MENARCH

They attract Tigers and Sharks.

What Would Diana Do?

What Would Diana Do?

Why Are You Cardassian?

Writer Robert Hewitt Wolfe wanted Dr. Bashir to tell Kira at the end of the episode that he could not confirm whether she was a Cardassian replacement or the authentic Bajoran Kira in order to leave Kira permanently unsure of her original ‘identity’. 

He felt this would emphasize that our identity is based on our experiences and who we have been, 

regardless of one's actual origins; 

"She has been Kira Nerys. She may be the real Kira Nerys, she may be a replacement, but she's Kira Nerys now, and it doesn't really matter. 

Your identity is who you are, 

it doesn't matter how you get there, 

it doesn't matter whether it's True or a Lie, 

if you've lived it long enough, 

it's True." 

However, this idea was dropped from the final version of the story.

BECAUSE IT ISN’T CORRECT

“The London School of Economics is, as it boasts of itself, one of the world’s leading universities of the social sciences: ‘With an international intake and a global reach, LSE has always put engagement with the wider world at the heart of its mission.’ 

Over at its LSE Review of Books page in May 2012 a review appeared of a new book by Thomas Sowell. Intellectuals and Society had come out two years earlier, but in the world of academia intellectual drive-by shootings often happen at a more leisurely pace than in the rest of society. 

The reviewer, Aidan Byrne, was the ‘Senior Lecturer in English and Media/Cultural Studies’ at Wolverhampton University. In this capacity – his byline informed us – ‘he specialises in masculinity in interwar Welsh and political fiction, and teaches on a wide range of modules’. 

A perfect authority for the LSE Review of Books to put in judgement over Sowell. For his part, Byrne was ‘unimpressed’ by the ‘highly partisan’ nature of the book. 

And so, two years after Sowell’s book had been published, Byrne took aim and attempted to fire. 

From his opening line he warned that ‘Intellectuals and Society consists of a series of outdated and sometimes dishonest shots at Sowell’s political enemies.’ 

Among other charges included in Byrne’s review was a claim that one line in Sowell’s book echoed the concerns of the Tea Party and constituted ‘a thinly-disguised attack on racial integration’. 

An even odder allegation against Sowell came when Byrne warned readers that Sowell’s references to racial issues constituted little more than ‘disordered and disturbing “dog-whistles”’. 

In a similar fashion, Sowell’s arguments about the legacies of the past were also ‘a coded intervention’. Warming to his theme, Byrne explained that ‘To him [Sowell], slavery’s cultural legacy means that it shouldn’t be considered a moral problem, nor should amelioration be attempted.’ 

To this charge Byrne then added the devastating rider which turned out to be an act of unbelievable self-harm.

To their credit, as it now stands the LSE site has an ‘amendment’ at the bottom of the piece online. 

It is one of the great corrections. 

It simply notes the deletion of a line from the original piece. ‘The original post contained the line “easy for a rich white man to say”’, admitted the LSE site. ‘This has been removed and we apologise for this error.’

As well they might. For of course whatever the state of his income, Thomas Sowell is not a white man. He is a black man. A very famous black man – who LSE’s reviewer only thought to be white because of the nature of his politics.

It is a suggestion that has crept into an otherwise liberal debate with barely a murmur of dissent. 

And it has arrived from quite a range of directions. 

Consider for instance the reaction to the strange, and vaguely pitiful, case of Rachel Dolezal. This was the woman who became almost world famous in 2015 when, as regional head of the NAACP, she was suddenly ‘outed’ as white. During a television interview, Dolezal was memorably asked if she herself was black. She pretended not to understand the question. 

When confronted with the evidence of her birth parents the interview crashed into a buffer. 

For Dolezal’s parents were not merely Caucasians, but Caucasians of German-Czech origin – which is very far away from the black American identity that Dolezal herself had adopted. 

Eventually, while admitting that her parents were indeed her parents, she insisted that – nevertheless – she was black. 

Her identification with the black community in America seemed to have come about through her closeness to her adopted black siblings. 

Nevertheless, as her adoptive brother said, ‘She grew up a white, privileged person in Montana.’ 

She had managed to pass herself off as black by little more than the careful application of bronzer and a somewhat stereotypical frizzing up of her hair. 

This – and the fact that most people were clearly too terrified to say, ‘But aren’t you white?’ – meant that Dolezal was able not only to ‘pass’ as black but head up the local chapter of an organization set up for black people. 

The Dolezal case threw up an almost endless series of questions, and both it and the responses to it in some ways presented an opportunity to dissect a whole array of aspects of today’s culture. 

Not least among these moments was the divide that arose among prominent black people, spokespeople and activists. 

On The View on ABC-TV, Whoopi Goldberg defended Dolezal. ‘If she wants to be black, she can be black’, was Goldberg’s view.

It seemed that ‘blacking up’ was not a problem on this occasion. More interesting was the reaction of Michael Eric Dyson, who stood up for Dolezal in a remarkable way. On MSNBC he declared of Dolezal, ‘She’s taking on the ideas, the identities, the struggles. She’s identified with them. I bet a lot more black people would support Rachel Dolezal than would support, say, Clarence Thomas.’

All of which suggested that ‘black’ was not to do with skin colour, or race. But only politics. So much so that a Caucasian wearing bronzer but holding the ‘right’ opinions was more black than a black Supreme Court Justice if that black Supreme Court Justice happens to be a conservative.

PLUTO

THE FERRYMAN :

Come with me.

(They descend into The Underworld)

PLUTO :

Excuse me.

Thank you very much for coming.

It makes me happy that you ... Goodness gracious.

RAPHAEL :

A problem?

PLUTO :

Forgive me.

Sit down.

Can I ask your name?

RAPHAEL :

Raphael.

PLUTO :

Raphael.

A beautiful name.

It is unfortunate that we have to meet, us, under conditions all so dismal.

What we do here — It's a show, immune to the spotlight.

Can I offer you refreshment?

Take a drink.

Tell me —

You're afraid to die?

RAPHAEL :

Are you?

PLUTO :

No.

No, no I do not have fear of dying.

Today I consider that death is.... an absolute necessity....

metamorphosis

It may be that - Death is painful

Death is something something subtle.

If we suffer at birth, the day we came into The World, then it is normal to suffer in The End - 

It's like a transfiguration....as if we solve an equation.

Have you ever seen a woman give birth?

The face is deformed.

Full of sweat and anguish.

But strangely, punctuated by joy.

You see, somewhere Raphael

I feel an affinity, a communion of our spirits.

To see with his eyes a horrible death can be a great source of inspiration for those who remain.

Thus they see how we can be tough once the time comes.

To resist death, is absolute courage.

It is a delicious torment.

And — Forgive me.

But the more one sees Death appear finally before us the more we must -

welcome him wholeheartedly.

It seems today that the closer you get of death in our lifetime plus the passage into nothingness are effortless.

And in our  parting,  the most beautiful gifts we can offer to our loved-ones is the courage to face death.

And this is the finest and largest contribution that a man can make to another man.

RAPHAEL :

Whatever ....

How much will you pay me for that?

PLUTO :

Well, if you want to be realistic, the amount will depend on Your courage and your good will.

Plus how you’re able to hold, mentally and physically

But the sum will be important.

Yes, I know, it's always..... how to say offensive, injurious to give value to life.

But we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

And unto God what is God's.

So - I say $ 50,000

I give you one third immediately.

RAPHAEL :

What if I split!?

PLUTO :

You know, I spent a good half of my life to develop an instinct -

An instinct about people.

With a man of your caliber,

Your culture,

Your honesty —

No, I do not think that you would do that.

Get it now

And respect your commitment

RAPHAEL :

Yes.

When should I return?

PLUTO :

Say in a week.

Yes, one week.

Goodbye my friend.

Deep Blue

“It is customary to list indigo as a color lying between blue and violet, but it has never seemed to me that indigo is worth the dignity of being considered a separate color. 

To my eyes it seems merely 

Deep Blue.”

— Asimov

Dr. Sojii Asha :

I was just contemplating 

The Logic of Sacrifice.

Admiral JL Picard :

I don’t think I like the sound of that.....

Very few readers of the Golden Bough have pierced Sir Prof. Dr. Frazer's veil of euphemism and surmised the exact method used by Isis in restoring life to Osiris, although this is shown quite clearly in extant Egyptian frescoes. 

Those who are acquainted with this simple technique of resurrecting the dead (which is at least partially successful in all cases and totally successful in most) will have no trouble in skrying the esoteric connotations of the Sacred Chao—or of the Taoist yin-yang or the astrological sign of cancer. 

The method almost completely reverses that of the pentagrams, right or left, and it can even be said that in a certain sense it was not Osiris himself but his brother, Set, symbolically understood, who was the object of Isis's magical workings. 

In every case, without exception, a magical or mystical symbol always refers to one of the very few* variations of the same, very special variety of human sacrifice: the "one eye opening" or the "one hand clapping"; and this sacrifice cannot be partial—it must culminate in death if it is to be efficacious. 

The literal- mindedness of the Saures, in the novel, caused them to become a menace to life on earth; the reader should bear this in mind. 

The sacrifice is not simple. 

It is a species of cowardice, epidemic in Anglo-Saxon nations for more than three centuries, which causes most who seek success in this field to stop short before the death of the victim. 

Anything less than death—that is, complete oblivion—simply will not work.** 

(One will find more clarity on this crucial point in the poetry of John Donne than in most treatises alleging to explain the secrets of magick.)

* Fewer than seventy, according to a classical enumeration.

** The magician must always identify fully with the victim, and share every agonized contortion to the utmost. Any attitude of standing aside and watching, as in a theatrical performance, or any intellectualization during the moments when the sword is doing its brutal but necessary work, or any squeamishness or guilt or revulsion, creates the two-mindedness against which Hagbard so vehemently warns in Never Whistle While You're Pissing. In a sense, only the mind dies

The essential and original meaning, of course, is a program for a ritual, and the ritual is magick. 

The four letters are simply the four beats in Wilhelm Reich's formula: 

muscular tension   

electrical charge   

electrical discharge   

muscular relaxation 

In short, as Freud once noted, every sexual act involves, at a minimum, four parties. 

The father and son provide a "fist" and a "nail"; 

the mother and daughter provide two "windows." 

The case of the Chicago schizophrenic killer William Heirens, who experienced orgasm when climbing through windows, demonstrates that this symbolism does not have to be taught and is inherent in the human mind, although always subject to the distortion exemplified by the Saures.

Finally, the universal blessing given on page 218 is intimately involved with the YHVH formula:

I bless Ra, the fierce sun burning bright I bless Isis-Luna in the night

I bless the air, the Horus-Hawk

I bless the earth on which I walk

The fiery father, the watery mother, the airy son, and the earthy daughter are all there, just as they are in every alchemical formula.* But we say no more at this point, lest the reader begin seeking for a 5 = 4 equation to balance the 5 = 6.

We conclude with a final warning and clarification: Resort to mass sacrifice (as among the Aztecs, the Catholic Inquisition, and the Nazi death camps) is the device of those who are incapable of the true Rite of the Dying God.

* In this connection—and also, en passant, as an indication that Adolf Hitler's link with the Illuminati was not invented for this work of "fiction"—we suggest that the reader look into The Morning of the Magicians, by Pauwels and Bergier.

The Tao of Data

He had a Child’s Wisdom.

PICARD: 

Au revoir, Natasha. 

The gathering is concluded. 

(Everyone but Picard and Data leave, sniffing a bit) 

DATA: 

Sir, The Purpose of This Gathering confuses me. 

PICARD: 

Oh? How so? 

DATA: 

My Thoughts are not 

for Tasha, but for myself. 

I keep thinking how empty it will feel 

without her presence. 

Did I miss The Point? 

PICARD: 

No, you didn't, Data. 

You got it.

PICARD: 

Commander Data, at your convenience, 

I would like to talk to you in my Ready room. 

Counsellor?

[Corridor]

PICARD: 

I insist we do whatever we can to discourage 

the perception of this new android as A Child. 

It is not A Child. 

It is an invention, albeit 

an extraordinary one. 

TROI: 

Why should Biology rather than Technology 

determine whether it is A Child? 

Data has created an offspring. 

A new life out of his own being. 

To me, that suggests a child. 

If he wishes to call Lal his child, 

then who are we to argue? 

PICARD: 

Well, if he must, but I fail to understand 

how a five foot android with heuristic learning 

systems and the strength of ten men 

can be called 'A Child'. 

TROI: 

You've never been a parent.

[Ready room]

PICARD: 

What you have done will have serious ramifications. 

I am truly dismayed that you told no one of what you were doing. 

DATA: 

I am sorry, Captain. 

I did not anticipate your objections. 

Do you wish me to deactivate Lal? 

PICARD: 

It's a life, Data. 

It can't be activated and deactivated simply. 

This is a most stupendous undertaking. 

Have you any idea what will happen 

when Starfleet learns about this? 

DATA: 

I have followed all of Starfleet regulations 

to the best of my ability. 

I expected they would be pleased. 

PICARD: 

Well, you have taken on quite a responsibility, Data. 

DATA: 

To prepare, I have scanned all available 

literature on parenting. 

There seems to be much confusion on this issue. 

One traditional doctrine insists, 

'Spare The Rod and Spoil The Child', 

suggesting a punitive approach. 

While another more liberal attitude 

would allow the child enormous freedom. 

PICARD: 

Data -

DATA: 

And what Klingons do to their children - 

PICARD: 

Data! I'm not talking about parenting. 

I am talking about the extraordinary consequences 

of creating a New Life. 

DATA: 

Does that not describe becoming a parent, sir? 

PICARD: 

Data, you are seeking to achieve what 

only your own creator has been able to achieve. 

To make another functioning, sentient, android. 

To make another Data. 

DATA: 

That is why I must attempt this, sir. 

I have observed that in most species, 

there is a primal instinct 

to perpetuate themselves. 

Until now, I have been the last of my kind. 

If I were to be damaged or destroyed, 

I would be lost forever. 

But if I am successful with the creation of Lal, 

my continuance is assured. 

I understand the risk, sir. 

And I am prepared to 

accept the responsibility.

“Everything has its own Inner Nature - unlike other forms of Life, however, people are easily led away from What’s Right For Them, because people have ‘Brain’.

And ‘Brain’ can be fooled - Inner Nature, when relied-upon, CANNOT be fooled.

But many people do not look at it and do not listen to it, and consequently do not understand themselves very much.

Having little understanding of themselves, 

they have little respect for themselves — 

and are therefore easily influenced by Others.”

- The Tao of Pooh.

[Ten Forward]

LAFORGE:

So, do you want to talk about it? 

DATA: 

Are you referring to the foreknowledge of my death? 

LAFORGE: 

Yeah. 

DATA: 

I have no particular desire to discuss the matter. 

....Do you need to talk about it? 

LAFORGE: 

Yeah. 

DATA: 

Why? 

LAFORGE: 

Data, this has got to bother you a little. 

DATA: 

On the contrary -- 

I find it rather comforting. 

LAFORGE: 

Comforting? 

DATA: 

I have often wondered about my own mortality 

as I have seen others around me age. 

Until now it has been theoretically possible 

that I would live an unlimited period of time. 

And although some might find this attractive, 

to me it only reinforces the fact that I am artificial. 

LAFORGE: 

I never knew how tough 

this must be for you. 

DATA: 

Tough? As in difficult? 

LAFORGE: 

Knowing that you would 

outlive all your friends. 

DATA: 

I expected to make new friends. 

LAFORGE: 

True. 

DATA: 

And then to outlive them as well. 

LAFORGE: 

Now that you know that you might not? 

DATA: 

It provides a sense of completion to my future. 

In a way, I am not that different from anyone else. 

I can now look forward to Death. 

LAFORGE: 

I never thought of it that way. 

DATA: 

One might also conclude that it brings me 

one step closer to being human : 

I am mortal. 

PICARD [OC]: 

Picard to Bridge officers. 

We're approaching the Devidia system. 

Report to your stations. 

LAFORGE: 

I'll see you later. 

Let's get together for a game of chess or something, okay? 

(Data leaves) 

[Corridor]

TROI: 

I heard about Data. 

RIKER: 

Yeah. 

TROI: 

It's having an unusually traumatic effect on everyone. 

RIKER: 

Yeah. 

TROI: 

If you don't want to talk about it, it's okay. 

RIKER: 

I'm fine. I'm just --

TROI: 

Angry. 

RIKER: 

I'm not angry. Yeah, I'm angry. 

Why should I be angry? 

TROI: 

Maybe because it reminds us 

of our own mortality. 

RIKER: 

I just don't want to believe it. 

TROI: 

Have you ever heard Data define 'friendship'? 

RIKER: 

No. 

TROI: 

How did he put it? 

•Does The Voice•

‘As I experience certain sensory input patterns, my mental pathways become accustomed to them. 

The inputs eventually are anticipated and even missed when absent.’

RIKER: 

So what's The Point?

TROI: 

He's used to us, and we're used to him. 

It's like finding out someone you love 

has a terminal illness and -

(The turbolift arrives, the doors open and - ) 

RIKER: 

Data. 

DATA: 

Counsellor. Commander.

[Turbolift]

DATA: 

Would either of you mind if I made a personal inquiry? 

TROI: 

Personal inquiry? 

No, go right ahead. 

DATA: 

I am perceiving an apparent change 

in the way others behave toward me. 

For example, people abruptly end conversations 

when I appear, just as you did when 

the turbolift doors opened. 

Is that an accurate observation? 

RIKER: 

Not at all. 

TROI: (same time) 

Yes. 

RIKER: 

....Yes. 

TROI: 

You're right, Data. 

And it's not a very nice thing to do. 

RIKER: 

It's just - that our mental pathways have become

 accustomed to your sensory input patterns. 

DATA: 

I understand. 

I am also fond of you, Commander. 

And you as well, Counsellor.

DATA: 

Sir, I need temporary lodging. 

BELLBOY: 

Looks like the missus booted you out in the middle of the night. 

DATA: 

I understand the source of your misperception. 

However, this is not sleepware and I do not have a missus. 

BELLBOY: 

Well. 

DATA: 

I am a Frenchman.