It’s easy to remember and oh so impactful. READ MORE...

Busts of four ancient Greek philosophers, left to right; Socrates, Antisthenes, Chrysippos, and Epicurus   Much has been made of Greek philosophers. In various media, their quotes are frequently used. What made this all possible came from the early shift from myth to reason, using writing enabled the sharing of ideas, and the open spread of ideas. And some of these quotes to wrestle with are head-spinning. Please read on.    “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” – Heraclitus Heraclitus by Hendrick ter Brugghen, 1628. Source: The Rijksmuseum.   Nicknamed “The Obscure” for his inscrutable writing, Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 475-535) in Asia Minor believed as shown in his quotes. Heraclitus believed in panta rhei, or “everything flows.” So, what makes his quote so mind-bending? The quote sticks to his philosophy of constant flux. Once one steps into the river, the water one touches swirls away. As for man, his awareness, thoughts, and feelings change constantly. Time can’t be stopped or returned to.   “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” – Socrates The Death of Socrates by Jacques Louis David, 1787. Source: Met Museum   Creator of the aptly named Socratic method, Socrates developed this disciplined questioning to explore ideas, spark serious thinking, and discover fundamental assumptions. Socrates lived a life of poverty. Many considered him eccentric or offensive, in opposition to Athenian standards. Put on trial for corrupting Athenian youth and impieties, city officials executed Socrates in 399 BCE.   Given Socrates’ life, why is this quote considered baffling? First, this quote is viewed as a paradox: someone knows they know nothing. This turns wisdom on its head. Despite being a challenge to one’s pride, knowing nothing opens up experiences or events as opportunities to learn.   “If there were no absurdity, there would be no wisdom.” – Antisthenes Bust of Antisthenes. Source: World History Encyclopedia   Antisthenes (c. 445-365 BCE), an Athenian like Socrates and his student, too, later founded the Cynic philosophy movement. Sadly, he also witnessed his mentor’s execution. He, too, earned a reputation for provocation, plainness, and wit. Antishenes pushed for a simple life; he prized deeds over words and disliked luxury.    So why is this quote perplexing? Simply because the quote flips logic around. Opposite to wisdom is absurdity-“the state or quality of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable” (Oxford Dictionary). To Antisthenes, wisdom isn’t always apparent; nonsense is needed to expose absurdity to arrive at the truth.   “Nothing exists except atoms and space; everything else is opinion.” – Democritus Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) from Abdera. Line engraving by L. Vorsterman after P. P. Rubens. Source: The Wellcome collection.   A pre-Socratic scholar with a large body of work, Democritus is best remembered for his atomic theory of the universe. Born in Abdera, Democritus (c. 460 BCE to 370 BCE) wrote on various topics such as farming, philosophy, and painting. Known as the “Laughing Philosopher” due to his cheerful nature. He laughed as wisdom involved joy. So how does Democritus’s quote throw a philosophical curveball? Democritus considered only atoms and empty space to be real. Things like morality, color, taste, emotion, and more are just interpretations—one’s senses how they interpret their reaction to atoms, not the actual thing. One is forced to tackle what’s true and not perception.    “First say to yourself what would you be; and then do what you have to do.” – Epictetus Epictetus by William Sonmans, engraved by Michael Burghers in 1715. Source: Wikimedia commons   Unlike other Greek philosophers, Epictetus’s life began in slavery. He gained permission to study philosophy with Stoic thinkers, who profoundly influenced him. Upon being free, Epictetus opened a Stoic school in Greece. Physically impaired with a lame leg, possibly from birth or in childhood. He was known for his Stoic endurance. Born in Abdera, Democritus (c. 460 BCE to 370 BCE) wrote on various topics such as farming, philosophy, and painting.    With Epictetus’s quote, how does it baffle the reader? Let’s break down the quote. By reading the first part, “first say to yourself what would be be” the individual is required to intentionally choose goals and values. Or in short, don’t drift through life. The second section of the quote, “then do what you have to,” urges one to follow that vision. Epictetus believed that people acted first and then rationalized later. Such a trait can be overcome with discipline and consistency.    “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” – Aristotle Aristotle statue.   As one of history’s most famous philosophers, Aristotle was a student of Plato and tutored Alexander the Great. Born in 384 BCE, this famous Greek died in 322 BCE. He believed greatness wasn’t momentary, but rather daily. This could be achieved through consistency and discipline. Why does Aristotle’s quote sound confusing millennia later? His quote is that excellence is not an event but a routine. The mind bender breaks down extraordinary and normal. These should become a habit; there are no shortcuts.

  The Great Sphinx of Giza represents a recumbent lion with the head of a human, most likely the Pharaoh Khafre, who ruled Egypt during the Old Kingdom from 2472-2448 BCE and constructed the second of the three Pyramids of Giza. Khafre was the son of Khufu, who ordered the construction of the oldest and largest of the three Pyramids of Giza. Khafre’s son, Menkaure, built the third and smallest pyramid. Overall, the Old Kingdom was famous for its massive and complex construction projects.   Location and Setting Broken face of King Kafre, ca. 2520-2494 BCE. Source: The MET, New York   Giza is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Egypt and is located on the west bank of the Nile, opposite central Cairo. The Giza Plateau boasts a large ceremonial complex of pyramids, palaces, temples, solar boats, and other features, which were constructed to “endure an eternity and prepare pharaohs to become gods in the next life.”   The Pyramids of Giza and the Great Sphinx were constructed between 2600 and 2500 BCE during the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom and served as a symbol of early Egypt, reflecting the desire of rulers such as Khafre to establish physical manifestations of their rule and prepare for the afterlife.   Indeed, the monuments of the Giza Plateau were built by a skilled workforce who lived in a nearby temporary city sprawling over some 17 acres. Herodotus wrongly claimed the workforce was composed of slaves, an opinion some still believe in modern times. However, scholars suggest around 4,000 primary laborers including quarriers, hauliers, and masons would have constructed the Great Pyramid, supported by around 20,000 secondary laborers including ramp-builders, tool-makers, etc. One can imagine similar numbers for the construction of the Great Sphinx.   Archaeologists have discovered the remains of bakeries and large quantities of animal bone, suggesting the workforce laboring on the plateau was well fed with crops including wheat and barley, as well as various meat and fish. Additionally, tombs of the laborers have also been unearthed and, because many have remained undisturbed, scientists have been able to analyze the well-preserved skeletons and conclude that roughly half of them were female and 23% were children or babies, indicating the workers lived near the monuments with their families. These discoveries also highlight the political organization and control necessary to prompt a workforce to build such impressive monuments.   Pharaoh Khafre Auguste Mariette, 1821-1881, pioneering archaeologist of the 19th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Archaeological evidence has been used to associate Khafre with the colossal statue, which was carved from the bedrock of the Giza Plateau. In 1853, archaeologist Auguste Mariette, one of the early pioneers of Egyptology, discovered a life-size statue of Khafre in the ruins of a building adjacent to the Sphinx. Mariette also uncovered the Avenue of the Sphinxes and the Serapeum at Saqqara, along with the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.   In 1925, excavators found a building (now known as the Sphinx Temple) located in front of the recumbent lion which also dated to the Old Kingdom. Zahi Hawass believes the evidence is indisputable; the statue unearthed by Mariette is a depiction of Khafre and it “forms an integral part of his pyramid complex.”   In the Old Kingdom, the Great Sphinx became a symbol of divine power and pharaohs were unhesitant in their use of the mythical creature to convey the legitimate nature of their rule, as well as their dominance.   Characteristics of the Sphinx The Great Sphinx of Egypt, by Dilip Poddar. Source: Unsplash   The Great Sphinx of Giza is one of the earliest known examples of the mythological creature. Indeed, its use as a symbol of regency continued throughout the ages and was adopted as far afield as the Levant, Mesopotamia, Asia, and Greece. Oedipus Rex, one of the most famous Greek tragedies from the Classic Period, portrays the demise of King Oedipus and his powerlessness to escape fate after he solves the famous riddle of the Sphinx.   Khafre’s Sphinx is constructed from a single piece of limestone and measures 240 feet long and 66 feet high, the same height as the White House in Washington DC. In ancient Egypt, the creature was a spiritual guardian most often depicted as a male with a pharaoh’s headdress, and portrayals were often placed in tomb and temple complexes throughout Egypt.   Some scholars believe the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids held an astronomical importance “to resurrect the souls of the pharaoh by channeling the power of the sun and other gods.” The small temple between its paws contained dozens of inscribed stelae in honor of Ra, God of the Sun, and the face of the statue itself overlooks the rising sun in the east, signifying the importance of celestial considerations in its construction. Ra was one of the most revered and sacred deities in Egypt, who embodied the sheer power of the sun and gave life to the universe which explains why many pharaohs worshiped him and constructed monuments in his honor.   Amun-ra Statuette, 26th dynasty. Source: The British Museum   Researchers believe the limestone statue was originally painted in vibrant colors. In Egypt, Giza became a popular destination for tourists and travelers during the Roman Period and, reputedly, Pliny the Elder visited the Sphinx in the 1st century CE. He described how the face of the monster was painted a bright red color. Indeed, the bright color of the statue, as well as the gleaming white of the Great Pyramids would have inspired both awe and wonder, as well as contrasting starkly with the sandy and desolate desert surrounding the complex.   In Popular Culture Head of Thutmose IV wearing the blue crown, 18th Dynasty. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Indeed, the fame of the Great Sphinx has spread far and wide throughout the ages, with notable visitors including Cleopatra, Nero, and, more recently, Barack Obama, which highlights the never-ending allure of the statue, as well as its monumental surroundings. Cleopatra successfully maneuvered a predominantly male domain with striking aptitude, and politically motivated visitations to places of importance, such as Giza, would have strengthened her reputation, as well as her alliances with others.   In the 18th Dynasty, Thutmosis IV visited and fell asleep in the shade of the statue. While sleeping, he dreamt that “the great beast was choking from the sand engulfing it,” and if he were to remove the sand, he would be rewarded with the crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. In 1818, archaeologists rediscovered a rectangular granite stela in between the front paws of the statue, now dubbed the Dream Stela, which is inscribed with the tale of Thutmose IV and represents his attempt to legitimize his rule through divine associations, which was commonplace among rulers of the New Kingdom.   Napoleon, another famed ruler, also reputedly visited the colossal statue, with some researchers claiming his troops accidentally shot off its nose with a cannon when they entered the country in 1798. However, alternate sources suggest the nose was removed long before that.   The Great Sphinx was forgotten and buried under sand up to its shoulders until the early 1800s when an adventurer named Giovanni Battista Caviglia carried out excavations with a large team of men. Caviglia unearthed many artifacts and inscriptions, but it wasn’t until the late 1930s that archaeologists managed to expose the creature once again.   Threats The Sphinx, by Omar Elsharawy. Source: Unsplash   Presently, the Great Sphinx is under threat from both natural and manmade causes. In 2007, it was revealed that the water table under the statue was rising due to sewage being pumped into a nearby canal, causing the limestone to crumble. Other threats include vibrations emanating from nearby quarries and vehicular traffic, erosion from elements such as wind and rain, and pollution due to industrialization and the construction of nearby factories.   The landmark has therefore become the subject of numerous successful and unsuccessful restoration attempts over the past few decades. In the 1980s, for example, the lower third of the statue was encased in limestone blocks that actually distorted the monument instead of protecting it. In February 1988, a large chunk of rock weighing approximately 700 lbs collapsed from the right shoulder of the monument, demonstrating the critical and delicate nature of the situation.   The Great Sphinx of Giza: In Conclusion Map of the Giza Plateau. Wikimedia Commons   The Great Sphinx is one of the most famous monuments in Egypt, and the renown and reputation of its builder, Khafre, has surely outlived even his own expectations. The colossal limestone statue, which attracts millions and millions of visitors each year, still provides the onlooker with the same wonder as it has done for thousands of years, and the recumbent lion may well reveal more secrets in the future.

  In 1066, England’s future hung in the balance. There was a three-way war for possession of one of Europe’s most prosperous kingdoms. The first definitive stage of the conflict saw the last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold Godwinson, face the last true Viking leader, Harald Hardrada, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. What happened during that fateful battle, and how did it influence the subsequent face-off with William the Conqueror?   England: An Unsettled Kingdom Edward the Confessor on the Bayeux Tapestry, c. 1070. Source: Bayeux Museum   It is tempting to think of England as a settled land before the tumult of 1066. However, England had endured centuries of conflict against Viking invaders. In 1013, the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex was forced to flee England, leaving the Viking Sweyn Forkbeard to establish himself and his successors as the new kings of England. The Wessex dynasty returned in 1042, not through conquest, but because political marriages meant that Edward the Confessor was the closest male relative of Sweyn’s grandson Harthacnut when he died.   Edward’s reign, too, was far from peaceful. He had spent much of his formative years in Normandy and brought with him Norman customs and advisors, which infuriated the Anglo-Scandinavian elite. There was an ongoing power struggle between Edward and his most powerful Anglo-Saxon nobleman, Earl Godwin, which the king effectively lost when he tried and failed to exile the Godwin clan. When Godwin died, his son Harold took over his earldom. His younger brother, Tostig, took the earldom of Northumbria, only to have his own thegns rebel against him in 1065. With an eye on the future, Harold Godwinson positioned himself as Edward’s possible heir, staying loyal to the king, while Tostig was banished.   An Empty Throne: Death of Edward the Confessor Harald Hardrada, from Lerwick Town Hall, Shetland. Source: Colin Smith via Geograph   In January 1066, Edward the Confessor died childless. The English nobles quickly proclaimed Harold Godwinson as king. William, Duke of Normandy, was hunting when he learned Harold had taken the throne. He erupted into a rage, believing both Edward and Harold had promised him the crown.   But another ruler also had his eyes on England. Harald Hardrada was the fearsome king of Norway, his name meaning “hard ruler.” An ambitious youth who embodied the Viking spirit, which is why he is often called the last true Viking. Hardrada traveled through Eastern Europe as a young man all the way to Constantinople, where he excelled in the Byzantine Emperor’s Varangian Guard. A skilled warlord, he had been trying to conquer Denmark since 1064, but with Edward’s death, he too turned his attention to England. He claimed that as part of Edward’s succession, the crown was promised to pass to Norway upon his death.   Drawing of a coin of Harald Hardrada. Source: University of Edinburgh   In 1066, Harald received a visitor at his court: an English exile claiming to represent Tostig. Tostig promised to support Harald if he chose to invade England. Harald needed little encouragement and began assembling a fleet. He left Norway in September on his flagship, the Serpent, with his banner known as the “Land Ravager,” and traveled around Shetland and Orkney to collect more troops. He also received 2,000 soldiers from the king of Scotland at Dunfermline.   Prelude: Battle of Fulford The Battle of Fulford, from The Life of Edward the Confessor, by Matthew Paris, c. 1236. Source: University of Cambridge   Harald and Tostig arrived on the River Tees and began raiding the coast. News of the raids reached the earls Morcar of Northumbria and Edwin of Mercia, who quickly raised the fyrd and met Hardrada and Tostig outside Fulford, a small village, to block their road to York. The smaller English army was defeated on September 20, and Hardrada marched victoriously onto the old Viking capital.   What happened in York is still somewhat perplexing. Somehow, the locals managed to persuade Hardrada that he was fine to leave the city unmolested and unguarded and that they would meet him later, at a location outside the city walls, to agree on who would rule the region in his name. They even managed to persuade him to exchange hostages—an equal number of Norse and English—as security. Hardrada duly took his hostages and supplies and left the city, returning in celebration to his fleet stationed at Riccall. There, they drank and feasted, mocking their English hostages, not realizing that they were being closely watched.   Stamford Bridge: The Site Memorial stone near the presumed site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Harold Godwinson had been stationed watching the southern coast for William of Normandy, but having heard of Hardrada’s landing, had marched 200 miles in barely five days. He arrived in Tadcaster, near the moored Norwegian fleet, on the same day that Hardrada arrived in York.   The sources name Stamford Bridge as the battlefield, although the original bridge no longer exists. This was where Hardrada and Tostig agreed to meet the men of York. Instead, they found Harold Godwinson and a new English army on the other side of the bridge. Whether through spies or simply by showing up, Godwinson had discovered that York was empty of Hardrada’s troops and marched straight through it to meet his foe.   Start of the Battle: The Hollow Shield The battlefield at Stamford Bridge. Source: D.S. Pugh via Geograph   A single man rode up Hardrada and Tostig, giving no name. He offered Tostig his earldom back in the name of the king if he turned on Hardrada. Tostig snorted and asked what Godwinson would give the king of Norway for his trouble, to which the man replied, “Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men.” After he left, Hardrada asked Tostig who the man was. It was, of course, Harold Godwinson himself.   According to the Heimskringla, the chronicle of the kings of Norway written around 1230 CE, Godwinson returned to his troops and rallied them:   “Advance! advance! No helmets glance, But blue swords play In our array. Advance! advance! No mail-coats glance, But hearts are here That ne’er knew fear.”   Hardrada, hearing this, composed his own verse for his soldiers:   “In battle storm, we seek no lee, With skulking head, and bending knee, Behind the hollow shield. With eye and hand we fend the head; Courage and skill stand in the stead Of panzer, helm, and shield, In hild’s bloody field.”   The Battle of Stamford Bridge, from The Life of Edward the Confessor by Matthew Paris, c. 1236. Source: University of Cambridge   The bridge was a natural trap. The Vikings charged across the river against the larger English force but were driven back across. Following them over the bridge, the English were met with a single Norseman swinging a giant axe. The 12th-century historian Henry of Huntingdon writes that he killed 40 Englishmen alone, delaying the English advance and giving the Norse time to regroup. He was finally brought down when someone floated beneath the bridge and thrust a spear between the planks.   The Battle of Stamford Bridge: Victory The Battle of Stamford Bridge, by Peter Nicolai Arbo, 1870. Source: Fine Art America   The English were now facing the Norse shield wall. They pressed hard against it but were unable to break through. On occasion, the Norse would break ranks and charge after their attackers, but “when they had broken their shield-rampart the Englishmen rode up from all sides and threw arrows and spears on them.” Hardrada was enraged with this and now threw himself into the thickest part of the fray, hewing down men with both hands and nearly driving the English into retreat.   Suddenly, an arrow struck Hardrada in the windpipe. He fell, as did many alongside him, perhaps also struck down with arrow fire. The Norse army retreated under its banner to Tostig. A great hush fell over the battlefield with the Vikings struggling to comprehend the death of their mightiest warrior. At this point, Godwinson again stepped forward and offered Tostig Northumbria and an escape to the other survivors. But, according to the Heimskringla, “the Northmen called out … that they would rather fall, one across the other,” resolving to die with their beloved king.   The Battle of Stamford Bridge, by Wilhelm Wetlese, 1899. Source: Wikimedia Commons   It was at this moment that Viking reinforcements arrived from the fleet. However, their hurried march had exhausted them. First, they dropped their shields, then threw off their mail altogether. The English downed the unguarded men. Others died of exhaustion. As day turned to evening, all the Viking chiefs and Tostig perished, and the army began to dissipate. Tostig’s body was found and given a funeral in York. Others were not treated so ceremoniously. Fifty years later, it was said that the field was still white due to the piles of bones of the dead.   Aftermath: Another Long March Harold Godwinson in the Bayeux Tapestry, c. 1070. Source: Bayeux Museum   This stunning victory was a product of Harold Godwinson’s speed, cunning, and strategic mind. He had overcome a man feared throughout Europe. However, William of Normandy had landed on the southern coast. Godwinson, exhausted from the battle, was forced to immediately pull his shattered forces back together and begin the 200-mile march southwards. But having proven himself again to be one of Europe’s greatest military leaders, he and his thegns must have ridden tired, but confident, to face the Normans at the Battle of Hastings.

  One of the most efficient ways to control and subjugate a populace is to prohibit them from owning or training in the use of weapons. When the Satsuma domain of Japan conquered the Ryukyu islands in 1609 (including Okinawa), they did exactly this.   But although the people of the Ryukyu kingdom (present-day Okinawa) may have been forbidden by the Japanese to have conventional weapons, they were not unarmed. The Ryukyu had had previous contact and trade with mainland China, Indonesia, and other countries, and many of the weapons we will discuss were derived from existing versions; therefore, the popular “weapons made from farming tools” myth isn’t accurate. It is more the other way around: Okinawan Kobudo weapons were once disguised as farming implements because many of the samurai would not have recognized them.   Sai Okinawan sai and Indonesian sai. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The sai is one of the most versatile Okinawan Kobudo weapons. The image above shows an Okinawan and an Indonesian variant of the sai. Although the sai is often depicted as a thrusting weapon, the tips are not sharpened to the same degree that a sword might be. Getting stabbed with one at full strength would still cause serious injury or death from blunt trauma. The prongs, known as yoku, can catch a longer weapon and redirect it.   The sai is used in pairs with gyakute-mochi (reverse grip) as the default grip. The ability to switch rapidly between this and honte-mochi (natural grip) gives the wielder freedom to effectively fight at both close and long-range: reverse grip with the sai braced against the forearm is useful for blocking and hooking, whereas natural grip lets the sai be used as a thrusting weapon or a baton.   As with many of the weapons in Okinawan Kobudo, the weapon is treated as an extension of the body, rather than as a separate implement. Blocks and strikes are performed almost identically to their unarmed counterparts.   Nunchaku Assortment of nunchaku. Source: Wikimedia Commons Nunchaku are some of the most dangerous weapons in Okinawan Kobudo, not only to others but also to the user if not carefully wielded. Consisting of two lengths of wood connected by horsehair or rope as shown in the above image, the nunchaku could be used as a flail or a grappling tool. The primary use of this weapon is to trap limbs or weapons, but the unpredictable nature of the nunchaku lends itself well to a variety of actions at multiple ranges.   Traditional nunchaku are made of the materials described above but sometimes a metal chain was used to connect the two sticks. Although older designs are round, some could be hexagonal or octagonal, the idea being that the edges would cause extra damage to a target. The sticks could be made of hardwood or rattan.   There is a stark difference between the Japanese and Okinawan styles: Japanese nunchaku techniques employ much more swinging and bludgeoning whereas Okinawan styles use it more defensively. The user grips each side of the nunchaku in a hand, rarely is the second one allowed to swing freely unless actively attacking, because it could otherwise get in the way or give the attacker a possible grip on the nunchaku.   Bo Assortment of bo. Source: Wikimedia Commons   A staff is one of the simplest hand weapons in existence, just a length of wood. It could be used by anyone from monks to peasants to travelers, or even wandering ronin who may for whatever reason not have their sword to hand. The bo, Okinawan kobudo’s variant on this concept, is short for rokushakubo, a staff approximately six feet long. A shaku is roughly 0.94 feet. Like the nunchaku, the bo could be made of hardwood—usually red or white oak—or rattan. It is thicker and more rigid than its Chinese predecessor, the waxwood gun.  The bo is the first weapon students learn when studying the art. A few other variants of the bo include the jo, which is a shorter staff often used to help children train, and the nunti-bo, a bo with sai prongs on one end.   In most Okinawan styles, the user grips the bo with both hands equidistant, so both ends as well as the center can be used equally. By contrast, in quarterstaff fighting, one hand grips the center of the staff while the other grips a quarter of the way up, attacking with the free half. Fighting with a bo involves various grip changes to adjust distance and switch between left and right sides, allowing it to be thrust like a spear from multiple angles at, for example, weak points in armor.   Tonfa No.10 from Seven Views of Fuji From the Eastern Capital, by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, 1852. Source: Ukiyo-e.org   The tonfa consists of a length of wood as long as a forearm, with a short handle perpendicular to it. The main length of the tonfa points backward along the forearm when held in the default ready position. This grip creates a reinforced defense when blocking incoming weapon strikes. The shorter part extending forward from the fist helps to act as an extension to a punch, or the wielder can loosen their grip during a strike to let the tonfa spin and have centripetal force power the attack. By gripping the main length of the tonfa, the user also has the handle available to hook behind a leg or over the neck, making it an excellent tool for grappling.   Various Southeast Asian cultures lay claim to the possible origin for the tonfa, but the main source is thought to be the Chinese guai (crutch). A similar weapon in Thai martial arts was also once used, but it was tied to the user’s forearm rather than being allowed to move freely. Modern police forces sometimes equip their officers with a metal or fiberglass version of the tonfa, often called a side baton or a nightstick.   Kama Spading in the New Year’s Pine, by Keisai Eisen, 1825. Source: Ukiyo-e.org   The kama is one of the few Okinawan kobudo weapons that has a sharp edge and point. It is a one-handed sickle, about a foot and a half with the blade curving downward and the inside curve sharpened. These were derived from farm implements, and the main difference between combat and utility kama is that the juncture of blade and hilt. In combat, kama had a nook that was possibly better suited to catch longer weapons like swords. This weapon’s most obvious use is puncturing with its point. The curvature of the blade makes it possible to hook weapons and limbs, delivering a slicing cut at the same time.   Samurai adopted the kama into their arsenal, mainly low-ranking samurai who could not necessarily afford a katana. The sickle could be useful for clearing grass from treacherous mountain paths or for cutting rope. Another variant of the kama was called the kusari-gama, or chain sickle commonly depicted as used by shinobi. Weaponsmiths in Japan also took the kama and combined it with the yari to make a hooked spear that worked the same way as the English billhook.   Tinbei Rochin Two Turtles and Kerria Roses, by Katsushika Hokusai, Edo Period. Source: Ukiyo-e.org   Although the Japanese phased out shields early in their military history, Okinawan Kobudo employs the shield and spear combination that is the tinbei rochin. Traditional tinbei shields are made from turtle shells; depending on the size of the turtle this could be almost the equivalent to a full-sized heater shield, but it was more like a medieval buckler. Nowadays, they can be made of metal or other synthetic materials. The natural roundness of the tortoise-shell shield lends itself well to defecting weapon blows to the sides without transferring too much force to the wielder’s hand.   The short spear has a wide diamond-shaped blade, able to make large wounds that would be difficult to treat, assuming the victim didn’t bleed out before getting medical help. Along with the shield, it could be used to block attacks. As with the sai, the rochin could be gripped in a forward or reverse grip to employ either the spear point or the pommel.   Training Methods Karate Training at Shuri Castle, 1938. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Three fundamental components exist in Japanese and Okinawan martial arts. The first is kihon, or the fundamentals of movement, striking and blocking. The second is kata or prearranged sequences of movements designed to teach concepts and provide a framework within which to practice. Finally, the third is kumite or kumitachi, which is freeform sparring. With weapons, it is difficult to properly spar safely.   Students would first learn kihon with any given weapon, then start to learn kata. These could be single or paired; only advanced practitioners would be allowed to practice partnered kata because, even though the movements are prearranged, they are done at full force and even a slight mistake could lead to serious injury or death. Forms consist of sequences of blocks, movements, and strikes that simulate a fight against one or multiple attackers.   Sparring-safe variants of Okinawan kobudo weapons exist, but even when using these, caution is warranted. In addition, students can wear protective gear like gloves and torso armor. Although rarer in Okinawan and Japanese martial arts, the growing prevalence of HEMA has made the use of protective gear more widespread, and some martial arts schools are adapting to its use.

Winston Churchill once said, “History is written by the victors.” In today’s world, history is being rewritten by the coders, the censors, and the corporate overlords who believe they have the moral authority to decide what truth means. Artificial intelligence was sold to us as the dawn of a new age of freedom designed to liberate humanity from bias, censorship, and bureaucratic control. Instead, it is becoming the most powerful weapon of manipulation ever created, wielded by the same elites who already dictated what could live or die on social media. Marc Andreessen warned that AI “is highly likely to be the control layer for everything in the world.” He was right. The next war over free speech is not on X or Facebook. It is already underway inside the algorithms of Big Tech’s digital gatekeepers: Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and even Elon Musk’s xAI, where unelected engineers quietly decide what ideas deserve to exist. George Orwell said it best: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” In today’s AI-driven world, Big Tech is not just controlling the present, it is programming the future. These companies might be embedding ideological bias into the very systems that shape what billions of people see, read, and believe. Meta’s AI touches nearly every aspect of Facebook and Instagram, from moderating posts to predicting what users will click next. Artificial intelligence decides which ideas are amplified, which are buried, and which users are silenced altogether. Meta claims its AI protects users by removing “hate speech” and “misinformation,” but those are elastic terms that bend conveniently to fit the political priorities of Silicon Valley. Meta’s AI models automatically detect and delete “harmful content” at scale, scanning billions of posts and comments. Yet somehow, conservative speech, faith-based content, and traditional viewpoints are the ones most often flagged and throttled. Even more troubling, Meta has begun deploying AI-generated personas across Facebook and Instagram, digital avatars designed to “engage” users and simulate human interaction. These synthetic accounts are blurring the line between real people and programmed propaganda, subtly steering public sentiment. This is not science fiction. It is an algorithmic psyop, an invisible propaganda machine run by machines themselves. Google’s Gemini AI was caught rewriting history, refusing to depict white men as America’s Founding Fathers. Microsoft’s Copilot and Azure AI systems are programmed to filter out content that might “insult” or “exclude” based on identity categories. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which powers many of these systems through Microsoft’s Azure AI Foundry, refuses to engage with conservative or religious topics that challenge progressive orthodoxy. This is not innovation. It is indoctrination. When every major AI platform is trained to erase dissent and sanitize language, it is not just suppressing opinions. It is rewriting reality. The pattern is unmistakable. AI systems routinely refuse to defend traditional marriage, censor the concept of biological sex, and block discussions of faith as “offensive.” Meanwhile, they readily generate content that celebrates radical gender ideology and leftist activism. What used to be the open marketplace of ideas is being replaced with a digital monoculture, a homogenized worldview enforced by code. The danger extends beyond ideology. The World Economic Forum now ranks “misinformation and disinformation,” especially when amplified by AI, as the number-one short-term threat to humanity, above inflation, climate change, and war. Think about that. The global elite believe that free speech itself is a greater danger than poverty or terrorism, and they are building AI systems to silence it. The European Union’s Digital Services Act and similar laws in over 20 countries pressure tech companies to suppress “disfavored speech” which means foreign bureaucrats are now helping decide what Americans can say online. What began as a crusade against “fake news” during Trump’s first term has evolved into a transnational censorship regime, a coordinated effort to police thought under the guise of safety. But cracks are starting to show. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a censorship cartel backed by major corporations, recently collapsed under public pressure. Users are waking up to the fact that AI is not neutral. It is political. It is programmed. And it is being used to consolidate cultural and ideological control. If Big Tech’s AI systems continue down this path, the social media censorship battles of the last decade will look quaint by comparison. AI does not just host content, it creates it. It writes the news, drafts legislation, recommends books, and generates sermons. Once trained to exclude “wrongthink,” it can erase entire belief systems from public life without anyone noticing. That is not inclusion. That is tyranny in code. Lawmakers, investors, and everyday citizens must act now. Big Tech must be forced to audit and test their AI systems for viewpoint discrimination, remove vague “hate speech” clauses, and publish transparent policies. Congress should prohibit federally funded or government-partnered AI models from suppressing lawful speech. America was built on free speech and open debate, not algorithmic filters. We do not need artificial intelligence deciding what is moral or permissible. Now more than ever before, we need human intelligence, principle, courage, and conviction to protect free thought before it is deleted from the code. If we lose this fight, Orwell’s prophecy will be complete. The future will not just be written by the victors. It will be rewritten by the machines they control. We cannot allow that to happen. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How AI Programming Threatens to Erase Reality appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For the past several decades, church attendance has become an increasingly female-oriented activity. Church leaders have either given into that fact and no longer try to find a way to get men back to church, or they have spent untold amounts of money on focus groups to find out why men no longer attend, or how they can lure back those men who have strayed. But now, the tide has seemingly turned, according to a new report from the Barna Group, with more men attending church, while the number of women attending is in decline. Barna found that more men (43%) than women (36%) report attending church on a weekly basis. Barna writes, “For decades, women have outnumbered men in church attendance and have often led the way in spiritual participation. But a significant shift is occurring in American Christianity that demands attention: Women—particularly younger women—are attending church less frequently than men. This reversal isn’t just a numerical milestone; it signals a broader cultural and spiritual turning point.” While the decline in female attendance—especially among younger women—is a concern which I will address, the rise in male attendance and leadership in church attendance and spiritual leadership is something to celebrate. Why? Because as the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 5, a man is called to be the spiritual leader of his wife and children. When men abdicate that role, which so many have done over the past 60 or so years, families deteriorate, and children wander away from the faith. And what is especially encouraging is that the growth in male church attendance is happening mainly with millennials and Generation X—those ranging in age from the late twenties to late fifties—with the biggest growth among married fathers with children under 18. Much of this can probably be attributed to the number of ministries geared toward men, such as Promise Keepers, that have sprung up over the past few decades, as well as a greater awareness by church leaders that there was a “male problem” when it came to church attendance and spiritual leadership. On the other hand, it is the steady increase of single mothers and single never married women that is leading the female decline. For those who are still single, the researchers cite these women feeling isolated in congregations that cater to nuclear families and thus unable to find community within the church. A good friend of mine and his wife know several young women in their twenties-early thirties who feel they are no longer welcome in the church because they are single—not so much by choice—but because they have not found the right Godly man yet, or circumstances have left them as a single parent—whether it be through divorce, or in some cases, death. Now, many of these issues these women are not of their making, thus it is still imperative that the church be able to meet their need for community and spiritual growth as well. So, the question begs itself: How does the church continue to encourage men—particularly husbands and fathers—to continue returning to church, while also addressing the feeling of women who feel they are increasingly socially isolated in the church? Citing the Apostle Paul again, he provides us with the road map, writing in 1 Corinthians 9:22: “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.” So, while it is difficult, the church, as Paul writes, needs to find a way to be all things to all people—without compromising the truth —regardless of their station in life. I, for one, am particularly glad to see men, along with the emphasis on families, coming back to church because it is a very positive development for future generations and our country. Let’s celebrate the return of men, and their spiritual leadership, and all the good that will bring. But let’s not leave our sisters behind, like we left men behind for decades, and paid a great spiritual and cultural price for our neglect. We need to learn from past mistakes, not repeat them. Valuing everyone and making sure they have a spiritual community to call home is what will truly be a cultural and spiritual turning point for all people—men and women alike—that will bring about positive transformation for not just them, but for our society as well. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post After Decades of Female Dominance, Men Are Coming Back to Church appeared first on The Daily Signal.