Understanding The Ancient Philosophy


Wing Tsun

Wing Tsun

The art of Chinese Wing Tsun Kung-Fu was described by the ancient masters as a ‘living philosophy.’

With reaching the highest levels of teaching in Wing Tsun, you will be taught how to understand yourself as well as how to interact with other human beings. Based on the amalgamation of Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian principles, the etiquette of Wing Tsun is aimed at enshrining important ideals in its practitioners.

These include a true appreciation of honor, loyalty, dignity, respect for other human beings and control of ones ego, emotions and temper. A person will never master himself without these, or the art of Wing Tsun, as these two are synonymous.

The art is regarded as the noble wing tsun because of these unique characteristics. Student development and progression is the primary goal of Wing Tsun. Indeed, ‘Si-Fu’ means ‘Father-Teacher’, an acknowledgement of the responsibility of the Master when he accepts someone as his ‘todai’ (son). This in unlike most other Martial Arts, such as Karate where ‘Sensei’ simply means ‘Teacher’.

Wing Tsun also has three sides to it: Physical, Spiritual and Health. It’s regrettably infrequent to find schools to teach these three together. But spiritual guidance and understanding requires a true master, whereas physical techniques can be copied. An important teaching in Wing Tsun is that a student’s persona will develop as the student develops his or her physical techniques.

When you can understand the teachings of current and previous masters, you can and will comprehend the Martial Arts. You need to appreciate the history and the social background to it, for this to be possible. Thus, every part of the martial art that is ignored or changed before it is properly learnt undermines its foundations.

If you take away the culture then you take away the history.
There is no point in learning martial arts without learning its history. What you saw was just a series of moves which neither has any understanding nor any principles. This is not a true martial art.

This need to understand the Martial Art as a whole is no different than if you wished to study for instance the humanities or even law. As Hiliare Barnett, author of the book Constitutional and Administrative Law, states in her work, “to study the UK’s constitution successfully, it is necessary to gain an insight into the history, politics and political philosophy which underpin the constitution, it is an essential component without which the structure, law and policies of the state cannot be understood.”

U. S. Constitution Fails All 3 Tests For A Christian Government

Christian historians

Christian historians

Patrick Henry is usually lumped in with other founders like James Madison, but Henry never was reconciled to the U. S. Constitution. “Discipling the Nations — The Government Upon His Shoulder” tells the story.

The book relates how there was no Christian agreement on the U. S. Constitution at the time of the ratification debates and Patrick Henry became the Constitution’s strongest critic. Earlier Henry had rejected his invitation to the Constitutional Convention with the acerbic, “I smelt a rat.”

Showdown in Virginia

The Virginia Ratifying convention was key to the ratification debates. Had the Constitution failed in Virginia — the home of Madison, Washington, and Jefferson — it would have been dealt a mortal blow. It was a classic showdown between Federalists led by James Madison and Anti-Federalists headed by Patrick Henry. Going in to the convention Anti-Federalists trailed Federalists by more than 2 to 1. But Henry was so effective in debate that 23 days later the Constitution barely squeeked through with a mere eight vote margin.

Henry was magnificent in debate, one speech lasting a full 7 hours. He delivered as many as 3 speeches on each of several days in a powerful display of rhetoric. James Madison confessed that he could speak for an hour and Henry would raise an eyebrow and undo everything he said in a split second.

Henry characterized the Constitution as “a revolution more radical than that which separated us from Great Britain.” In particular, he objected to making “We the People” the sovereign source of governing authority.

Constitution has ‘Wall of Separation’
Despite Evangelical Protests

Most Evangelical historians go to great lengths to show that Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase does not appear in the United States Constitution. That is quite true.

However, the concept is there nonetheless, tucked away in a little known provision of Article VI. “Discipling the Nations” points to the culprit in Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall ever be required for any office or public trust under these United States.”

As the story unfolds, we learn that a bon-a-fide Christian nation will be marked by three traits:

1) It will commit itself to the Bible as the highest law of the land,
2) It will pass laws against murder, theft, adultery and other crimes based specifically on the Bible, and
3) It will require government officers to swear on oath to uphold those laws.

The U. S. Constitution fails all three tests, in particular at point 3) where it forbids any oath requiring the officeholder to govern by the Bible. In addition, it draws its authority exclusively from the majority vote of “we the people” (not God) and declares itself (not the Bible) to be the supreme law of the land. Taken together these constitute a formidable wall of separation between God and State.

For these and other reasons Patrick Henry declared “I smelt a rat,” when asked why he turned down his summons to the Constitutional Convention. In spite of this, contemporary Christian historians still declare the U. S. Constitution to be a Christian document. They marshal such weighty evidence as the date including the phrase “year of our Lord.” But the 3 failed tests are decisive.

The Internet Governance Disputed Domain



The world of Internet is excruciatingly more complex than we can imagine. Net surfing, internet-aided messaging, and transactions appear very easy, but the rigors and complexities behind how the Internet runs are hidden and unknown to most of us.

In an attempt to systematize internet governance, former US President Bill Clinton established the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in the 1990s. ICANN is a very technical body mandated with ensuring that the net function in a stable and secure manner by managing the net’s domain name system. It is the organization responsible for designating domain names like .com, .net, and. org.

In 2000, the ICANN approved the registering of seven more domain names like .biz and. info after receiving massive request and prodding for more domain names from the net community. Even up to this day, there is still much pressure for ICANN to approve the creation of additional domain name extensions. The pressure is high since the domain name registry business presents a very lucrative opportunity to collect annual registration fees for potentially millions of new domain names. Domain name registrars demand for more domains to accommodate the increasing influx of new products and service being sold through the Internet.

ICANN has been hard on this demand, fearing that the existence of new top-level domains and extensions will drastically affect the reliability of the Internet. And this reluctance has put ICANN in a lot of troubles with different parties.

The most recent controversy involving ICANN was the .xxx issue. In 2004, the ICM Registry (US-based) collaborated with the Canadian-based International Foundation for Online Responsibility to propose the creation of .xxx. The proposed new top-level domain is aimed at better classifying websites and web contents for millions of internet user around the world. The proponents said that a .xxx domain extension will give a clear message to net surfers that sites with that domain extension contain adult materials of sexual nature.

Further, the move initiated by the ICM is for consenting legal-age patrons of adult entertainment to have greater online experience, for adult entertainment providers to be able to identify themselves as legal for greater customer retention, better complaints resolution, and as a proactive step for them to instill responsibility and accountability for their actions. Also, the proposal for a .xxx domain extension is seen to benefit individuals or families wanting to avoid adult content. Surfers can easily filter websites with adult contents just by merely looking at the extension names.

After about a year, the ICANN publicly announced that it had entered into commercial and technical dealings leading to the creation of .xxx domain. The US government was quick to respond to this surprising move and asked the ICANN to delay the final approval for the creation of .xxx after various sectors loudly aired their opposition to it.

Although many countries lauded the decision to put a halt in the creation of .xxx and give way for multi-lateral consultation, a clear, steering issue boiled and steamed out. The international community raised concern of American hegemony in the internet governance. The *European Union* is clear in its stance that the .xxx case is a crystal-clear proof of government intervention in the policies of ICANN. This, the EU says, is unacceptable to sovereign governments who are relying on ICANN for the control of their websites like UK’s .uk.

With the .xxx controversy still unresolved, the ICANN is now faced with yet another crucial issue. The international community has demanded that Internet governance be transferred from ICANN to a neutral, political intervention-free body. This has been prompted by the fear of American government’s strong political influence on the policies of ICANN. Also a concern is the slow action, if not complete inaction, of ICANN on the proposal to have a multi-lingual domain system that would allow citizens of different countries to register domain names in their native language.

With many governments using the internet to deliver services to their citizens, internet governance and its autonomy from a suspected American hegemony is a hotly contested and very legitimate issue. With internet intersecting with critical elements like freedom of speech, privacy, and a fair marketplace, its governance is really of global concern and undeserving of any political maneuvering. Currently, the US Commerce Department is holding a hearing on the fate of internet governance and ICANN management.

Adam Smith Capitalism’s Founding Father


Adam Smith

Adam Smith

Adam Smith, 18th-century philosopher and political economist, was born in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, in 1723. Best known for his classic treatise An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, he is credited with establishing the discipline of political economics. The ideas put forward in his work represented a radical departure from the then-dominant economic policy and philosophy of mercantilism, which had held sway in Europe for three centuries.

So profound was the impact of Wealth of Nations that it is generally considered the most important economic work ever written. Terms that are commonly used today, such as invisible hand and division of labor, had their genesis in Smiths treatise.

At the age of 14 he began his formal studies at the University of Glasgow, a center of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment. He was apparently greatly influenced by Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson, whose theories on moral sense were a basis for Smiths own ethical speculations later in life. Smith furthered his studies at Oxford for seven years and during this period became attracted to the atheistic ideas of another Scottish philosopher, David Hume, with whom he would later form a close friendship.

Returning to Scotland after his studies, Smith became a lecturer and professor, but more importantly, he was exposed to the intellectual public and began to attract the attention of opinion makers. In 1759 he published Theory of Moral Sentiments. Its focus was mans ability to make moral judgments considering his natural propensity toward self-interest and self-preservationideas that would later resurface in Wealth of Nations.

In 1763 he withdrew from his post at the University of Glasgow and assumed the position of private tutor to Henry Scott, Third Duke of Buccleuch, whom he was to accompany on a tour of continental Europe from 1764 to 66.

Through this experience Smith gained important contacts with French intellectuals, including Voltaire, as well as firsthand exposure to the French economic policy of mercantilism. The policy advocated government control over industry and trade based on the theory that the nation would be strong as long as exports exceeded imports. France was not oblivious to the economic influence exerted by the comparatively small maritime powers of England and Holland. Realizing that wealth was power, and that wealth was made in trade and manufacture, France sought to secure advantages for its domestic market through laws designed to protect its manufacturers.

Smith objected to the French governments interference in free trade through prohibitive duties on foreign goods. Many of his ideas in Wealth of Nations no doubt began to coalesce during this period.

The philosopher returned to Scotland in 1766 and set about completing the work that would earn him enduring fame. Ten years in the making, Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and is considered the first great work in political economicsthe science of rules for the production, accumulation, distribution and consumption of wealth.
One of Smiths initial observations was that production was enhanced by the assigning of specific tasks to individual workers. This division of labor would maximize production by allowing workers to specialize in discrete aspects of the production process. He saw in the division of labor and in expanding markets virtually limitless possibilities for the expansion of wealth through manufacture and trade.
Smith also argued that capital for the production and distribution of wealth could work most effectively in the absence of government interference. Such a laissez-fairethat is, leave alone or allow to bepolicy (a term popularized by Wealth of Nations) would, in his opinion, encourage the most efficient operation of private and commercial enterprises. He was not against government involvement in public projects too large for private investment, but rather objected to its meddling in the market mechanism.

He also held that individuals acting in their own self-interest would naturally seek out economic activities that provided the greatest financial rewards. Smith was convinced that this self-interest would in turn maximize the economic well-being of society as a whole (see The Achilles Heel of Capitalism).

One particularly radical view in Wealth of Nations was that wealth lay not in gold but in the productive capacity of all people, each seeking to benefit from his or her own labors. This democratic view flew in the face of royal treasuries, privileges of the aristocracy, or prerogatives doled out to merchants, farmers and working guilds. It is not coincidental that such democratic, egalitarian views arose simultaneously with the American Revolution and only just preceded the French Revolution of 1789. Smith believed that the true wealth of a nation came from the labor of all people and that the flow of goods and services constituted the ultimate aim and end of economic life.

Modern capitalism traces its roots to Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations, which has served, perhaps more than any other economic work, as a guide to the formulation of nations economic policies. Subsequent theories have altered governments role in economic policy, particularly the Keynesian ideas of the 20th century. Notwithstanding, Smith and his theories continue to occupy an important position in the development of economic thought.

A Very Stable Political Environment In Australia



To say that the political environment of Australia is very stable and not at all alarming to the new investors would be a very small thing to say. The government of Australia has always been there to support new ventures and new investors, along with providing facilities and ever-growing support to the old investors. There is so many nuances and examples of the government of Australia helping and benefiting the newer investors, that people have always been going there to invest in their ideas, and many of them have come out successful is because of the politics of Australia and the government have been very supportive of their ideas. The main reason that Australia is always flourishing is because of the fact that the government has done a lot of things for the people over there and the people support the government in every way possible. There has been a lot of immigration to Australia from the neighbouring countries, and they have opened all people with open arms, and given the jobs and all sorts of compensation factors so that people are always happy with the Australian government, in helping them settle down in a foreign country as well as giving them means to earn their bread.

There are so many people from all across the world who would visit Australia, and pro-claim that they have turned a new leaf, have been right. The government of Austria has been proactive in turning out the character and image of this country, and they have been successful in their endeavor. Australia has a strength as an investment destination because of the fact that they have a political system that is been highly effective in responding to economic challenges and new directions that people would need in terms of setting up political agenda. The Australian government has been very adaptable to each and every industry, and they do not give any preference to any industry, but treat all the new and old ones in the same vein as they have been doing for the past years. Hence this is the kind of treatment that should be deserving to any and every company from every country, and has Australia has shown the path that politics from Australia cannot in any way deter the newer companies, they found out that people are more prone to invest in a country if they find that it is a safe and secure country.