while stalling oil drilling and transportation in the United States to keep the Arab countries which rely on oil to keep their countries and their wealth intact. Forget the abortion of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and forget the myriad ways Obama has divided the country, aided and abetted illegal immigration, bypassed Congress by the artful flourish of his Executive Pen, and beggared the American taxpayer with his socialist/communist agenda. Focus on what is right in front of your eyes and what DNA tests would reveal . . . Obama and his family are frauds, the greatest American Fraud ever perpetrated.

It has been proven by experts in court that Obama's birth certificate displayed on the WhiteHouse.gov website is a forgery created online and does not exist in any legal sense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how that fraud will be explained to the American people when it becomes widespread public knowledge when the Mainstream Media is allowed to report it. Obama didn't know anything about it until he heard it on the news. Since he didn't know about it or forge the document himself, he will walk away unscathed. The Obama Choir will sing the song of how Obama has been targeted by Republicans. He learned the song from the Clintons who have been singing the same song since 1992. Don't expect the truth. You won't find it from the Obamas or anyone else connected with the Obamas. All you have to rely on is what you see right in front of you.

Talk to an artist and s/he will explain in detail how Malia and Sasha resemble the Nesbitts and not the Obamas. Search the public geneaological records as so many before you have done and you will find no record of either girl's birth certificate. The Hawaiian official who died tragically in a helicopter accident might have explained how there is no record of Obama's birth in the archives because he wasn't born in Hawaii in 1961. You might find Obama's birth certificate in Washington State if you knew what name Stanley Ann Dunham had given as her own and what she had named her illegitimate son, but you can be sure it was not Barack Hussein Obama until Obama, Sr. agreed to the deal he made with the Dunhams to hide the truth.

Whatever you choose to believe, keep looking for the truth and don't accept the stories you have been told. They are all lies. Figure it out for yourself. Refuse to fall in line with the Democratic party line. Wake up and smell the burning coffee, but do not drink the Kool-Aid. That is your only hope. You asked for change and you got it. Too bad it wasn't the change you expected.

That's is all. Disperse.

Review: The Bastard's Grimoire

An evil wizard turns Casper Namlos into the hell version of a father of bastards. In short, the ill favored runt uses his bull-sized propagator to fill prostitutes with babies that burst their way out of the mothers' bodies moments after being plowed in much the same way the movie Alien far before movies or John Hurt's encounter with a predatory alien on some far flung planet in search of the next corporate payday. Joseph Hirsch begins his tale of raising Satan and his minions with a bloody battle between pirates and the defenders of a zollschloss (Bavarian castle) full of every bit of research the author gleaned in preparing for this fantasy. Like many authors unwilling to waste hours of research about the architecture of medieval castles, Hirsch sends an avalanche of the tiniest architectural feature of the castle on top of the avalanche of the technical aspects of pirate attacks without so much as a clue about how that fits into the advertised story.

After three chapters of information overload without a nod in the direction of the story of the bastard, Casper Namlos's connection with the murderous and greedy pirates, how Namlos ended up imprisoned in a barrel lined up to have his head chopped off by a giant, dipped in Greek fire, and flung into the castle courtyard, or how a mermaid came to be part of the cargo imprisoned in barrels, Hirsch finally ends up in a house of prostitution run by the mother inferior (Mother Superior), which puts the whole "Get thee to a nunnery" line from Hamlet into perspective, where the eldest bastard lusts after one of the prostitutes candle girls with big breasts and not much else to call an asset.

Once the story finally gets moving, the bastard, who hunts moss to caulk the leaking ships in port on his off hours and dreams of the dwarf who will be his future master and take him sailing the fjords and oceans, protects the bawdy house and watches the girls, Lyudmilla the object of his lust, from between the daub and wattle walls. Casper Namlos arrives at the door and pays the Abbess in silver ingots for one of the candle girls' time as long as it is in the basement, fills the girl with his abundant seed, and slips away as a demon bursts from her body to be killed by the bastard with one of the Abbess's dead husband's magic sword, saving the bawdy house, the girls, and the other younger bastards from death or worse.

The Bastard's Grimoire is a disjointed, confusing, and sometimes interesting tale of evil and magic and eventually love, though what the reader would consider the main characters make brief surprise appearances with few connections to each other -- or to the reader. What story there is -- and that is very slow going and sparse -- is readable, but only just. Without sufficient backstory, Hirsch's novel is one step above an unconnected collection of anecdotes that are somehow connected. Being written partially in German and that German not part of the mainstream canon slows the book farther and muddies the narrative waters.

The bastard -- and there is no clear indication if that is Namlos or Martin Stolzer the virgin bastard of the bawdy house -- possesses no grimoire and, other than the prodigious propagator on Namlos and Martin's relationship with Lyudmilla and the dwarf (a rock head who got away from the endless toil of hewing and shaping rock for the town cathedral to become an illuminator of religious texts in a monastery) little more is known. There is Martin's penchant for unter dem pantoffel (under the slipper which is German for the more modern pussy whipped), his virginity, and his friendship with the dwarf that render him moderately interesting. Not much more can be said for the novel or Hirsch.

Though I give The Bastard's Grimoire 3/5 stars for the few readable parts of the fantasy, I would suggest reading the novel for yourself and judge accordingly. One reader's dissatisfaction is another reader's potential favorite -- or might be in any case. Keep a German to English (or whatever language) dictionary at hand. You'll need it to understand much of the story, which is long on mystery and information dumps on zollschloss architecture and short on everything else that makes a good story, including characters, motivations, and grimoires, though full of bastards.

That is all. Disperse.

Review: Wolf Hollow

I read a sneak preview of Wolf Hollow and I was not impressed. Even so, something about the book stayed with me, nagging at the edge of my thoughts, until I bought a copy and finished reading it yesterday. I was impressed by the book.

Annabelle and her brothers travel from their grandparents' farm where she and her family live through the woods surrounding Wolf Hollow where previous generations of farmers in the area dug pits and baited them with poison to kill the wolves plaguing the region. The woods around the path are dark and full of shadows, the shadow of wolves prowling long ago and the shadow of an incorrigible girl sent to live with her grandparents nearby. Wolves come in the four-legged and the two-legged variety and Betty was a two-legged wolf.

Incorrigible is a pale word, a safe word to describe a predator and predator may be a little too strong to describe a girl who delights in bullying anyone -- and everyone -- she considers vulnerable. Betty thought she rendered Annabelle vulnerable by threatening Henry and James, Annabelle's younger brothers. That worked for a while. Annabelle offered Betty a penny that Betty threw away because a penny was not good enough. Betty expected more from someone who had as much as Annabelle did. Betty demanded something more, something substantial, and Annabelle would get it or her brothers would suffer.

Betty made good on her threat by seducing Henry and James close to her to pet the bunny she found. The boys were delighted, petting the wild bunny in Betty's life, a bunny she controlled with her fingers around its fragile neck. Annabelle shooed the boys off to school and faced the bully who responded by slowly squeezing the life from the bunny and throwing it down at Annabelle's feet. There was no doubt that Betty would hurt Henry and James if Annabelle didn't find something to placate Betty.

Every lie Annabelle told her parents about her day from the first encounter with Betty demonstrated how far off the path she had wandered. Betty got worse with each day. Annabelle wasn't alone, not since Tobias told her he'd seen everything when he gave the tossed aside penny back. When Ruth, Annabelle's best friend, was blinded by a rock thrown at a local German farmer Betty blamed Tobias and Tobias took the blame for the wire stretched across the path that could have killed Annabelle's brother instead of cutting his forehead open. The lies and the danger increased, not only to Annabelle, but to Toby because he was alone, a casualty of World War I wandering about the area carrying three rifles strapped to his back, taking photos with a camera that belonged to Annabelle's mother, and living rough in a converted smokehouse. Betty claimed she was afraid of Toby and Toby was following her, and then Betty goes missing.

Wolf Hollow is as much about the power of lies as it is about the courage of a 12-year-old girl in standing up for a neighbor when the adults have already judged someone guilty. Lauren Wolk takes her time building the background for her coming of age story, illuminating the times and the characters in shadows and light, giving the reader time to get invested in the outcome. Even when Betty's guilt is apparent, Wolk allows Annabelle's feelings for Betty change and mature as Annabelle steps in to protect Toby. It is not only Betty's bullying that takes center stage, but Annabelle's strength and her relationships with her family and her friends that truly stand at the heart of a childish conflict that quickly escalates to affect the world where Wolf Hollow's history and presence remains. Wolf Hollow is a complex and deeply texture tale of truth and lies and how lies can quickly become a truth that can destroy as well as explain. 5/5 stars. Don't let the slow beginning fool you; there is plentiful meat on these bones.

That is all. Disperse.