Trans and dire

 

- Are you assuming my species, human ape?

So the "de-extincted Dire Wolves" are really Grey Wolves who identify as Dire Wolves? Got it.   

Designer wolf

 

The Dire Wolf non-mystery un-thickens. Judging by this piece at the Live Science website, the "de-extincted Dire Wolves" aren´t even hybrids between Grey Wolves and Dire Wolves (Dire Wolf DNA has supposedly been extracted from ancient bones). Nor are they Grey Wolves with some Dire Wolf DNA inserted into their genomes. No, they are 100% Grey Wolves which has been designed to look like Dire Wolves by some "native" alterations to the Grey Wolf DNA?!

One thing that struck me was that the "de-extincted Dire Wolves" are all-white. But how do we know whether Dire Wolves (who disappeared 10,000 years ago) had white fur? I don´t think we do. So why are the animals white, then? Obviously because one of the fictitious "Dire Wolves" in the fantasy series "Game of Thrones" was white. One of the "de-extincted Dire Wolves" is even named after a rather notorious character in that show!

In other words, we are dealing with a kind of designer wolves (compare designer dogs). Could there be a market for these kinds of animals? Probably yes, but a resurrected "Aenocyon dirus" from prehistory it is not.      

Colossal´s "dire wolf" isn´t a dire wolf, experts say

Romulus and Remus

 

Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi are three dire wolves brought back from extinction by some crazy American start up. Or maybe not. It seems the "dire wolves" are really grey wolves genetically modified to look like the legendary extinct species (which may not have been a real wolf in the first place). 

But sure, the whole thing does have a certain Frankenstein-esque quality. If the three pups ever get fossilized, this may confuse genetically enhanced mad scientists in the far future. And yes, one of the puppies is named after a certain character in "Game of Thrones"!  

No, the dire wolf has not been brought back from extinction

Scientists say they have resurrected the dire wolf

Enkelspåriga myter?

Bilbo möter Gollum i Tove Janssons tappning

Och så var det dags igen...

Detta ständiga tjatande om att karaktärerna i "Sagan om ringen" är så endimensionella, antingen helt onda eller helt goda. 

Guys, det beror på att Tolkien skrev MYTOLOGI. Krypto-kristen mytologi, närmare bestämt. Men litteraturkritikerna låtsas fortfarande att "Lord of the Rings" är en vanlig roman...

Suck.

George R R Martins "Game of Thrones" (eller vad nu eposet heter i dess helhet - har inte orkat kolla) hyllas däremot vederbörligen för sina mångfacetterade karaktärer. 

OK, jag har något att säga om "Game of Thrones". Den fete jänkaren Martin har alltså stulit Europas senantika och medeltida historia (ja, King´s Landing är Konstantinopel), lagt till lite fornnordisk mytologi, sydstatsrasism, anti-semitiska stereotyper och en jäkla massa tortyrporr, och kallat detta "Game of Thrones". Och denna andefattiga spis skulle alltså vara något slags fantastiskt alternativ till Tolkien?!

Jag har inte läst snuskgubben Martins romaner, men det jag har läst om dem ger vid handen att de är *ännu* värre än TV-serien...

Dax för Rohans ryttare att rida ut och göra en liten insats, tror jag!

 

Struggle session hit list

Since the woke mob is so adamant about toppling statues, hell, here is a list of *other* statues, monuments and TV shows they should "cancel". Not sure why they missed them? Not woke enough? Time for a struggle session, it seems! Here goes...

Mahatma Gandhi - Racist against Blacks. 

Charles Darwin - Racist, sexist, Malthusian, de facto founder of Social Darwinism. 

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro - Homophobic. Sent gays to concentration camps.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - Said that "slavery has made the American Negro fit for civilization", while Jamaican Blacks were still "barbaric". Called for Germanic race war against "reactionary peoples". Called Mexicans "degenerate Spaniards" and "lazy", supported US war against Mexico in 1848. Why is Marx´ huge bust in London still standing?

Leon Trotsky - Jewish. That´s problematic in itself. Said that slavery was progressive at one point in the history of civilization. 

Nancy Pelosi - Wears kente cloth. A clear case of cultural appropriation!

Abraham Lincoln - Sure, dude, he emancipated the Blacks in the South, but do you have *any* idea what he said about Blacks in private? Also defended Mormons (sexist polygamists).

Greta Thunberg - Well, she is White and very privileged, isn´t she? Paint over the Greta murals!

Game of Thrones - How many times must I tell you that Daenerys Targaryen is a White supremacist trope and that the slave-traders in Essos look "Semitic"? Also, the Red Viper is the "exotic Latino lover" trope. 

Star Trek The Next Generation - OK, maybe not, since the Ferengi are an anti-Semitic stereotype (they look like charicatures from "Der Sturmer"), and Jews aren´t a protected class in woke circles. 

It also struck me that Bakunin once met Swedish king Karl XV, Proudhon supported the Confederacy and Kropotkin supported Czarist Russia during World War I, so perhaps ANTIFA should "cancel" themselves...?  

Struggle over this, comrades! 

Norse mythology as dark fantasy

Johan Egerkrans is a Swedish writer and illustrator. Three of his books have been translated to English: “Vaesen: Spirits and Monsters of Scandinavian Folklore”, “Norse Gods” and “The Undead”. This is a review of “Norse Gods”, which I read in the Swedish original version, “Nordiska gudar”. It contains the author-illustrator´s personal take on the Norse or “Viking” pagan pantheon. Or so the preface says. Not being a scholarly expert on ancient Scandinavian religion, my impression is that the author´s personal take on the mythological narrative is pretty similar to the “canonical” version.

What *is* different are the illustrations (in both color and black-and-white). Egerkrans has a background in video games and role playing games. I don´t, but the illustrations do tend towards the “comic superhero” stereotypes (such as the main illustration of Thor). There is also a strong resemblance to the LOTR franchise: Odin is Gandalf, Surtr is the Balrog, and so on. But then, Tolkien in his turn was inspired by Norse mythology, so here, there is really cross-pollination. The darker side of the Norse worldview is prominently featured, from the original murder-sacrifice of Ymir to Ragnarök and the new world beyond, where evil still lurks in the form of the dragon Nidhogg, who survived the apocalypse. Note also that Egerkrans´ two other books are to a large extent about monsters and hobgoblins!

Personally, I find the parallels between Norse and other mythologies fascinating. I mean, the resemblances are striking. Ymir = Purusha. Thor = Indra. The giants = the Asuras. Odin = Kal or the Demiurge (?). Yggdrasil = the Tree of Life (but also axis mundi). Heimdall = the angel guarding Eden, the Dweller on the Threshold. Bifröst = Chinvat Bridge. Baldr = Osiris, Christ. The Midgard Snake = Ouroburos. Ragnarök = Kali Yuga. Gimle = the Millennium. But that´s for another time…

Recommended. 

Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere

"Well behaved women seldom make history". 

Can confirm. I mean, think about Lilith, Cleopatra, Salome, Byzantine empresses Irene and Theodora, Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary, The Famine Queen, Eva Braun, Ana Pauker, Chiang Ching, Margaret Thatcher, Imelda Marcos, Elena Ceausescu, Cersei Lannister…

The sectarian Armenians

A review of a book titled "The Fatimid Armenians" 

This is an interesting but bewildering overview of “sectarian Armenians”, written by a Lebanese professor. Judging by her name, she is Armenian herself. Judging by her other published works, Dadoyan is an expert on medieval Armenian philosophy. In this book, she concentrates on various ethnically Armenian “heretical” movements within Christianity and Islam during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In passing, she also mentions Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare's sensational manuscript find of a 18th century heretical scripture, “The Keys of Truth”, which Conybeare believed reflected age-old Christian heresies somehow surviving in Armenia until the modern day, a claim to which Dadoyan is skeptical. Unfortunately, she doesn't elaborate on this point (I recently reviewed Conybeare's book on Armenia).

The most well known heretical or sectarian movement to emerge in Armenia were the Paulicians, who waged frequent wars against the Byzantine Empire. The near-genocidal repression with which the Paulicians were met by the Byzantine state made them pro-Muslim. The Paulicians may have inspired both Bosnian Bogomilism and Provencal Catharism, partly because of the fact that the Byzantine emperors forcibly exiled entire Paulician communities to the Balkans or Sicily (from which their ideas spread to Italy and presumably southern France). There were sectarians in Armenia already before the Paulicians. The status of Armenia as a borderland between the Roman and Persian empires probably made it a tempting place of refuge for Christian groups deemed heretical by the mainstream Church in the Roman Empire. Both Valentinus and Tatian had adherents in Armenia and adjacent regions. Later, Nestorians and the inevitable Messalians established themselves there. In contrast to these foreign imports, the Paulicians seem to have been an indigenous Armenian movement. Other examples of specifically Armenian sectarians include the Mezghneans, the “Borborits” and the Tonrakians.

The Armenian sectarians did have some features in common (which prompted Conybeare to see them all as essentially the same movement). There was an emphasis on ascetic living, an adoptionist Christology, and a radical rejection of the sacraments, holy images and the church hierarchy. Crosses were seen as “pagan”. There was also a connection to social protest, sometimes expressed in the form of communal living or armed attacks on the local aristocracy. Interestingly, there were also aristocrats who supported the sectarians. Dadoyan believes that the dream of many sectarians was to establish an independent state in Armenia or Syria. Despite their attacks on “paganism” within the official Christian churches, the sectarians were themselves inspired by “pagans”, or so their detractors claim. Accusations of sun worship were common, a charge also leveled against the Persian Zoroastrians. Naturally, the sectarians were also accused of sexual transgressions, perhaps because their women enjoyed more freedom than accepted by the Byzantines.

Another salient feature of Armenian sectarians were their pro-Muslim sympathies (and before Islam, pro-Persian ditto). On one level, the pro-Muslim sympathies were due to the religiously intolerant policy of the Byzantine Empire, with its one and only Orthodox Church. On another level, there are obvious similarities between Armenian sectarianism and Islam: Jesus is seen as a human chosen by God rather than as God himself, all image-worship is rejected, and the cross is attacked (Muslims deny the crucifixion and therefore consider crosses blasphemous). The author believes that the Paulicians influenced Islam and gave rise to various Shia sub-sects such as the Ahl-e Haqq, the Yazidis and the Qizilbash. (The origins of the “devil-worshipping” Yazidis is a hotly debated question. Here, they are said to have originally been an Armenian Shia sect. Today, Yazidis are Kurds and not regarded as Muslims at all.)

The second half of the book, which is even more bewildering than the first, deals with the Fatimid dynasty in 11th and 12th century Egypt, its “Byzantine” (pun intended!) internal power struggles, and the Armenian component of the same. The Fatimids were Ismailites, a sectarian Shiite movement. There were both Orthodox and sectarian Armenians in Fatimid Egypt, due in part to the tolerant attitude of the Ismailites towards Christians, Jews and other Shiites (since the Ismailites, as a minority group, needed all support they could muster against the Sunni Muslim majority of Egypt). It seems that some of the Fatimid viziers were sectarian Armenians from Syria who had embraced various forms of Islam, including the Alawite sub-sect. The author has a positive view of several Armenian viziers, arguing that they saved Egypt and the Fatimid dynasty from destruction, and carried out a policy of easing the tax burdens on the farmers, thereby increasing production. However, she admits that the most efficient viziers were also highly authoritarian and repressive, and anything but ascetic! Badr al-Jamali, Al-Afdal Shahanshah, Kutayfat, Yanis al-Rumi al-Armani and Talai are the viziers discussed in the book. Despite all the problems and internecine bloodletting besetting the Fatimid dynasty at the end of its reign, the author clearly prefers them to Saladin, who overthrew the Fatimids, purged Egypt of Shia influence and incorporated Egypt into his Sunni sultanate. (In the West, Saladin is the Muslim good guy, while few people even heard of the Fatimids.)

While it's difficult to see any similarity between the persecuted Paulicians and the Armenian viziers of the Fatimid mini-empire, the author believes that somehow there nevertheless is a kind of continuity. As already mentioned, Paulicianism may have influenced dissident Muslims and hence give rise to “heresies” on both sides of the Christian-Muslim divide. The Armenian viziers who identified with Shia Islam in Fatimid Egypt could therefore be seen as another example of the old dream of a sectarian-Armenian homeland. I'm not sure if this thesis makes any sense, or whether the author is herself looking for an alternative homeland for non-Orthodox Armenians, perhaps projecting this onto medieval movements which were really rather different from each other and from modern secular nationalism?

My main problem with “The Fatimid Armenians” is that the book contains too little synthesis of the material, and too much name-dropping. I'm pretty patient, since I happen to be interested in both Paulicians and Ismailites, but this is probably not for the general reader. The Fatimid power struggles in particular are so complex, they would probably make George R R Martin blush! But then, this is the real world, not some fantasy novel…

Skynet is Genisys, and Sarah Connor is Daenerys

A review of "Terminator: Genisys" 

Not a bad flick, but the magic is gone from the Terminator franchise. Or is it just me getting older? Or is it *Arnie* who is getting older? In my opinion, “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is still the best film. This one feels somewhat artificial, with all the alternate timelines and plot holes. Funny detail: I didn't realize that Sarah Connor was starred by Emilia Clarke a.k.a. Daenerys in “Game of Thrones”, until reading Wiki. I am getting old...

No more torture porn

“Game of Thrones” (GOT) is easily the most popular TV series in the world just now. Aired on HBO and based on George R R Martin's “A Song of Ice and Fire” fantasy novels, the plot is set in the fictional lands of Westeros and Essos. The ruling families of Westeros are involved in a complex power struggle over control of the Iron Throne at King's Landing, while the *real* heir to the throne is plotting her return from exile in Essos. Martin's idea is to write realistic or “low” fantasy, and most of the milieu is obviously based on Antiquity and the Middle Ages. As the story have progressed, the supernatural elements (derived from Norse mythology) have become more important, as have the three dragons of one of the main protagonists. At an early date, the TV series became notorious for its amoral characters and general brutality, often sexual in nature. This is the seventh season of “Game of Thrones”. An eighth and final season is projected for 2018-2019. Since Martin didn't complete his novels in time, the HBO series is no longer based on the original stories.

It's interesting to see how GOT has changed since Martin lost effective control of the production. On the one hand, the torture porn and constant rapes and brothel scenes are gone, which I would consider a positive. On the other hand, the latest season has *major* plot holes. Most of the characters have morphed from evil or grey-zone schemers to good guys (with Cersei as a notable exception – the series still needs a villain). The dialogue is almost as chivalrous as “Ivanhoe”, and there is an air of political correctness. In the older seasons, the PC stuff was obviously hypocritical, now the early medieval land of Westeros has suddenly turned into a feminist paradise. In a sense, Cersei has become the most interesting character of the show, her dialogue with Tyrion in the last episode being a morally ambivalent tour de force.

Many suspect that Martin's dystopian story would have ended with the Army of the Dead laying waste to Westeros, leaving no one alive, had he found the time to complete the novels. Or perhaps Daenerys Targaryen would finally have embraced her destiny as Über-genocidal butcher extraordinaire, laying waste to the land on her own behalf. Instead, I wouldn't be surprised if the last episode turns into a morality tale about evil Braavos bankers and Muh Russian collusion… But then, I suppose Martin could always return from the dead in a dozen or so spin-offs. Let's just hope he leaves the torture porn and sex-with-animals out of it!

Welcome to King's Landing

“A Cabinet of Byzantine Curiosities” is a somewhat curious book containing small snippets of information on all things Byzantine. The sources are varied, ranging from historical chronicles to lives of prominent Byzantine saints. There are chapters on sex, food, criminality, war, spirituality, ethnic prejudice and (surprise) eunuchs. The facts (or factoids?) are presented with very little context. You need some background knowledge on the Byzantine Empire and the Middle Ages to really appreciate this material.

Some of the anecdotes are entertaining but most, alas, are not. I never had a particularly high opinion on the Byzantines (OK, they painted good icons) and my appreciation sank even lower after reading this. Cruel and unusual punishment, constant wars, rank superstition, brothels in every corner (this in a supposedly Christian empire), child marriage, dirt, excrement, disgusting food, the bubonic plague…if you ever wondered where George R R Martin got the idea to King's Landing in “Game of Thrones”, yes, you guessed it, of course it's Constantinople.

On the more entertaining side, a few things stand out. There is the super-weird story of Saint Christopher the Dog-Head, a member of the famed race of cynocephali. When he converted to Christianity, God gave him the ability to speak, but didn't change his outward appearance, said to have shocked the evil emperor Decius. Apparently, this bizarre tale was taken seriously by many in Byzantium. Further, I noticed that the Byzantines actually believed that the Virgin Mary was a supernatural warrior who led their troops in battle (I'm beginning to understand why they turned the Parthenon into a Marian shrine) and that she sometimes killed sinners in their sleep. The Theotokos did some unexpected gigs!

The word “Lesbian” was coined by a Byzantine, and one of the first European tales about Gypsies depict them as thieves. Swedes were known in the Empire already during the 6th century, and apparently had quite the reputation. The Swedish tribe of Heruls (or Heruli) was said to practice bestiality with donkeys, murder their old kinfolk by throwing them on pyres, and force their widows to hang themselves. Still, I suppose they were good at killing enemies, since the Byzantines recruited them as mercenaries! (I wonder what George Martin could have done with *this* material.)

Not sure how to rate this strange volume, compiled by based scholar Anthony Kaldellis (I noticed he uses the Greek names of the Byzantine emperors throughout, rather than the more customary English ones), but in the end I give it three-and-a-half stars.

Welcome to King's Landing.

Shadows thrive in the light

Both my father and my brother love "Game of Thrones". Personally, I completely missed the first season, but started watching the second. It took about five episodes of "compulsory watching", but then I was hooked! This series apparently slowly gets to you. And poisons you? I mean, it's all just a fictionalized account of the Early Middle Ages, with some Roman orgies thrown in for good measure. Or...? ;-)

It seems that the main weakness of the series (about a dozen story lines with characters whose number is legion) is also its biggest strength. It's difficult not to find *some* character that captivates you, if only for a couple of episodes. Even so, "Game of Thrones" probably wouldn't have worked without the previous success (until the last episode) of "Lost", which also had innumerable characters and a near-impenetrable plot.

Personally, I'm fascinated by Tyrion, the manipulative dwarf who is actually one of the good guys. His philosophy is to trick evil people into doing the right thing - somehow, that squares with my own view of politics. Arya is another interesting character, and then there's Daenerys Targaryen, Melisandre and her pseudo-Zoroastrian religion, and "The Others" beyond The Wall. (The Others are coming!) However, I readily admit that I can't make out all the Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons, mercenaries and prostitutes...yet.

Be that as it may, I will nevertheless award this quasi-high fantasy series five stars. But here's a prediction: George R. R. Martin will probably die before he finishes "A Song of Ice and Fire", making the last episode of "Game of Thrones" even less bearable than that of "Lost". All this will take place at some point in 2020.

You read it here first.... :-0

All men must die

"Game of Thrones" is a fantasy series aired on HBO, based on George R. R. Martin's fantasy novels "A Song of Ice and Fire". The plot is set in the fictitious lands of Westeros and Essos, where a power struggle for the Iron Throne rages between different noble houses after the murder of the old king. This DVD contains the episodes of the third season, and is notable for the episode "The Rains of Castamere", in which several of the main characters are brutally slain, disregarding every conventional idea about how TV should be made. But then, we've seen it before...in "Lost".

I admit that I'm not an engaged super-fan of "Game of Thrones", but like most people, I nevertheless find myself watching every episode. Why? No idea, really. As I said in my review of Season Two, this is simply a remake of the European Early Middle Ages, with some Roman and "Oriental" spices thrown in. In contrast to most fantasy, Martin's story has very little supernatural flavour, and the whole plot feels just as meaningless as medieval history. We're talking blood feuds, civil wars, arranged marriages, orgies, strange new religions frequently even worse than the old ones... Europe around AD 600?

Ironically, it could be the incredibly complex plot (or rather parallel plots) which makes the trick. That, and the colourful characters, makes it difficult not to find *something* of interest. A bit like a Swedish smorgasbord, I suppose? And yes, many viewers love the nudity or pretend to abhor the violence...

Personally, I found the unapologetic, politically incorrect Orientalism of the Daenerys Targaryen subplot a real guilty pleasure. A blond, Nordic valkyrie liberating Black slaves and challenging effeminate and vile "Semites"... I'm surprised nobody started a culture war over this? Instead, people pretended to be upset when mad king Joffrey turned out to be a homophobe. LOL! Oh, and yes, the strange new religion of the Red Priestess is really an allegory for Christianity, not Zoroastrianism. But please don't tell anyone, because that could *really* start something...

I will probably watch the fourth season of "Game of Thrones", whenever Swedish public service TV sees fit to show it. Next year?

;-(

How I stopped complaining and learned to love the ring

For a very long time, I didn't really like “The Lord of the Rings”. I mean, come on: who can stomach Tolkien's family trees with Frodo's 57 next cousins, the ridiculous Ents (talking trees with…wait for it…beards?) or the fact that each Elf has more names than the average Hindu guru. Add a tedious plot and an entire nation of devoted acolytes who keep telling you that the story is really the work of genius (that nation being Sweden), and you may get an inkling (pun intended) of my situation. Sure, the special effects in Peter Jackson's films were superb, but that was about it. And yes, all the villains are dark-skinned and wield scimitars. Racefail much?

Recently, however, I think I finally got it. While watching the first film for about the seventh time, I was struck by how strange and unusual the story actually is. Frodo leaves the Shire as a matter of course when asked to do so by Gandalf. His best friend Sam follows him, also as a matter of course. All the characters (except Gollum) are either wholly good or wholly bad, and the only thing that can get a good guy to fall is sorcery. LOTR seems to be a unique (and somewhat weird) story. Where did Tolkien got all this stuff from, anyway?

It's a traditional fairytale, stupid.

This, of course, is what LOTR has always been criticized for by cynical, “grown up” reviewers: that the characters aren't “deep” enough, that the plot is “naïve”, etc. Poor ambivalent Gollum, who can't seem to make up his mind whether to support the good or follow the Dark Side, is the only figure which meets with approval from such quarters. I suppose they see him as a “deep” postmodern monster. But of course many traditional myths and fairytales are just as “simplistic” and “naïve” as LOTR. Stories like this aren't supposed to be made anymore. Even the pristine United Federation of Planets from “Star Trek” is evil or at least ambivalent these days. It's more realistic that way, I suppose.

And then there's “Game of Thrones”, George Martin's alternative fantasy vision, where most characters are evil or positively depraved because, you know, it's more realistic that way. But since when is fantasy supposed to be realistic? Here, I think we're getting closer to the nub of the matter. It's interesting to note that the characters in “Game of Thrones” which are most popular are the ones which are more or less unqualifiedly good, such as Daenerys, Tyrion and John Snow. Note also that several of these characters have “supernatural” connections. People simply aren't buying the realistic part of Martin's concept.

Somebody might argue that it's time for us to grow up, that the world isn't all black and white, and that we should promote less naïve tales about how things “really” work. I disagree. We already know how it really works (Tyrion knows it, too). We live in that reality most of our time. What many of us don't know, or forget, are the ideals. Our ideals. That's what the myths and stories are supposed to communicate. Perhaps that's why a certain breed of literati wants us to forget about them. But what is their alternative to the traditional stories where Good conquers Bad, or dies trying? The torture porn in “Game of Thrones”?

So yes, I suddenly became more positive towards Tolkien's magnum opus (or even Jackson's films), despite not being on the same political wave length as the notoriously conservative author. Yes, Frodo did take the ring without further ado when asked by Gandalf. Yes, Sam followed him. No, they aren't very complicated characters.

And your point was…?

Children of a lesser tyrant?

Amazon actually sells a painting of 16th century Danish king Christian II´s children (yes, the one above), so obviously I had to post some remarks on this... 

Christian II was the king of Denmark, Norway and Sweden during a turbulent period of the 16th century. In Sweden, he is known as Christian the Tyrant, since he had the independent-minded Swedish nobility massacred in the 1520 “Stockholm Bloodbath”, an event so gruesome that it wouldn't even make it onto “Game of Thrones”. The pro-Danish faction of the nobility proved unpopular with the plebs, however, and Christian was subsequently overthrown by Gustav Vasa, whose coronation as king of Sweden on June 6, 1523 is still celebrated as our “independence day”.

Christian returned to Denmark were, curiously, he became known for an anti-nobility and pro-peasant/pro-middle class stance, making him one of the most loved monarchs in the country's history. However, he was never called “Christian the Good” in Denmark. That's an invention by Swedish propagandists! I use to believe it myself once, because…well, everyone around here believes it. It's ironic that this Lannister-like monstrosity actually *was* pretty good on his own native turf in Copenhagen. But then, that's Renaissance politics, yes?

This, apparently, is a painting showing the Tyrant's cute little children.

Problematic

OK, let´s see if we can get this straight. Daenerys Targaryen is the most popular character in “A Game of Thrones”. She is particularly popular among liberals, with some really devote people comparing her to Hillary Clinton. But who is Daenerys? Come and see!  

Daenerys Targaryen looks like a cross between a Southern belle and a Nordic valkyrie. This lily White hero liberates Black slaves from the clutches of evil effeminate Semite-looking slave-owners. In other words, she puts on the White woman´s burden to fight the Judaeo-Muslim world conspiracy. The Blacks are, of course, grateful to their White savior and worships her as a god. Daenerys is surrounded by castrated Black soldiers. This is an allusion to the old myth that Black males are over-sexed and must therefore be kept out of sight of White women. Only by forcibly giving up their sexuality, can they approach the belle. Note also that all of Daenerys´ advisors are imported Whites.

In plain English, the character comes across as a female version of Rudyard Kipling crossed with the Ku Klux Klan! So why do so many liberals see a similarity between the Mother of Dragons and Hillary Clinton…?