This man is, for my money, a Hero.
He gets paid a paltry couple of thousand Rand a month to stand guard at the gates of a security complex in Sandton - where the residents probably spend the equivalent of his monthly salary for lunch - and is unarmed, save for his torch. With which, apparently, he hit a thief making off with goods from the complex a couple of months ago.
He gets paid a paltry couple of thousand Rand a month to stand guard at the gates of a security complex in Sandton - where the residents probably spend the equivalent of his monthly salary for lunch - and is unarmed, save for his torch. With which, apparently, he hit a thief making off with goods from the complex a couple of months ago.
This time however he didn't even have his trusty torch to hand. When the would-be armed robber leapt into his guard hut and brandished a gun in his face, Ernest Ngwenya tried to throttle him. He almost succeeded, too.
This is relevant to what I've been thinking about a bit recently.
Over at Billy's Blog there's been some talk in the comments section about the desirability of having a monarch to rule the land.
Hmm...not too shabby as ideas go, methinks.
Back before the monarchy became a degenerate dynasty of wastrels and congenital idiots - in Europe at least - there was this contract between (usually) the King and the Land.
The King was the protector and Husband of the Land. He would die if necessary to protect Her-and frequently did, in some cultures being ritually killed after a preordained length of reign.
The King was not cloistered behind his court when the culture went to war-he was required to lead the bloody battle at least, and become a Hero if needed.
Brings to mind the tale told of William Rufus , possibly the last such sacrificial king of England.
As it stands, in society today, we have no kings (or queens) willing and able to die for the land.
What we have instead are wealthy scions of the ruling elite who might just be willing to take a fall for the corporation. And you and I are their willing slaves.
At least-I was. I'm not so sure I'm a civilised person anymore.
I read about the E-Bomb yesterday.
A device which would, if exploded, instantly kill not people but all electronic equipment?
Way to go!
And yes, before anybody asks- I'd be absolutely willing to give up the pleasures of the Internet if at the same time I could witness the death of the cell-phone tower, the aluminium smelter, the automobile and the television.
Gods to the sacrifice! Mercury (whose retrograde phase I solemnly promise never to ignore again after buying a laptop during the last one) would approve.
Pic:Celtic Zodiac, the Oak King.
Other pic:How Stuff Works
What I don't know about astrology fils books. But I take retrograde mercury v. seriously. Bush v. Gore -- retrograde mercury. My lost mammogram films -- retrograde mercury.
ReplyDeleteI want to point out my dear that a lot of monarchy's wouldn't be any better than all these democratic political systems because countries would still compete against each other.
ReplyDeleteEinstein encouraged the forming of the UN, basically a world governing body, but countries don't want to give up their power.
The monkeys are too stupid to see how much one governing body would benefit them. It would change how we view boarders and trying to protect them, wouldn't that be cool?
Of course there is the future water problem being as the capitalists want to control all of it.
An E Bomb would be okay with me, we could spend more time at the beaches camping.
A few years ago I read about a device that can be mounted on a police car and directed at a car to disable the electronics in it so that they couldn't get away. Sounds good to me.
I have no idea what a Rand is worth.