There's an article about what determines, 'success'. Here's my contribution..
The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: Entertainment / Archives:
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 2:27 pm
0 comments
Peter Brock is a motor racing legend in Australia. I watched him race every year at Bathurst, getting up at 7.00 am to revel in his sporting wizardry. Last month, he died in a racing accident. 'Brocky' was affectionately known as 'Peter Perfect', more for his flawless racing than any other reason. But soon, the moniker jumped from the sporting realm, and into Brocky's personal realm. And no doubt, without his agreement. However, cracks appeared in the Brock facade, and this prompted one of Australia's most misguided journalists and reporters, Derryn Hinch, to publish an expose on the 'real' Peter Brock. He hit on a couple of issues I feel passionate about, and decided to Blog....
News.com.au Gotcha Blog:
I can’t hack Hinch. The bastard makes a career out of indecency, sensationalism and these types of gutless, spineless attacks on the dead. Yeah, Hinch is just as low as the people he defames.
But, here’s the clincher. We need low-lifes like Hinch. Our public perceptions are moulded by the self-interest of the media. Much like the way we secretly revel in the muck Hinch rakes up. However, I’m not a big believer in either ‘spin’ or dishonesty. So Hinch’s revelations therefore, have some merit.
Domestic violence is insidious. I know. I lived it for 10 years, then lived the consequences of it over the remainer of my lifetime. It needs airing, and perpetrators need to be treated (notice I didn’t say ‘punished’). People who perpetrate domestic violence (and let’s get this fact straight, both male AND female), need to be stopped, then treated. Hinch shows us that a lifetime of getting away with domestic violence leaves a perpetual and distasteful legacy for generations to come. Those that helped cover Brock’s reputation are as guilty as Brock himself of that legacy.
The second point relates to Hinch’s propostion that it’s ‘safer’ to disparage the dead than those living. Well, as a firm believer of ‘what goes around, comes around’, Hinch will want to be bloody careful that he doesn’t slip. His fall could be mightier than any whom he has carved up. However, he touches on a certain truth. Again, this is born from personal experience. Perpetrators of abuse become VERY expert in plying their trade and ensuring tracks are covered, threats linger, webs of lies and deceit are laid, and accountability and responsibility are deferred. They have rights under law, and they become acutely expert in their utility. Abusers have a vested interest in protecting themselves, and given that the vast majority of perpetrators are victims of abuse themselves (thus the reason I say they should be ‘treated’ 
), they have the intense wherewithall to ensure they protect themselves, and their errant reputations and behaviour, from further discomfort. So, death appears a VERY good habour in which to lay anchor and reflect on truth. For both the living and the newly deceased, I should say. I am personally the victim of domestic violence and serious abuse. My perpetrator, a close family member, has woven an intricate and almost flawless web of deceit, lies, fabrication, smoke screen and manipulation, to ensure I could never come out in public and accuse her without transgressing laws of defamation. However, she also has months to live from cancer (what goes around...), so whether I am believed or not, I shall, as empathetically as possible to those innocents around her, like her son and husband, disclose her abuses of me some time after her funeral. So, Hinch has a point. And to those who may think I am perpetrating the same cowardice as him, I defer to the point of ‘core motivation’. I seek justice, Hinch’s motivations perhaps need to be further explored.
Lastly, there is the issue of besmirching a dearly loved, public figure. Well, I liked Brock because of my perceptions and knowledge of him as a good man. Now that Hinch has further educated me, and with solid journalistic evidence I must say, I feel thankful that I am not now honouring someone who had me thinking hew was something that he was not.
So, I was confused at how to best describe Hinch. Brock is a little easier. He was an abuser who ‘got away with it’, and was able to perpetrate and protect himself like all abusers do. And he lived a life of fame, popularity and respect that he was otherwise not entitled to. Similarly, that equates to Hinch, perhaps.
And a final note to Hinch, 'If you lay down with dogs, you are likely to catch fleas'…
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 12:16 pm
0 comments
Today I read this. I actually have a connection to this story....
Man injured in canyoning accident rescued - National - smh.com.au:
August 20, 2006 - 9:17PM
A man who spent a night in the bush after suffering serious head and leg injuries during a canyoning accident is in a stable condition in hospital.
The 27-year-old man and a friend were canyoning near Kanangra in the Blue Mountains yesterday afternoon when he fell, injuring his head and leg.
The injured man and his friend were forced to spend the night in the mountains, before the friend walked out to raise the alarm this morning.
He then guided rescuers on foot to his canyoning companion, who was winched up to the Westpac Life Saver Helicopter just before midday (AEST) today.
The injured man was taken to the Nepean Hospital, where he remained in a stable condition.
Well, in 1993, I was invited by Everest summiteer, Brian 'Henry' Laursen and his climbing buddy Chalky Thomas to 'do a canyon'. Before I knew it, we were in the bowels of 'Culustral Canyon', near Kanangra in the Blue Mountains. Calustral Canyon in magnificent. To get into it is a story unto itself, but it is well worth the often arduous effort. Getting into the canyon, we negotiated several water courses, going deeper underground. At one stage, you reach a limestone wall, into which crystal-clean water gently glides past you and into what is known as the 'keyhole'.
We had rigged our abseiling gear and decended the rope through the hole, which was bearly big enough to pass a 90 kg guy, as I am today (of course, back then, I was a 'waifish' 80 kgs!) I was first through, and as I descended the rope, Henry stuck his head through the hole, peered down at me and yelled,
"Lucky we're doing this this week, mate. A bloke died here last week!"
Apparently, the story was true. Whilst climbing through the keyhole the week previous, a wave of water from a sudden downstream rain torrent hit and trapped a poor bloke, who drowned whilst pinned against the hole.
I did Calustral twice, but have counted no less than 5 incidents at Calustral since.
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 9:57 am
0 comments
And this was another concern raised regarding the highly troubling tendancies people have in addressing child sex issues....
Gotcha Blog Post:
The intellectualisation of this issue is quite disturbing. Child porn, from those who procure and produce it, distribute it, get off on it, or choose to view it, are contributing to the mental and life destruction of a defenceless human being. Child sexual assault (’assault’, because they are not in a ‘power position’ to either resist, rationalise or refuse it...) is a crime of the lowest order. Even criminals themselves, as lowly as many are, possess a ‘code’ that sees these ‘rock spiders’, as they are known, as the lowliest of the low.
Intellectualising this issue is value-less and ill-informed. Any rationalisation of the child-sex issue is as bereft of value as the crime itself.
Posted: Sat 08 Jul 06 at 04:29pm"
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 9:25 pm
0 comments
I recently posted this opinion during an online debate on child-sex offenders. There were far too many people writing in trying to provide excuses and intellectualising the most disgusting of all crimes....
Gotcha Blog Post:
To say that mere possession of child porn is ‘victimless’, is extraordinarily naive at best, and makes you liable as an apologist at worst.
Viewing images of criminal acts, taken obviously at the time of perpetration of the crime, places the viewer in a position of ‘accessory to the fact’, in both legal, and moral terms. This is why ‘viewing’ child porn is as odourous as perpetration. Unless the purpose of ‘viewing’ is to determine the identity of the silent victim or the perpetrator for prosecution, the viewer is gulity of creating ‘demand’ for the product. It’s the same as drug pushers, who may not be ‘users’ per se, but are as criminally liable as ‘promoters’. They are ‘feeding’ a market. They are as guilty as the manufacturers.
And for those expressing the extraordinary view that child sex-abuse ‘may or may not’ cause long term psychological harm, I, for once, am almost speechless. The only reason I can see that someone would or could make that assertion, is perhaps because they are damaged victims themselves unable to consciously discern the crime (and in need of urgent therapy), or apologists with tenuous links to the ‘market’.
Unbelievable, and sincerely troublesome.
Posted: Sat 08 Jul 06 at 08:13pm"
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 9:22 pm
0 comments
So far, this blogging stuff has befuddled me. I have SO much to say, but don't know where to start.
Last year was one of the worst in my life. But, something amazing has happened that I want to share, but revelation may not be the wisest decision at this point.
Maybe later....
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 12:01 pm
0 comments
What do I believe....
He is only the creator of the realm of Earth and it's known and unknown universe. There are other creators, but they have no connection to, history with, or intention over, 'human' existence.
He has created 'others', but they have taken the same route as human history, but many millions of years ago.
He is not 'human'.
He does not agree with the way the human condition has developed.
He will not divulge certain 'mysteries' to the 'clergy', as the knowledge, if believed, will destroy all mortal existence.
He has revealed those mysteries to someone, and they will reveal them, because there is little chance that they will be believed. The human condition will ensure this.
He did not 'authorise' the Bible. It contains certain human ideas on Him, but all the books of the Bible and all other 'biblical' texts have been putrified at the hands of Man. The Bible and other religious books, such as the Koran, DOES contain certain truths about Him, however.
There are books written that are not authorised for inclusion in the Bible. There are truths about Him in those books.
No institutionalised religion has a right to call itself representative of Him or His story.
He has no mortal connection to this conscious world. He is connected spiritually through his agents.
He has sent 'agents' to Earth to intervene in human history.
He created 'man' after he created animals.
He created human physiological systems based on those He had already created in the animal world.
He used the animal physiology to develop human physiology.
He said that science knows this, but because of pride, the human condition will not allow itself to accept the fact.
There is a creational difference between 'African' history and 'Anglo' history. This is the reason for the more direct correlation between the primates and the negroid form.
Negroid souls are closer to Him spiritually, due to the recency of their creation.
Negroid form is a synthesis between His original human creation and later 'post Creationist' physiological development. Negroid souls reflect a more recent reflection of that development.
Primates should be honoured for their role in the creation of the human form.
Many human physiological components come from the Suidea (swine) family.
The human skin was directly replicated using that of the swine. This is proven by those that have eaten the human flesh. These people (who have abused Human dignity by doing so), attest to the similarity in texture, taste and form.
Jesus of Nazareth was sent to this realm as a prophet.
Religions based on the life of Jesus of Nazareth have a right to use Him as a model of human living, but they have no right to spiritual supremacy because of this.
He (God) is the 'father' of all souls.
Upon death, the soul is released from the body, and disperses unto His realm.
His realm lies in parallel with the conscious, human realm. This facilitates greater contact by His agents. We have called them 'angels'. These agents cannot change human history, but they can influence individual choices and actions. This influence depends on the agent's wishes.
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 3:00 pm
0 comments
What if you were interviewed by God? What would you ask? What would you say?
For me, it'd be simple stuff....
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 5:13 pm
0 comments
You know, I searched all night and all day to see if I could get a copy of the video showing the beheading of the US hostage in Iraq. I got one.
I know I should be concerned or worried, but I watched this guy get his head sawn off, complete with sound and vision, by animals in Iraq. And to be honest, I wasn't sickened, or horrified, or disgusted. Yes, it was poor quality video, but I watched a man get savagely beheaded and my reaction has me worried. I'm non-plussed. I'll probably sleep well again tonight. Yet this has to be the most inhumane and barbaric thing I've ever witnessed. Is it because I'm numb to man's inhumanity to man? Is it because I've become used to watching the videos, the movies, the pics and vids emailed to me by friends who revel in trying to shock their addressees? I mean, I'm a loving, sensitive father (I think), and a humanitarian guy who truly has a positive, responsible attitude. But why doesn't this worry me? I desperately want to be disgusted by this vile act; this disgusting and un-godly crime. But I'm not. Why?
I had a tough upbringing. I was emotionally and physically brutalised by my mother, my sister and my father. But I have three great kids and a wife, and by other's admission, I'm doting, loving and kindly. Then why can't I be moved by what has to be the most brutal act I've ever witnessed?
posted by The Eclectic Warrior @ 1:45 pm
0 comments
Married with children. I'm a professional, living a normal life in suburbia.
I am a 'leadership facilitator'. I started working with the supervisory level of management, and have been facilitating management and leadership at the middle and upper levels for the last three years.
Much of my work cuts across the personal development realm, where the questions of happiness, success and 'self actualisation' often arise.
Getting into leadership issues on a daily basis has distinctly led me to the qualititive and quantitive issues in defining success. Indeed, when facilitating with students and leaders, I find myself sharing and discussing not so much the achievements of sporting, civic, political, social and celebrity successes, but of the lessor fashionable, and often unquantifiable, issue of a more common definition of 'personal success'.
In one session a couple of years ago, we talked about what constitutes 'personal success'. One individual was very quick to highlight the, 'he who dies with the most toys, wins!', mantra, which significantly rattled another individual who shared an enlightening and refreshingly different attitude to what constitutes personal success.
This individual cited the case of his next-door-neighbour, who, as a boy, suffered all forms of serious abuse at the hands of his direct family. This young boy grew into a highly troubled teen and adult, with forays into crime, drugs and life dysfunction, earmarking his descent into the enevitable life cycle that almost always ends in abject tragedy. The student told how he lost track of his neighbour, only to find him several years later. What he found, he remarked, set his benchmark for what he now constitutes 'success'.
This individual was now a full-time employed 'chicken catcher'. He had weekend and holiday custodial visits from his two children from an estranged relationship, lived in a rented, fibro cottage. He had little possessions, and was living week-to-week. However, he had not taken drugs for several years, was in regular counselling to help him come to terms with his life, had never abused his wife or children as he had witnessed in his family all his life, and was quietly helping individuals with similar histories turn their lives around. In the morning, he sit's outside and looks into the day with a sense of thanks that he was alive, and was in no way a reflection of the life he witnessed and lived. In his words, "The example for my life was my family's treatment of me and their circumstances. I decided that was to change with me. I have raised myself above their tragedy. I am at peace with what I've achieved, in the face of what I have suffered, and if I achieve nothing more from this point on, I have succeeded in changing my fate. I am a success".
And so he is. 'Successful' is to seek to achieve above apparent enevitability, against criticism and discouragement. Success is achievement against the 'now' or the status quo, and at whatever level that may be. To make an improvement, to declare and attempt achievment of a goal, to attain a level higher than your circumstances, and in the end, to be at peace with your circumstances, whatever they may be. Success cannot be balanced against another's perceptions or circumstances. Success is personal. To try to compare one's success against another is fruitless, unproductive, and will eventually and enevitably disappoint. This leads to unhappiness and anger, and neither emotion equates with life success.
True success, as I have had the privelege to discover, is the mark of a person's own expectations and achievements, regardless of any other's.