Coming from Philadelphia, where most women are generally straight forward, I often confuse indirect behaviour. I am at work, I go into the office to finish off some notes, the Medical Coordinator is there and spread out all over as usual; I grab my book and an edge of the desk. As I am writing, I notice movement to the side- her head is tilting toward me closer and closer. I look up and my field of vision contains only her eye about 2 inches from my face. It startles me and I pull away, nothing was said, I finished and left. What the heck was that- was she flirting or trying to creep me out (most women where I work don't really need to try being creepy, they just are). Being raised on 1950s Sci-Fi movies, seeing a giant eye kinda spooked me.

How am I feeling right now, well....


Seems I've got to have a change of scene
'Cause every night I have the strangest dreams
Imprisoned by the way it could have been
Left here on my own or so it seems
I've got to leave before I start to scream
But someone's locked the door and took the key.

Ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself
Well, ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself

Well boy you sure took me for one big ride
And even now I sit and wonder why
And when I think of you I start to cry
I just can't waste my time I must keep dry
Gotta' stop believing in all your lies
'Cause there's too much to do before I die.

Ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself
Well, ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself

Don't get too lost in all I say
Though at the time I really felt that way
But that was then and now its today
I can't get off yet and so I'm here to stay
'Till someone comes along and takes my place
With a different name and yes a different face.

Ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself
Well, ya' feelin' allright?
I'm not feelin' too good myself

I resemble that remark!

Does not the original say72 white grapes

Big Economic Theory Underpinning Libertarian Economics Is Total Baloney
Friedrich Hayek argued that centralized economic planning would lead to totalitarianism, but that's totally wrong.
By Michael Coblenz / AlterNet February 2, 2015
Print
317 COMMENTS
Since the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats have been trying to figure out what happened. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of reasons for the Democratic bloodbath. But one reason, in my opinion, is that Democrats never discuss, much less analyze, the fundamental theories of modern conservatism. As a result, erudite-sounding nonsense is passed off as wisdom, and sways an electorate grasping for answers. Republican calls for limited government find fertile ground with workers whose wages are stagnating.

One of the intellectual foundations of this idea of limiting government comes from an Austrian émigré economist named Friedrich A. Hayek, in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom. Conservatives use that term as shorthand for the idea is that socialism and centralized economic planning don’t work and ultimately lead to totalitarianism, which ends up enslaving the people and impoverishing a nation. That idea taken alone isn’t necessarily wrong, but the theory actually takes a step back and says that any form of centralized economic planning, including government regulation of business, is the first step on the road to serfdom.

Hayek argued that government intervention almost always creates more problems than it fixes, and many current Republicans believe this as a matter of faith. Rand Paul mentions Hayek as one of the intellectual forefathers of his economic ideas and former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan discussed Hayek frequently on the campaign trail. Ryan is also notorious for giving copies of The Road to Serfdom to his staffers.


At the time Hayek wrote the book in the early 1940s, governments around the world were engaged in central economic planning. Russia had been collectivizing and devising “five-year plans,” for nearly two decades, and a number of Eastern European countries were following Russia’s lead. Germany had created a massive war machine through central planning. Beyond that, many Western democracies, including the United States and Britain, had instituted various degrees of centralized economic planning to help deal with the economic collapse of the Great Depression and then with the emergency of the second world war.

Hayek didn’t like what he was seeing in the west because it was too close to what he’d seen firsthand in Eastern Europe. He wrote the book as a warning that even small efforts at government control of the economy could cause changes in society that would eventually lead to collectivism, dictatorship, and ultimately, widespread poverty and suffering.

The book was a hit among conservatives in the United States, more so than in England. It neatly encapsulated their worst fears about government and the behavior of liberals. Hayek noted that starting in the 1930s there was “a complete change in the direction of the evolution of our ideas and social order.…We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.”

This may have accurately reflected the existing political changes in the 1930s, but Hayek acts as if this was the end product of some nefarious liberal takeover of the economy. He largely ignored the events that caused this change, most notably the Great Depression.

Hayek said that collectivism was replacing individualism, and that was dangerous because the development of individualism “is closely associated with the growth of commerce. From the commercial cities of northern Italy the new view of life spread with commerce” throughout Europe, “taking firm root wherever there was no despotic political powers to stifle it.” But over the years many in society forgot this lesson, and as social problems arose many began to look to collective action. As this happened there was a “decline of the understanding of the way in which the free system worked, [and] our awareness of what depended on its existence also decreased.”

And so, step by step, society changed, resulting in “an entire abandonment of the individualist tradition which has created Western civilization.” Command economies also “replaced the… mechanism of the market by collective and ‘conscious’ direction of all social forces to deliberately chosen goals.”

Hayek then describes some of the problems with collectivism and central planning. “The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labors of society for a definite social goal.”

It is not possible, according to Hayek, to simply control the economy. Government will eventually control every aspect of life. That is because ultimately a “conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism.” Collectivism differs from “liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for the unitary end and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme.”

This happens step by step. First economic plans are made, then education has to be controlled to ensure the population learns the necessary information to achieve the economic goal, then government has to engage in propaganda to ensure that the population agrees with the centralized goal, then a strong police state must be instituted to round up and silence the dissenters, then democracy must be abandoned to ensure that those hostile to the plan aren’t elected.

Hayek’s point is that once you start central planning you can’t stop. This is because people get in the way, they don’t cooperate, they object, and so this “people problem” also has to be controlled. Freedoms are slowly stripped away, and then all freedom is lost. The end result is that planning, according to Hayek, inevitably leads to dictatorships.


“Most planners who seriously consider the practical aspects of their task have little doubt that a directed economy must be run on more or less dictatorial lines.” And this slide toward dictatorship is the crux of conservatives’ worst fears:

“The authority directing all economic activity would control not merely the part of our lives which is concerned with inferior things; it would control the allocation of the limited means for all our ends. And whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all our ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which are not. This is really the crux of the matter. Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.”

So, according to Hayek, once you allow a little control, you will always need more to make it work. Small planning inevitably leads to big planning, and protecting people from the vagaries of life eventually leads to people becoming dependent upon government. That is the idea that many of Hayek’s conservative followers fervently believe. And that is why they so fear any government involvement in the economy.

It’s an interesting theory, and given the state of the world in 1940, certainly one worth taking seriously. But how did Hayek do? As he noted at the beginning of the book, “we can in a measure learn from the past to avoid a repetition of the same process.” So what does the past, which was Hayek’s future, teach us about Hayek’s predictions?

The book was published during a worldwide trend toward central economic planning. Some of it was due to the rise of communism, some was the Western response to the Great Depression, and some was the rise of Fascists and their drive to world domination. So the book certainly fit the times. And, in the immediate aftermath of the war, many western European nations embraced cradle-to-grave welfare, nationalized industries, and created employment boards, and government managed industrial cartels. Many others fell behind the Iron Curtain, and had communism and totalitarianism imposed on them. It was a dark time, and Hayek’s ideas seemed prescient.

But by the early 1950s, economic conditions began to improve, particularly in Western Europe, and nations began to weaken government control of their economies. Some nationalized industries were sold off, many countries abandoned employment boards, others removed government control over industrial cartels. The Western world was not following Hayek’s model, and so he had to adapt. In a new introduction to the book in 1956, he admitted that no country had apparently taken his road to serfdom, and suggested that it wasn’t some kind of iron rule (though he’d been pretty adamant that it was).

"It has frequently been alleged that I have contended that any movement in the direction of socialism is bound to lead to totalitarianism. Even though this danger exists, this is not what the book says. What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate there policies will not want."

He modified his argument to fit the new reality. Now he said that the first step on the road to serfdom was a “soft” socialism, in the form of government regulation of aspects of the economy, wealth-transferring welfare programs and high taxes to pay for it all. Hayek said that these programs would protect people from the consequences of their actions, which would erode individual initiative and make people increasingly dependent on a paternalistic government. (If this sounds familiar it’s because it could have come from the stump speech of virtually any recent or present-day Republican candidate for president.)

So how did this revised theory pan out? Well, again particularly in the West, as economic conditions began to improve in the late 1950s, and increasingly in the 1960s and into the 1970s, governments continued to scale back on their government control of the economy. The wave of nationalization of industries crested in the late 1960s, labor boards eliminated in the UK, and a wave of deregulation began in the United States. The tide of “centralized planning” receded. A few countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries of Northern Europe, retained exceedingly generous welfare programs, and the necessary high taxes, and retained some aspects of centralized planning, but they never abandoned democracy.

The United States never nationalized industries, but did have the War Production Board during World War II, which helped manage and coordinate industry to supply material for the war effort. It was abandoned in 1945. The United States did have a number of government management boards for various industries, like airlines and trucking, but those were eliminated during a wave of deregulation in the late 1970s. Banking and financial regulations were also scaled back in the 1990s (with a minor effort to re-regulate after the crash of 2008).


A number of countries in South America have lurched from incompetent socialist states to equally incompetent fascist and right-wing police states. And with recent examples of Venezuela and Bolivia, the lurching continues. But none have followed Hayek’s road from soft socialism to hard socialism to totalitarianism. Many Mideast countries have strange hybrid economies, with many large industries, particularly the petroleum industry, controlled by the government. Some provide government support for their citizens based on oil revenue, but they don’t have Western-style welfare systems. And they are largely autocratic, but none have embraced communism or even socialism.

Quite a few countries became communist at the end of the second world war, but that was a product of geography, not political or economic philosophy. Many nations in Eastern Europe fell behind the “Iron Curtain” and had communism and totalitarianism forced upon them. Essentially the same thing happened to North Korea and North Vietnam. And a few countries did become communist, particularly China, Cuba and Vietnam, but this was only after violent upheaval and civil war. So while these countries ended up as communist and totalitarian, they didn’t get there on Hayek’s "road."

How many countries in the last half-century have moved, as Hayek suggested, from soft socialism to totalitarianism? Precisely none.

Another aspect of Hayek’s theory was that once the communists or the collectivists take over, all is lost. They will institute totalitarianism and control the populace with an iron fist. And how has that worked in the intervening 60 years? Well, the vast majority of formerly communist countries have abandoned communism. And far from abandoning it in a bloody fight, with the commissars holding onto power with a bloody grip, as Hayek seems to imply, most of these countries sloughed it off with a shrug.

Russia did so in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and most of the former Soviet Bloc countries behind the Iron Curtain abandoned communism. China allowed private ownership of property and businesses in 1978 in a move at market reform, and now it is one of the largest economies on earth. The government still exerts enormous economic control, and total political control, but it resembles nothing like what Hayek suggested. It is now more of a mercantilist country, like England in the 18th century. And most of the formerly communist countries of Asia, particularly Cambodia and Vietnam, have abandoned most of the economic aspects of communism, though they are far from free market capitalist economies, and certainly not democracies.

The last few remaining communist and totalitarian holdouts are North Korea, Cuba and Burma, though Cuba and Burma are slowly scaling back government control of the economy. Despite these efforts, the economies of both are complete basket cases, which is an insult to baskets. That leaves North Korea as the last communist dictatorship. But it had communism imposed on it at the end of WWII, so even it did not follow Hayek’s road.

In fact, around the world the road ran in the exact opposite direction as Hayek prophesied. Countries certainly did become socialist and communist, but it wasn’t the slow march Hayek predicted. A few countries elected socialist governments, but those never took over in the way Hayek predicted. And most of the countries with various forms of “soft” socialism—much of Europe—scaled many of these programs back. Certainly most European countries still have generous welfare programs and a high degree of government regulation of the economy, and many have government-controlled healthcare, but few still have widespread nationalized industries. And they are among the oldest democracies and the freest nations on earth.

There is no other way to say this: Hayek was wrong. He swung, and he missed. Nice try, though. Yet despite this, conservatives still bring him to the plate. He’s Paul Ryan’s lead-off hitter. Despite the fact that Hayek was completely wrong, conservatives still claim that liberal economic policy will lead us down the road to serfdom. Republican politicians say it, libertarian activists hold panel discussions about it, and conservative commentators allude to it.

So what does it mean that Hayek was so wrong in his predictions of the future? I know it’s easy for us to look back and criticize those from the past who get their predictions wrong. But let me suggest that the issue isn’t really fairness. The inability to predict the future indicates a flaw in the underlying theory. That’s how it works in science. A scientific theory is only considered valid to the extent that it accurately predicts future behavior. Galileo’s theory of gravity, for example, was that gravity applies equally to all bodies regardless of their weight or density, and that a falling body will speed up over time. Subsequent experiments proved Galileo correct. Newton based his gravitational theories on Galileo’s work, and scientists ever since can reliably predict the effect of gravity. NASA landed men on the moon with little more than calculus, slide rules and Newtonian physics. They were able to do it because Galileo and Newton were right, and the underlying theories were sound.

Shouldn’t political theories be subject to the same criteria? Shouldn’t they be judged based on how well they predict future events? Perhaps the test shouldn’t be as rigorous as in the physical sciences, because we’re dealing with messy and imperfect human affairs, but there should be some correlation between a prediction and actual events.


In The Road to Serfdom Hayek said that embracing socialism—government ownership of the means of production, pervasive social welfare programs—was the first step on the road to serfdom. And what happened? Not a single country has gone that direction. In fact, in the past 50 years almost exactly the opposite has happened. So what does that say about Hayek’s theory? In a word: wrong. But, more importantly, what does that say about modern conservatives who quote a fool and call him a sage? And what does it say about the liberals who let them get away with it?

I went to the med cupboard to double dose myself with cold and flu meds; afterwards I noticed the pill cap box said "anti-diarrhea"- its gonna be a fun night

Hey it looks like I can get away with friggin'! Friggity frick frig

Can someone reassure me that I am actually home in my apartment and have not completely fallen asleep in the car on the way home and just dreaming I made it home? I am so friggin' tired

Does that mean you will stop demonizing me soon?

Interestingly, the top RNC leadership are taking a trip to Israel sponsored by a AFA subgroup, run by the guy they "fired", who stated that anyone who is not Xian is not protected under the 1st Amendment. I wonder what the Jewish will feel about this.

Similar to the Dunning-Kroger effect

I have seen what a woman did to poor Bruce Jenner; so I encourage wariness

Bromance, its a beautiful thing- don't let anyone tell you different!

I think the far right-wing Republicans are our biggest threat. They seem ready to go to war over the smallest slight

don't worry, I just read an article that they have produced transplantable vaginas in a lab AND, now get this- they are not connected to a mouth or speech system!

Hey I resemble that remark!

Olam Ha-Ba, in the Jewish faith, does refer to a heaven or hell. Hell or Hades originates in Paganism. I cannot see how it could be a metaphor to the Jewish mind, but can understand its translation, to the Greek mind, whose culture ruled the area since Alexander, would reference it as Hades

Actually, Carl Sagan first brought up the idea of ancient aliens in 1966

But don't want to actually be him. At work, I am scheduled on two days for 6 hours of one-on-one counseling with a client; this generally translates to between 0 to 15 minutes of actual time with the client. The other day, the cook called out at the last minute, they asked me to run the kitchen, because actually doing mental health counseling is not valued where I work; plus I was only person who could work a horizontal, versus a vertical, can opener. I dropped a pan of Salisbury steaks. It became a Three Stooges short film, with me grabbing the counters and tables trying to keep my footing on the gravy covered floor; the aides were slipping and sliding as well. My life is absurd.

Although, I will stick it in their faces that when I recommended a client be hospitalized they said they didn't want to do it. Instead, they got him an intake appointment, where they hospitalized him immediately.

Anyone with similar work experiences?

GeHenna or the wadi of fire was were the rituals of Moloch took place, as can be seen in:

Jeremiah 7:31–32

31 And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. 32 Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere.

This is the fastest growing religion in Britain

Doctrine of the Order
Category: Information Written by Temple Of The Jedi Order
Jediism is a religion based on the observance of the Force, a ubiquitous and metaphysical power that a Jedi (a follower of Jediism) believes to be the underlying, fundamental nature of the universe. Jediism finds its roots in philosophies similar to those presented in an epic space opera called “Star Wars”. It is a religion in and of itself.

The Jedi religion is an inspiration and a way of life for many people throughout the world who take on the mantle of Jedi. Jedi apply the principles, ideals, philosophies and teachings of Jediism in a practical manner within their lives. Real Jedi do not worship George Lucas or Star Wars or anything of the sort. Jediism is not based in fiction, but we accept myth as a sometimes more practical mean of conveying philosophies applicable to real life.



Jedi Believe

In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.
In a society governed by laws grounded in reason and compassion, not in fear or prejudice.
In a society that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or circumstances of birth such as gender, ethnicity and national origin.
In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.
In the positive influence of spiritual growth and awareness on society.
In the importance of freedom of conscience and self-determination within religious, political and other structures.
In the separation of religion and government and the freedoms of speech, association and expression.



The Three Tenets
• Focus
• Knowledge
• Wisdom

When used correctly, the Jedi Tenets allow us to better ourselves and overcome any obstacle. They help us improve the world around us and fulfil our purpose in life as a Jedi.

Wisdom is the sound application of accrued knowledge and experience through patient, good judgment. Knowledge can be acquired by focusing on the task at hand. Focus is the art of pruning the irrelevant and pouring the best of your mind into what you are doing.



The Code

The Jedi Code comes in two versions which are different ways of understanding the same teaching.

Emotion, yet Peace. There is no Emotion, there is Peace.
Ignorance, yet Knowledge. There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge.
Passion, yet Serenity. There is no Passion, there is Serenity.
Chaos, yet Harmony. There is no Chaos, there is Harmony.
Death, yet the Force. There is no Death, there is the Force.



The Creed

I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

I am a Jedi.

I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

The Force is with me always, for I am a Jedi.





The 16 Teachings

1. Jedi are in touch with the Force. We are open to spiritual awareness and keep our minds in tune with the beauty of the world. We are forever learning and open our minds to experiences and knowledge of ourselves and others.

2. Jedi maintain a clear mind; which can be achieved through meditation and contemplation. Our minds can become unduly troubled and concerned with the happenings of the world. We must work on overcoming our individual issues through training and diligence.

3. Jedi are aware of the future impacts of action and inaction and of the influence of the past, but live in and focus on the Now. We let ourselves flow like water through the events around us. We embrace the ever changing and fluid world, adapting and changing as it does.

4. Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. The obsession over possessions and people creates the fear of losing those possessions and relationships which can cause ourselves to be trapped in a state of depression and loss.

5. Jedi understand that well-being consists in the physical, the mental and the spiritual. A Jedi trains each to ensure they remain capable of performing their duties to the best of their ability. All of these are interconnected and essential parts of our training in becoming more harmonious with the Force.

6. Jedi use their skills to the best of their ability. We do not use our knowledge and skill to boast or be prideful. We are mindful of the ego and mindful of our actions, exercising wisdom and humility.

7. Jedi understand their limitations. We recognise, and take responsibility, for our failures and develop a level of modesty about them. We respect the right for others to disagree and understand that they themselves are not perfect.

8. Jedi are patient. We work on training ourselves not to precipitate events around us. We know that becoming a Jedi is long and hard and requires rigorous dedication and commitment. Jedi train to act with a conscientious state of calmness.

9. Jedi have integrity. We are authentic to what we believe and are open, honest and true to our purpose and our minds. We remove all masks to reveal ourselves as courageous and noble of heart. We do not hide from fear of damage to our image because we know that our image cannot be blemished from the words and actions of others.

10. Jedi serve in many ways. Each action performed, no matter the scale, influences the world. With this in mind Jedi perform each action with peace, caring, love, compassion and humility. So it is that each Jedi improves the world with each deed they perform.

11. Jedi are mindful of their thoughts. We recognise the beauty in others and we provide help to those who come seeking it. Through our benevolent actions we strengthen not only ourselves but also our communities. Jedi act without prejudice.

12. Jedi believe that love and compassion are central to their lives. We must love and care for each other as we must love and care for ourselves; by doing this we envelop all life in the positivity of our actions and thoughts. We are providers and beacons of hope.

13. Jedi cultivate empathy. We try to view things from another’s perspective making us sensitive listeners. We provide the confidence people need when talking through their difficulties and we share our learning with those who would benefit. We do this to help create a more harmonious society.

14. Jedi are guardians of peace. We believe in helping all those that are in need, in whatever form, to the best of our ability. We recognise that sometimes providing help requires courage in the face of adversity but understand that conflict is resolved through peace, understanding and harmony.

15. Jedi believe in eternal life through the Force. We do not become obsessed in mourning those who pass. We may grieve at their passing but we are content, knowing that they will forever be a part of the Force and so always a part of us.

16. Jedi make a commitment to their cause and to humanity. Our ideals, philosophies, and practices define the belief of Jediism and we take action on this path for self-improvement and to help others. We are both the witnesses and protectors of the Jedi way by the practice of our convictions.



The 21 Maxims



Prowess: To seek excellence in all endeavors expected of a Jedi.

A Jedi strives to acquire greater skill and expertise in what they do at all times so that it may be used in the service of the greater good, and not for personal profit. This requires discipline, patience and perfect practice.

Justice: To always seek the path of ‘right’.

A Jedi is unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Justice is a double-edged sword, one that protects the weak, yet also passes judgements according to a set of values. A Jedi tolerates that which is not Jedi and does not pass judgement on that which causes no harm for it is just.

Loyalty: To have faith in your Jedi brothers and sisters.

A Jedi remains true to what they have learned and to their own teachings. A Jedi always serves those who wish to learn more of the ways of the Force and in doing so, remain loyal to the way of Jediism and their Order.

Defense: To defend the way of Jediism.

A Jedi is sworn by oath to defend their faith and all it encompasses.

Courage: To have the will.

To be a Jedi sometimes means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. A Jedi knows they must make the right choice, take the right side and that the weak they have sworn to defend often stand alone. A Jedi puts aside fear, regret, and uncertainty yet know the difference between courage and sheer stupidity.

Faith: To trust in the ways of the Force.

Although the ways of the Force may seem strange at times, a Jedi always knows their place and their role within it.

Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

A Jedi does not boast of their accomplishments and knows that their accomplishment is its own reward.

Fearlessness: To have no self-imposed limits.

Fear is that which prevents a Jedi from accomplishing their duty. A Jedi learns to let go of their fears through their faith in the Force and has no shame in admitting their shortfalls when they occur.

Nobility: To act with honour.

A Jedi does not engage in petty, mean or otherwise dubious activities. Acting with stature and distinction influences others, offering a compelling example of what can be achieved by those who follow Jediism.

Honesty: To avoid lies.

A Jedi is honest with themselves and seeks to always go beyond appearances. There can be no honest self without the knowledge and wisdom to see truth.

Pure Motive: To act with motive and purpose.

Without a sound motive and purpose, action has no meaning, no destination and lacks a foundation. A Jedi moves with the Force, trusts in its ways. A Jedi’s actions are firmly based upon a deep motivation to be as their path dictates.

Discipline: To let the self be sole master of the self.

A Jedi’s mind is structured, peaceful, unencumbered by emotions, physical state or external stimuli.

Focus: To select what matters most.

A Jedi focuses in the task at hand. Although a Jedi is aware of the past, and wary of the present's impact on the future, through discipline they know how to select and concentrate on priorities.

Discretion: To become invisible.

A Jedi knows there is a time and place for all things. They do not actively interfere in worldly affairs and refrain from overtly supporting or opposing other individuals or organizations.

Meditation: To exercise the mind.

Through regular meditation a Jedi examines their motivations, and are certain that they are not allowing emotion, ignorance, or passion to intrude upon them. Meditation can be used by a Jedi to improve their mindfulness, focus, or patience.

Training: To know one's ignorance.

A Jedi knows there is always something more to learn and seeks new lessons every day.

Integrity: To be consistent.

A Jedi lives as a Jedi at all times. Hypocrisy is their worst enemy.

Morality: To know the danger of belief.

A Jedi knows how contradicting beliefs of what is right and wrong can lead to devastating crimes and conflicts. A Jedi takes a step away from the subjectivity of opinion in favour of the peace of objectivity. A Jedi does not force their values upon others.

Conflict: To know when to fight.

A Jedi knows the conflicting nature of the Force but they also know its peace and serenity. A Jedi never blindly enters conflict and always does so for the greater good.

Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required.

Harmony: To be connected to the Force.