Of Sheep amd Warriors

[Alex Bragi]

I think I understand what the author is trying to say here, but it’s all just a little too condescending and parochial for me. I think too, who ever has written this has tried too hard to simplify a very complex issue—human behavior.

I certainly don’t appreciate the word “sheep” in reference to the majority of people who aren’t “...always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle...” (One of many rather odd analogies use in this article)

Ok, I confess, by the author’s definition I’m a "sheep" 99% of the time but, if need be, I can be as strong, aggressive, and protective and any “warrior”. (I noted also, with interest here, the correct use of "sheep"—all in lower case, and “Warrior" as if to insinuate some sort of superiority.)

With all due respect, regarding Lord Hemloc’s introduction: “MOST” Real Time Dominants in this Lifestyle are Warriors...” as opposed to what—submissives who are wimps—“sheep” in need of protection by the “warrior’ from the “wolves”? Surely it’s incorrect to assume that just because a man, or woman, happens to have a leaning towards being sexual dominanr—a kink if you like—that they’re more than likely be a part of some kind of quasi alpha army within our society, as is alluded to here. Many men and women in positions of power and responsibility in their day to day lives enjoy the freedom and release of being sexually submissive.

Actually, having pondered this a little more, I think I might have been more open to the ideas express here had the concept not been linked/likened to dominants and submissives. I hope the author would have approved of having his essay associated with bdsm.

[TomOfSweden]

I think I understand what the author is trying to say here, but it’s all just a little too condescending and parochial for me. I think too, who ever has written this has tried too hard to simplify a very complex issue—human behavior.

I certainly don’t appreciate the word “sheep” in reference to the majority of people who aren’t “...always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle...” (One of many rather odd analogies use in this article)

I agree. The original text is extremely simplistic. I don't like the dichotomy. The description of the Warrior rings a bit too much of neocon jingoism for my taste. It sounds like it idolises belligerent machos rather than conflict solvers. Conflicts are solved by people putting pride aside, daring to think in new ways. Not by flag waving macho men beating down darkies with towels on their heads on September flights. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked. But my definition of a hero is a lot wider than the simplistic divisions stated above.

All criminal research shows that the biggest factor for violent crime by far is poverty. Solve poverty and violent crime is solved. How many prayers are told in school is pretty much irrelevant. As far as repeat offenders goes, a big factor is the severity of punishments. The longer and harsher punishments, (except death) the more likely the criminals are to repeat their crime. USA is big on punishing hard. It's a system that "breeds" repeat offenders.

If this discussion is about how to divide humanity into generalised groupings I think I'd rather go with Nietzsche's dichotomy. According to him it's quite possible to be an over-man and a submissive. Being brave enough to see your own weaknesses and follow your own needs, when they go against what's regarded as normal is to me a Warrior.

My "Warriors" are people who don't go looking for labels to put on them selves, and don't go looking for quests in order to gain glory. They follow their own heads and make sure they even when they're being greedy, they also help others around them. A Warrior is always a Warrior, even when nobody is looking.

My "Sheep" are people who accept commonly held truths and uncritically follow common dogmas. I'll save you all from any narrower definitions. I've stepped on enough toes here, but the Warrior mentioned in the original text doesn't sound to me like an Over-man. Just a small person that needs to bloat a tiny ego.

...and the text got confusing when it mixed in wolves. Which are the wolves? Aren't the Warriors also Wolves, if seen from another angle? Wolves seem to be just anything we don't like? That to me rings strongly of fascist propaganda texts.

There's a bunch of passages from the old popes from when they where blessing the crusaders, which talk a lot about when violence is justified. It might be good to read up on.

If we return to Hemloc's original definition I'm a Warrior when called for, and a Sheep when I need to be. And I very much do consider myself a Master.