A Question for "Alpha Males": Where is Your Pack

Greetings,

I am going to speak on a particular social issue and I am going to get hammered from certain parts of our community for writing it. However, this is one of those things that needs to be written, needs to be sent out there, needs to be said. This is something that needs to be corrected in people's thinking of the way the world works.

Why does an "Alpha Male" need a pack?

Simply because without a pack you are a "lone wolf" and contrary to all the cinema and stereo-types which have been created, the surviving "lone wolf" is the exception to the rule. Mostly "lone wolves" die, because they don't have a pack, "lone wolves had a significantly higher mortality than members of packs and pairs." They become lone for a reason, rejected by a pack. This is proven through more studies than just this one.  Oh, and "lone wolves," are exactly that lone, a pack of "lone wolves" is an oxymoron.

What Makes an "Alpha Male" in a pack?

The "alpha male" in the pack is the biggest, it is also the strongest, and so forth. However, even the concept of the "alpha male" has been proven to be false. For the purposes of the discussion and because the concept seems to pervade our society, or at least parts of it we will use it.

The "alpha male" is a leader. Yes, they are strong and they make decisions. They also care for the rest of the pack, they also defend the weaker members of their pack from attack. They do not go out and seek to harm members of their pack as this is counter-productive, as the pack must work together to survive. The "alpha male" will go out of its way to ensure that more of its members survive because this is to its advantage.

Watch this video for wolves in the wild, yes a pack of them. Watch how they follow one another, sticking together for the benefit of the pack. Working for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual.

What does all this mean?

There needs to be a correction in our idea of the so-called "alpha male" if we are going to continue to use this concept in a social sense (even thought the original concept is false). It needs to be recognised for what it originally was the leader of the pack. A one who worked for the group, who worked to the benefit of the group rather than themselves.

If you're big, strong and dominant, but you're not a leader, and you are not working toward the improvement of a group, seeking to improve the lives of others, you are no "alpha male." You're a "lone wolf" and your destiny is to be shut out, because "lone wolves" are removed from the pack for a reason. They have no use to the pack, the pack always comes first.

Real strong people are those who put other's needs before their own, because they can. They have the strength and resources to do so, so they do so. Not because they are told to, or because they are required but because that is the way things are done. This modern "alpha male" concept needs to be either reconstructed or removed, corrected to what a pack leader does or simply eliminated, because it does no good for society as a whole as it is currently.

Next time you are told someone is an "alpha male," ask the where their pack is, and if they don't have one, it's just an ego-trip to fill in some hole in their personality...

Cheers,

Henry.

"White People": A Racial Slur

 Greetings,

There has been quite a bit of conversation, especially over the past years, about people identifying as one nation or another, identifying with their "roots" especially. There has been identification of "First Nations" people, within the boundaries of various current national boundaries. However, when it comes to "white people," they are overlooked. 

In fact, I would state that "white people" in itself is a racial slur. Why? If you examine all of the "white people" within a national boundary these days, you will find many different cultures and many different languages. It is important to recognise the original inhabitants even if they were white as well. Further, it is important to recognise that due to immigration you will often find a lot of different cultures within a national boundary, even if they are all "white."

This term, "white people" is offensive in the same way as any other generalisation of culture is offensive. It is merely not recognised by most because "white people" are the dominant, "white people" were the "conquerors" and "settlers." This is primarily used as a slur to categorise negative attributes or actions, either historical or current, which are being implied, what needs to be recognised is not all "white people" are committing these offences. There are all sorts of "white people." Then again, the same applies to "black people."

We should not say "black people" in the same way, for the same reasons. Under the heading of "black people" there are people of African descent, people of Pacific Island descent, and people of Australian indigenous descent, and likely others. They all certainly do not have the same cultures, as they did not live under the same environmental conditions, and they did not develop the same way. Categorisation by colour of skin, shape of face (Caucasian, Negro, etc.), all of these things may be biologically possible and tell us something about our roots, and common roots, in prehistory, but they should not be used to generally categorise people in a socio-cultural sense. Wouldn't it be nice if we were just all "people," without the necessity of the socio-cultural tags?  

There are discussions of "cultural appropriation" in regard to certain cultures. "Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation) There seems to be a lot of regard and concern for some cultures and not others. It would seem that European cultures "white" cultures are ignored when it comes to this, because they are the "dominant culture," but offense can still remain. We need to be careful about how we deal with all cultures, regardless of where they originate, regardless of their time period, regardless if they are "dominant" or not. We need to be respectful of all cultures and how we present them.

Now, there are those who are going to claim that I am some sort of "white supremacist" or "Nazi" for making the statements that I have (likely, because I will be classified as "white"), and I consider these individuals foolish beyond words. To them, you have missed the point of what I have been saying. I am a firm believer in levelling the playing field in all aspects. The same care should be taken with all people and all cultures, regardless of the colour of their skin, nation's origin, or religious beliefs.

Maybe I should've changed the title to: Why can't we all just be "people"?

I apply the same to gender and sexual orientation for that matter. Care needs to be taken how we address one another as individuals, and as groups, even how we think about one another.

We need to begin to understand one another so we can begin to heal. This is the way forward. Hopefully then we can begin to see ourselves as "humanity" and work toward a better world.

Cheers,

Henry.

Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Princess Bride: What can we learn from The Duel of Wits?

Greetings,

When most people think of "The Princess Bride" (1987), they think of the duel on the cliffs, especially if you are of the "swordy" nature; in the same vein they think of "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die." the relentless revenge of a boy trying to avenge the death of his father. They think of the reputation of the Dread Pirate Roberts, or of true love and how it will never separate Buttercup and Westley. 

<SPOILER WARNING> (for anyone silly enough not to have watched this movie which has so many lessons hidden within it)

There is another scene I would like to discuss a scene that happens after the duel on the cliffs; it happens after Westley (currently the Man in Black) wrestles with Fezzik and brings the mountain of a man down. It is the meeting of Vizzini and the Man in Black the duel of wits. 

Vizzini holds the Princess with a knife to her throat, there is a little banter between the two of them, and then the following is said:

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Man in Black: You're that smart?

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in Black: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons. (Source)

They then decide to have a "duel of wits," between them. Two cups of wine are poured. The Man in Black produces a container of poison, which he has Vizzini smell, it is odourless, tasteless and dissolves instantly in water "iocane poison" it is named. It will be placed in one of the cups, they will drink and find out "which one is right, and which one is dead." The Man in Black takes the cups and places the poison then places them back on the rock. Vizzini then uses logic to figure out which cup has the poison. He distracts the Man in Black and switches the cups. They both drink, and after a little gloating about how he switched glasses, Vizzini falls dead. Both cups were poisoned. The Man in Black had spent time developing a resistance to "iocane poison."

The first question: Could Vizzini have survived the encounter with the Man in Black? 

An argument could be made that as the poison is odourless and tasteless, Vizzini ingested the poison as soon as the Man in black offered it to him to smell, particles of the poison could have been ingested at this early stage and Vizzini was a dead man already. This is more a "Kennedy assassination/magic bullet" sort of approach to the situation. So, we will leave this one alone and focus on the duel of wits.

If a person follows Vizzini's logic through his argument, it is a rambling statement of facts and theories, where he starts with some sound theories, but ends up going completely off-track. The same process could have been used. In the movie, Vizzini was going to die, it was a plot point that was required, so the Man in Black could plan for the castle assault in the final part of the story. Even if the wine had been spilt, thus Vizzini not choosing either cup, duel would have started again, just with a different game. In the end Vizzini was going to die.

Next question: What can we learn from the duel of wits?

Do you want to see all the answers? Join me Patreon page for more discussions along with many others.

Monetisation: A Question of Requirement

 Greetings,

I have previously discussed the question of what my time is worth, and also a post about whether or not my time at university was a waste of time. I have been happy cruising along with my payments from Services Australia, under the auspices of the Department of Social Services. Yes, regardless of their re-branding, change of logo, or whatever, they are still the Department of Social Services, or DSS in Australia. However, more recently, there have been comments about what advantages I have, what privileges I have, and quite frankly with the way that the government has been managing the country, I have been feeling the squeeze on the more social/comfort parts of my life.

The result of all of this consideration? 

There needs to be a little background before I get to that. I write four blogs at the moment, this one, "A Fencer's Ramblings" my fencing blog where I discuss fencing and training in fencing, and all of the details that go along with that pursuit; "A Life with Fibromyalgia" where I discuss some of my medical history, and how I deal with my chronic illnesses, primarily fibromyalgia; and "Olde Wordes: An Examination of Elizabethan English" which began as a foundation for writing the Elizabethan portion of one of my books, which I published, His Practice in Modern and Elizabethan English. This was the second book that I have published, the first one was a book version of a series of my fencing blog articles, plus some extras added in, entitled Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings.

I write a lot most of my writing does not see the light of day, unless I find that the articles are of particular interest to a particular group. You can find a profile of me on academia.edu with more of my articles; these are more of a scholarly bend to them, though at least one of them is a bit of fun. The point here being that I have written a lot and seen very little in the way of financial recompense for the hours of work and the thousands and thousands of words I have written.

I have begun a profile on Patreon. I will be putting my more considered and researched articles on this site where people can pay me for the effort that has gone into producing the articles. I will not be removing articles from sites where they are already held, unless I do updates or improvements. In this case the newer versions will appear on the Patreon site for access to those people willing to pay me for my time and expertise.

I have no doubt that there will be some who will scoff at these efforts and who will make comment about the monetisation of my writing. To these people, I will say that I am simply expecting to be paid for the work that I am putting in, for the information that I am supplying, for the expertise that I am supplying in the process. If that is not sufficient explanation, then they can simply go elsewhere, as they are not my concern.

I will still put articles on my various blogs, but they will not be of the same size or quality that they used to be, they will be shorter, and likely pointing to more significant articles on the Patreon site. If you want someone to blame for all of this, you can blame the government; all the rich individuals who don't want to pay their taxes; and all those who still believe that people with disabilities choose not to work, and choose to allow their disabilities to impact their lives so much that the government keeps disability payments low, so low that they are under the taxable threshold, while the prices of basic food and accommodation rises.

Cheers,

Henry.

Symbols of Hate: What is a Symbol?

Greetings,

I have been thinking about this post for a while. It is about a sensitive topic, and likely to get me hounded from some quarters, but such is the nature of being a person willing to put their thoughts to print. This should be noted, I am just putting my thoughts to print, nothing more.

There are certain symbols which have been recognised as "symbols of hate" due to certain crimes which have been perpetrated in association with them. In some instances, these have been crimes against humanity. This discussion does not deny any of these crimes, nor does it deny that they were crimes. This is an examination of the symbols which have become associated with them.

The government of Queensland, Australia decided, along with several other governments in Australia, that symbols of hate should not be tolerated, and thus they proposed a ban on hate symbols, so the media tells us. Now, one should always be careful about what the media tells us, and what exactly the media is telling us. The purpose of this ban is to strengthen the government's stand against hate crimes, "Queensland’s attorney general has confirmed the Nazi salute will be captured under proposed laws that ban hate symbols and strengthen the state’s response to vilification." 

Now, of importance about this proposal, is that it is not to ban images or symbols of Nazism, as has been interpreted by some, it is a ban on the "public display of hate symbols" which is a much broader area, and allows for much broader interpretation. One should really read the ministerial statement a little more closely to realise what is actually going on.

A symbol on its own means nothing. It is just a character, a pictogram, an image. When that same symbol is carried by a group of individuals, then it comes to have meaning. National flags are symbols not because of the images themselves, but because of their association with the nations to which they belong.

The Eureka flag, for example, is now associated with trade unionists, and it is now banned from being flown. It's original association was for gold miners on the Ballarat gold fields who revolted against the British administration and their taxation of the miners, culminating in the Eureka Stockade. 

We should all carefully consider what the symbols mean, and what they are associated with. In every situation, context is of great importance. The question that should be asked, is whose interpretation of "hate symbol" is going to be used when a symbol is banned in Queensland and other places that adopt such legislation? Will the Eureka flag fall under such jurisdiction? Will this be simply another method to curb our "freedom of expression"? Hopefully, the government finally use a tool correctly, as it was designed to be used and use it to reduce hate crimes.

Just for a thought process: Consider what the Palestinians think of the Star of David, painted over the tanks of the Israeli Army which come through their streets, marked on the members of the military who  kill members of their families, and force them into refugee camps. In reverse, consider what the Israelis think of the Crescent and Star, or the white Arabic script on a black background, as a terrorist group celebrates another attack on an Israeli target. Are these symbols of hate? Certainly not to those who carry them.

The individual's interpretation of a symbol, the society's interpretation of the symbol, the use of the symbol and what it is associated with give the symbol meaning. A symbol gives everyone something to rally around; sometimes the symbol is an individual, sometimes it is an icon. It gives power through the strength of those who rally around it. Consider the symbols of Star Wars or Star Trek, and what would happen if the people who rally around these symbols were motivated? Then again, who says they are not.

Cheers,

Henry.

AI and Writing

Greetings,

AI is a hot topic currently, people are playing with AI and art, throwing interesting topics at it to see what it can produce. Some are throwing topics at its chat engines to see what it can produce in the way of written articles and so forth, to see how they compare in comparison to those written by human beings. There is also discussion about whether AI is a threat to people's jobs, whether we will be able to tell whether someone has simply asked an AI to write an article, or has written it themselves. I have some things to say about this topic, and those associated.

In my opinion what is being presented as "AI" is not true AI at all. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence. In my mind, this would imply some sort of sentience on the part of the creation, some sort of autonomy, these current creations do not have this, for which I am most grateful. Thus, I would refer to them as MI, or Machine Intelligence. There is a certain amount of autonomous thought, but it requires prompting from an outside source to work. Then again, I am not qualified in the area, so this is (very much) a layperson's opinion.

If you're worried about this AI taking over your job, because it can produce information, write articles and so forth by collecting information the first thing that you need to do is to stop feeding it. Every time a person asks it a question, asks it to write something, tells it how to improve, it gets better at what it does, it improves. You are arming the weapon that is pointed at you, it is like the rabbit telling the hunter where they will be eating, or its path so the hunter can make an easier shot.

This goes for people who are using it to write things and also those who are using it for AI Art. By using it to learn about art and how we think you are also teaching it to think in alternative ways. Stop feeding it.

Next, for all those who have or are considering producing articles of writing of any kind through AI, as an author, I would like to say something, screw you. You are cheapening what I do. You are cheapening what every author on the planet does. You are giving an "out" to people, legitimising it by using it more often, allowing people to be lazy about writing. You are devaluing writing and the value of writers. You are stealing the jobs of researchers, writers, and editors. You are devaluing human products.

Consider that in a piece of writing, especially one that goes to print on a public medium, published in a book, newspaper, or magazine, consider:

• time spent researching the article; 
• time spent writing the article;
• time spent editing the article;
• time spent re-writing the article;
• time spent formatting the article for publication.

By using AI chat-bots or AI writers to produce articles or so forth you are cheapening the human efforts that go into this process. You put in a subject, the AI researches and writes the article for you. It is lazy, you have learned nothing from the process, except how to operate the AI, you are a button-pusher, not an author.

When the AI comes along and takes your jobs because it has learned too much and you can be replaced by someone who can type the same subjects into an AI and produce sanitised articles, appropriate to what an organisation wants. Yes, it is a program, the censorship can be programmed in to it. When people forget how to write, how to research, and our population turns into sheep, following whatever they are fed, remember you were warned. Remember there was a voice that said, "No."

You have been warned.

Henry.