Monday, 28 May 2018

"If, for 10 Years, if You Didn't •Avoid• Doing What You Knew You Needed to Do - By Your Own Definitions Right, Within The Value Structure That •YOU'VE• Created (To The Extent That You've Done That) - What Would You Be Like..?



"If, for 10 Years, if You Didn't •Avoid• Doing What You Knew You Needed to Do - By Your Own Definitions Right, Within The Value Structure That •YOU'VE• Created (To The Extent That You've Done That) -

What Would You Be Like..?"




My body does (arguably); my reputation does (because it represents the fruit of a lifetime of labour —

But unless I become invisible, I have no right to decide how people see me —

People generally, you will learn, generally will see only ever that which they want to see, and there is no advantage to be gained by questioning their foolish and petty biases.



Sunday, 27 May 2018

Warriors Three


The Order of Saint-Soldiers


Apparently, (I learnt this from Jordan Peterson the other day - he's like The White Man's Malcolm X) - it's a mistranslation in the New Testament :

It's not "Blesséd are The Meek" - it's :

"Blesséd are the arms-bearers who keep their swords sheathed in spite of provocation."

Or "Blesséd are The Sikh."



"In 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Guru of the Sikhs was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb for saving the religious rights of Hindus. In 1699, his son and the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh sent hukmanamas (letters of authority) to his followers throughout the Indian sub-continent, asking them to gather at Anandpur Sahib on 30 March 1699, the day of Vaisakhi (the annual harvest festival).

Guru Gobind Singh addressed the congregation from the entryway of a tent pitched on a hill (now called Kesgarh Sahib). He drew his sword and asked for a volunteer who was willing to sacrifice his head. 

No one answered his first call, nor the second call, but on the third invitation, a person called Daya Ram (later known as Bhai Daya Singh) came forward and offered his head to the Guru. Guru Gobind Singh took the volunteer inside the tent, and emerged shortly, with blood dripping from his sword. 

He then demanded another head. One more volunteer came forward, and entered the tent with him. The Guru again emerged with blood on his sword. This happened three more times. 

Then the five volunteers came out of the tent unharmed. These five, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for their Guru, were called Panj Piare (“the five beloved ones”)

These five volunteers were : Daya Ram (Bhai Daya Singh), Dharam Das (Bhai Dharam Singh), Himmat Rai (Bhai Himmat Singh), Mohkam Chand (Bhai Mohkam Singh), and Sahib Chand (Bhai Sahib Singh).

Guru Gobind Singh then took an iron bowl and poured some water in it. Sahib Devan (later Mata Sahib Kaur) added some sugar crystals to the water, and the Guru stirred this mixture with a double-edged sword whilst reciting the Five Banis. 

The resultant solution is called as Khandey di Pahul” (ceremony of the double-edged sword) or commonly known asamrit” (nectar of immortality)

These actions allude to the nature expected of the inductees to the Khalsa: 

That they must have the will and the strength to fight oppression (symbolised by the sword), but must always remember that their actions are born from protection and not hatred (symbolised by the sweetness of the sugar).

Each of the Panj Piares were given five handfuls of the Amrit to drink, and had amrit sprinkled in their eyes five times.

Each time, they repeated the phrase “Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji ki Phateh” (“The Khalsa belongs to Waheguru (the wondrous teacher), the victory belongs to Waheguru (the wondrous teacher)”).

Guru Gobind Singh gave them the title (analogous to “Knight” or “Sir” in English culture) of “Singh” (meaning “Lion”). Similarly, for female the title of “Kaur” (meaning “Princess”). It is noted that about twenty thousand men and woman took this baptism of steel on the first day.

The Majority of Sikhs nowadays carry this title without taking the oath of double-edged sword.

Guru Gobind Singh is the “Father” of the Khalsa and Mata Sahib Kaur is the “Mother”. One important outcome of joining the Khalsa is the abolition of one’s previous caste, nation, race, rituals, customs, religion, clan, Karma. The new member is the citizen of Anandpur Sahib and their birthplace is the Keshgarh Sahib.
The Khalsa is led by Panj Pyare or the five-beloved. At the Battle of Chamkaur, the Khalsa led by Panj Pyare passed on an order/command to the Guru Gobind Singh to escape from Chamkaur. The Guru had to obey it, because at that point of time, and as proclaimed by the Guru on 30 March 1699 about his absorption into the Khalsa and declaring the five-beloved being equal to him, the Guru was a Singh of the Khalsa.



But You Gotta Have Faith

31     INT.     BUFFY'S ROOM AT BUFFY'S HOUSE - NIGHT
Faith is lying in bed holding the scythe in front of her. Buffy's standing beside the bed.

BUFFY (O.S.)
You feel it too, don't you?

FAITH
Damn. And damn, that's something.

BUFFY
I know.

FAITH
It's old. It's strong, and it feels like... like it's mine. (places it on the bed beside her) I guess that means it's yours.

BUFFY
It belongs to The Slayer. (picks up the scythe)


FAITH
Slayer in charge, which, I'm guessing, is you.

BUFFY
(sits on the edge of the bed) I honestly don't know. Does it matter?


FAITH
It never mattered to me. Somebody has to lead. 

Let's vote for Chao-Ahn. 

It's harder to lead people into a deathtrap if you don't speak English.

BUFFY
It wasn't your fault. 

FAITH
(looks away) I'm really not looking for forgiveness.

BUFFY
You're not?


FAITH
What do you want me to say? 

I blew it.


BUFFY
You didn't blow it.

FAITH
Tell that to—


BUFFY
People die. You lead them into battle, they're gonna die. 

It doesn't matter how ready you are or how smart you are. 

War is about death. 

Needless, stupid death.

FAITH
So, here's the laugh riot. 

My whole life I've been a loner. 

BUFFY
That's the funny part? 

Did I miss something?

FAITH
I'm trying to—

BUFFY
Sorry. Sorry. Go.

FAITH
No ties, no buddies, no relationships that lasted longer than... 

well, Robin lasted pretty long. (grins) 

Boy's got stamina.

BUFFY
Principal Wood? And you? 

And in my— (stands, paces) 

FAITH
Don't tell me you two got wriggly.

BUFFY
No. No. No, no.

We're just good friends. Or mortal enemies, depending on which day of the—
was that the funny part?

FAITH
OK. The Point. 

Me, by myself all the time. I'm looking at you, everything you have, and, I don't know, jealous. 

Then there I am. 

Everybody's looking to me, trusting me to lead them, and I've never felt so alone in my entire life.

BUFFY
Yeah. (swallows, looks down)

FAITH
And that's you every day, isn't it?

BUFFY
I love my friends. I'm very grateful for them. But that's the price. Being a slayer.

FAITH
There's only supposed to be one. 

Maybe that's why you and I can never get along. 

We're not supposed to exist together.

BUFFY
Also, you went evil and were killing people.

FAITH
Good point. Also a factor. (nods)

BUFFY
But you're right. I mean, I... 

I guess everyone's alone. 

But being a slayer? 

There's a burden we can't share.

FAITH
And no one else can feel it. (beat) Thank God we're hot chicks with superpowers.

BUFFY
Takes the edge off.

FAITH
Comforting.

BUFFY
Mm-hmm.


Thursday, 24 May 2018

Huey Green


Bob's Full House


The Perils of Emasculating Encouragement


"Women whose relationship with men has been seriously pathologized cannot distinguish between male authority and competence and male tyrannical power. 



They fail to differentiate because all they see is the oppressive male. And they may have had experiences that. . . Their experiences with men might have been rough enough so that differentiation never
occurred. 



Because it has to occur. 

And you have to have a lot of experience with men - and good men, too - before that will occur.




But it seems to me that we’re also increasingly dominated by a view of masculinity that’s mostly characteristic of women who have terrible personality disorders, and who are unable to have healthy relationships with men. 

But here’s the problem. 

This is something my wife has pointed out, too. She said, ‘Well men are going to have to stand up for themselves.’ 

But here’s the problem.



I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassing against me. 



And the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. 



If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is.

That’s forbidden in discourse with women. And so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. 

I really don’t believe it. I think they have to throw their hands up in. . . In
what? It’s not even disbelief. It’s that the cultural. . . There’s no step forward that you can take under those circumstances, because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the reaction becomes physical right away. Or at least the threat is there.

And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree. 

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any l circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect.

But I can’t see any way. . . For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of.

But I’m defenseless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me. So I don’t know. . . It seems to me that it isn’t men who have to stand up and say, ‘Enough of this.’ Even though that is what they should do, it seems to me that it’s sane women who have to stand up against their crazy sisters and say, ‘Look, enough of that. Enough man-hating. Enough pathology. Enough bringing disgrace on us as a gender.’

But the problem there - and then I’ll stop my little tirade - is that most of the women I know who are sane are busy doing sane things. They have their career. 

They have their family. They’re quite occupied, and they don’t seem to have the time, or maybe even the interest, to go after their crazy, harpy sisters. And so I don’t see any regulating force for that terrible femininity. And it seems to me to be invading the culture and undermining the masculine power of the culture in a way that’s, I think, fatal. I really do believe that."