I bet that shocked you! English Premier League footballers, the target of so much jealousy and vitriol because of their 'spiralling' wages - and I'm telling you they're underpaid? That does it! You're never going to read my stuff again, right?

Much has been said about there being too much money in football, or about the exaggerated salaries of English Premier League footballers and those of the other big European leagues. The reason for the negativity is unclear, although the cries of 'inflated contracts, undeserved fast cars and mindless celebrity' bear the hallmark of an anti-capitalist philosophy.

But the outspoken commentators and all-round vilifiers of top-flight footballers have so far failed to ask the question: Where is all this money coming from? And by failing to ask the question, they have failed to learn the answer: From their own pockets - of their own volition.

Yesterday, Sunday 8th March, I travelled to Old Trafford, Manchester, to see my team, Manchester United play an FA Cup game. Six hours there, six hours back, in the pouring rain, to see my team get beaten by, ironically my local team - Portsmouth. Enough about that. But I still saw men do things with a football that I could only fantasise about doing - things that they have worked years to be able to do. But as I scanned the panorama that was to embrace me for the next ninety minutes, the answer to the money was everywhere I looked.

Seventy six thousand ticket-holders, young and old, all dressed in their club's replica shirts, carrying bags of gladly-paid-for merchandise, hats sporting the club crests, jackets, scarves, footwear, match day programmes, magazines, brochures, advertising hoardings, television cameras broadcasting the game to millions of people worldwide. For ONE match.

People will lament how someone can get paid such a lot of money for kicking a pigskin around the park, but, in reality, it's just another form of entertainment. It's something to do after a hard day's work, like having a drink down the pub, watching a film at the cinema, or going to the opera. Your footballers are your heroes. They're inspiring and inspirational, like WAR heroes - they fight for something you believe in - your football team.

It's for this reason that a man - like myself - is compelled to put his hand in his pocket and hand over his hard-earned money to the football club. It is because of people like these - including myself - that there is so much money in football. It starts with us. If we didn't put our hand into our pocket, there would NOT be the money in football that there is, since nobody would be spending any money. Football is no different than any other profession in this respect.

The marketplace determines the cost of a product or service (in this case, a football team), the price that the consumer (fan) is willing to pay, and the wage of the producer (footballer). All are related to one another. One factor cannot change independently of another without adversely affecting the others.

People complain about the cost of tickets to the game (to use this as an example), yet Premier League stadiums are sold out week-after-week. The stadiums are full because thousands of people have decided - of their own choice - that the ticket price fairly reflects the value of the experience. If the value of the experience were to decline - if the football team were to underperform, for instance - the tickets would stop selling.

The club would be forced to reduce ticket prices in accordance with the lower value performances, and the stadium would sell out, again. Lower ticket prices would mean lower profits, which would mean lower wages. The adverse is also true. Which is why players from the best teams drive Aston Martins. Just another example of the (nearly) free market economy, my friend.

Another barb thrown by the tongue of the Premier League haters is that footballers are only playing the game for money, and that if they truly loved the game, they'd play for free. This comment is so naive it worries me of the sanity of those that utter it.

Footballers are no different to any other high-paid professional - doctor, film star, therapist: They do what they do because, at some point in their life, they realised they enjoyed doing it, and they strove to become great at it. Their service is in high demand, and people are willing to pay good money for it - with wages being based on ability, which equals the value they offer. The argument is continued with moans such as, "Why, then, do the best players always go where the money is? The Uniteds, Chelseas, Milans and Madrids?"

If you were an architect, wouldn't you want to ply your trade with the best in town? And do I have to ask the question, which is the better team - Manchester United or Macclesfield Town? I can answer that for you. Objectively, United are the better team. They're leagues apart. Literally. You might say that the smaller teams sometimes play with more passion. But passion won't win a bean without ability. Passion alone doesn't win a football match, a war, or even an argument. Ability wins football matches, wars AND arguments.

These are the best teams, and the money they generate is the result of the market compensating them for their superior skill level - the reason for that being the collective ability of their individual players.

So why did I say that footballers are underpaid? Well, like all tax payers, they're forced to hand over a portion of their income to the government for services they likely didn't ask for - some of which include paying for the work-shy demographic to sit in front of the television they paid for, on the couch they paid for, for getting lunch-drunk on the beer they paid for, at the home paid for by, yet again, Mr Premier League Footballer, Esquire.

Well, we can ALL empathise with footballers on this point - all of us producers, that is. And if wage caps were ever introduced, they'd be underpaid further, still, since the capping of a salary is to negate the market value of the footballer, funnelling the money to another area of the market that wouldn't deserve it. Yet another example of the earned falling into the hands of the unearning.

I can already here some of the more socialistic readers wail, as they dust-off the popcorn after watching the latest millionaire-Tom Cruise, sky-high-contract-paying blockbuster, "But football is hardly a noble profession! Teachers/nurses/social workers should be paid THEIR kind of wages!" But I ask you, when was the last time you tuned-in to watch the Premier League Nurses top of the table clash at the seventy thousand, sell-out Nurse Stadium, on premium-pay television, wearing your replica Nurses United shirt?

I'm not knocking these professions - funnily enough, all public sector jobs - for their low wage level. If anything, these professions are poor examples to use since salaries in these fields are not set according to the market but, instead, are based on a government economic policy of trying to appease as many people as possible in an effort to gain more votes to feed their power-hunger. Were these jobs equivalently represented in the private sector, the wages may - and probably would - be higher than they are, now. But that's a whole other article.

And all this before we've even thrown reputedly 'greedy, extortionate' football agents into the mix. Not to go deep into this one, here - a topic of much, recent debate - but guess what: Even with football agents operating, top footballers are still playing football for top football clubs and billions worldwide are still paying to watch it. Go figure (?)

If you really do have a problem with top footballer's wages, take a long, good hard look in the mirror, my friend. You are a walking, talking specimen of that which you denouncing: Capitalism and the free market economy. The market is not cheatable; it is a mirror that clearly reflects value: sought and offered. Look into that mirror. Observe the jeans you wear, the shirt on your back, the ring on your finger, the phone in your pocket. Who forced you to dress in this garb?

You see, along every step of the way lies a choice made by an individual. A footballer. A fan. An agent. A football club owner. To disparage the market is to defame the individual who made a decision under his own philosophy based on what he wanted at that time AND what was available to him - all by his own free will.

So the next time you denounce footballers for their 'unearned' fame and fortune, just remember it's YOU who's paying for them to drive that Ferrari. I'm trying to put my team's weekend loss out of mind until their next game. They're my heroes, and I hate it when they lose. I pay them to win. This is life. I love life.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

We're taught in this world that to be judgmental is bad. "Don't be so judgmental!" is the cry from the nil by minds in response to any judgement cast by the humanpreneurs. We're told to reserve judgement, in favour of preserving the status quo, and that it is 'disrespectful' to judge someone.

But to reserve judgement is to assume the other human is weak and can't take honest criticism that could be used in order to better himself, so you're obliged to either lie outright, or to be 'diplomatic' - a statist-created word that basically means to skirt round the truth using subtle lies in a bid not to upset someone, thereby keeping them weak in the process.

The dictionary definition of the word 'judgement' is, as follows:
The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

So then, to judge someone is to use your mind, honed from a life experience of reading other people AND based on the information gleaned from every aspect of that person's make-up (I.e., mental, emotional, physical, etc) to form an opinion of them. If you value your life, this is exactly what you'll spend your time doing. The last thing you want is someone in your life that offers no value whatsoever and simply takes, takes, takes. The more they take, the less you're left with. And if you're happy with your life of charity, then please, by all means, continue living that way. It's your funeral.

The 'judging' is the analysis of a person, and the 'judgement' is the diagnosis of that person. The information offered as evidence of a person's personality can include their body language, the area they were brought up in, their religion, their profession, etc.

But sometimes, being 'judgmental' is called 'prejudging', as, according to the brain dead, this is judging someone before you know anything about them. This is incorrect, since details like these say a LOT about someone. The way somebody moves, the car they drive, or the area in which they've chosen to settle down are not accidents nor are they coincidental.

The man walks with a shuffle, doesn't hold eye contact, and has a weak handshake. Your experience tells you that this man is not trustworthy, and you judge him to be weak. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man was brought up in the roughest part of town - and he's never moved out from there. Your experience tells you that he may not have the ambition to aim higher in life, and therefore you judge him to have no value to offer you as a friend. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man is a devout follower of a religion. He believes in self-sacrifice. He spends his Sunday mornings in a haunted house, praying on a mat to the invisible - for a brilliance that he'd realise he already has if he'd take the time to look for it! Your experience tells you that he'd put a ghost before himself and his family, and you judge him to be disrespecting of his existence as a human being. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

The man drives a dustbin lorry for a living. His uniform is a high visibility vest. Experience tells you that he probably has no desire to run a business or become a stockbroker, so you judge him to offer no value to your business or career. Hey, you could be wrong - and the man may prove you to be so, but with so little time and a multitude of people out there, surely it makes sense to move on to the next man?

Yet, any form of critique by one human unto another is seen as disrespectful, and inhuman. But any act of 'diplomacy' between two humans is seen as a mark of respect, regardless of the lies that have been told in a bid to 'respect' the other's feelings.

Allow me to use a recent sporting example of this 'respect'. Recently, in a Premier League football match between Manchester United and Arsenal, one of the United players, in a display of confidence and skill - and enjoyment - decided to juggle the ball whilst running down the pitch. Frustrated at being on the losing side, a chasing defender, incensed at his opponent's flamboyance, decided to lash-out with a kick.

At the end of the game, the showman was vilified by the losing manager and players for 'taking the mickey' and being 'disrespectful' of his opponents - all for using his skill to his advantage and enjoyment. Apparently, performing at your best is disrespectful of people that are of lesser ability. And the 'done' thing is to scale back your brilliance so as to appear on 'equal' standing with your peers.

This 'equality' ideology has got out of control. I'm going to write in depth on equality sometime soon. But for now, let me say, that with every passing day, it seems laws and legislations are passed that force duct tape over the mouths of the strong, and at the same time hand a microphone to the needy.

And what's worrying is that the nil-by-minds are clamouring for more. Everytime another law claws itself into the rulebook, it becomes another shackle on the wings of freedom, and another step in the direction of slavery and with it, ultimately, the end of the human race. If we are to be free, to simply 'stop' all this is not enough. To start moving toward freedom, we need to actually turn around and start walking in the opposite direction.

The right thing to do is to give every human being in your path a smile and the benefit of the doubt, and then continue on - until they prove you right or wrong. If they prove you right, well then maybe they're on the same path as you - going in the same direction. If they prove you wrong, then move on immediately. No human who disrespects his immense human potential to live well below his capability should have any place in your life.

You only live once, and the clock keeps ticking. Don't waste time on the energy-suckers in this world.

Master your power of judgement. It comes in pretty handy, I tell you - no matter what the zombies tell you.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 on Thursday - a show I both love AND hate. I love it because it's a good indicator of where society is at by way of the topics Jeremy Vine talks about, his 'non-specific question' asking techniques (never offering his own opinion), the so-called experts that share their two cents, and the chumps that phone up and chime in with their fear-centred views. I'll be writing a lot on topics discussed on Jeremy's show.

And then I also hate the show because, well, all of the above. Often times I'm left shaking my head in bemusement and anger at what I'm hearing come out of my fellow human beings' mouths. I'm always shocked at how anti-freedom - without always realising it - the speakers are. If these people were free to rule the world, the human race would quickly eat itself. Fortunately, we're not there, yet - we still have time.

So the topic at the top of Thursday’s show was the situation of supermarkets selling alcohol at a loss to get people in the door, and supermarket, Tesco's, announcement that they would gladly accept new government regulations forcing themselves and their peers to raise their prices above that of cost (wholesale) in a bid to curb the alleged drinking problem in the UK.

Questions that were raised by this announcement, and the ensuing debate between an MP and a 'Science and Society Director', focused on the likelihood of this having an overall effect on society, and whether Tesco had made the move under concern for the 'public's' health OR as a publicity act as a way to deflect criticism.

Some of the views of the phone-in chumps covered a wide spectrum, including people complaining that a raise in prices would taint their weekend bottle of wine after a hard week's work, or how pensioners would struggle to afford their usual consumption level, or how the raising of prices is a good thing as it would deter kids from buying it.

Someone commented that in Europe, alcohol is cheaper, yet they are without our so-called 'binge drinking problem'. Someone else lamented that it was the fault of the police for not dispersing of drunkards effectively. A pensioner argued that supermarkets shouldn't be selling alcohol full stop, and that it should be left to off licences and pubs to sell it. A father concluded, after watching the alcohol-charged 'Brit Awards' on television the night before, that the blame lied with thirsty celebrities.

Other remarks made were that there should be a limit on how many units of alcohol should be allowed to be sold per person, that alcohol should be taxed across the board, and that it wasn't fair for youths to be attacked again in a seemingly never-ending vendetta against them from more senior folk.

This feature, for me, was a definite head-shaker as - if you have any semblance of a philosophy similar to mine - you'll notice that all the comments, concerns, theories and ideas are centred around control and anti-freedom. I shake my head so hard in disbelief when people think anti-freedom leads to freedom. They are at opposite ends of the path, my friend.

So where does the problem start? You've heard the saying, "Guns don't kill people: people do." Society is made-up of individuals, and individuals make their choices in life based on their philosophy, which was moulded from their own life experience AND what was fed to them intellectually in their formative years. It comes down to choice: you decide to drink, you pay the consequences incurred as a result of your actions. Except, in today's society, YOU don't have to pay the consequences. But I HAVE to pay them for you. Observe.

In today's society, everyone's (the producers) money goes to pay for complete strangers whom will get into any trouble they want. This Saturday, a man will get completely drunk, and not have to worry about the cost, because when he gets thrown out of the club in a defunct heap, and into a fight, he'll be carried into a non-drunk-funded ambulance and lovingly driven to a non-drunk-funded hospital to be cared for by overworked non-drunk-funded nurses and doctors, just like last Saturday, AND most probably next Saturday too - all free of charge! The lucky scamp!

Today, on any given Saturday night, hospital 'Accident And Emergency' wards are massively overrun with a high percentage of patients having drink-related injuries. Stomach-pumping, fight wounds, you name it. The cost is huge. And it's the rational whom are footing the bill.

In an ideal world (I.e., that which I'm fighting for) it would be down to an individual's choice, and the consequences thereof, that would determine his path in life - not the anonymous contributions of a tax-paying hostage. If a man wants a drink, he earns the money to pay for it. If he incurs physical harm from it, he pays for it. If he can't pay for it, he'd better hope that he has someone that will help him out, or that there is a charity - funded by volunteers - that will support him, because in a truly free society, there would be no 'free' health care.

If a man gets injured in a drunken brawl, he would pay for his healthcare. If he couldn't afford it, why not? If he gets himself into the position where he can't afford healthcare, he gets into trouble and ends up needing it, that's his problem.

And what about if a man who ventures out in the evening, completely sober, but gets unwittingly involved in brawl with a bunch of drunks? Who should pay for his healthcare? He should. He decided to go out knowing full well that there are people out there that will happily relieve themselves of their senses every weekend by drinking themselves into a maniacal mess. Bilbo Baggins once said, "It's a dangerous business stepping out of your door, you step into the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to." He was right. Life is choices. Or at least, that's how it should be.

The issue of kids getting hold of cheap cider that is cheaper than lemonade, but stronger than beer, and then causing trouble on the streets has been gaining ground, too. So whose fault is this? Is it the government's? Is it their friends'? Is it the area they live in? If you choose to have kids, you accept full responsibility for the development of their philosophy. If they become drunken louts, you have to take some of the blame for bringing them into this world. You moulded their philosophy before they took it and made it their own. You chose the area they were brought up in, and therefore the calibre of person they would be in contact with. It all started in the bedroom, my friend.

In conclusion, I ask: how do we end this? The answer is the same as in any societal issue. It comes down to individuality, responsibility and the freedom of choice. If humans were truly free in this society, there wouldn't be a problem. If you wanted a drink, you'd earn the money and you'd buy it. If you couldn't afford it, you find a way to earn the money.

If you didn't want to earn the money to buy it and would rather steal it, you'd steal it, knowing that theft is a crime that begets punishment; at the very least you'd be ostracised from rest of society for anti-social behaviour. If you developed a drinking problem, whereby you became addicted, the same rules would apply. If at any time you harmed yourself physically, for example, via getting into a drunken brawl, or by destroying your liver, you'd pay for it.

Unless you fixed yourself, eventually, you'd kill yourself. It sounds harsh. But there are some people that want to live, and some that aren't bothered. It's the ones that can be bothered that stick around. Drinking magnifies your behaviour. If you're violent, you become extra violent. If you're sloth-like, you become extra sloth-like. And so on.

A system whereby the rational, productive want-to-liv-ers are robbed at gunpoint (try NOT paying your taxes for a while) to pay for the unproductive, irrational can't-be-bothered-s does NOT work. A system that robs people of choices, yet encourages and rewards bad behaviour does NOT equal freedom. End of story.

And who stands between this elusive freedom and our current 'come one, come all' culture? You guessed it: the government. Until the power is returned to the individual, no matter what rules and regulations are imposed - the culture will remain the same.

See what we're up against..?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

When I was a kid of around 11 - 12 years old, my friends at school used to chat about the naughty films they'd stayed-up late to watch the night before. If you were a boy growing up in the 80's, you'll remember the ones I mean: National Lampoon's European Vacation and Class Reunion spring to mind.

My mates used to spend all day raving about the topless girl scenes. I had nothing to say since my parents would insist on censoring films like these that they knew I wanted to watch, recording them (on VHS) and then editing out all the good bits.

This used to incense me at a time when I was just discovering females as sexual objects (not literally, of course) and my friends' regaling me with breakdowns of the bit where the hottie jumps into the pool topless, or where the nerd looks through the keyhole to see the high school princesses getting changed, and my frantically searching the tape looking for these bits, only to discover that it had been cut by my very own private censorship board left me empty and envious of my jammy friends.

Maybe this contributed to my fight against - amongst other things - censorship. If so, I guess it was a good thing! But in reality, censorship is a bad thing, since it involves a minority robbing the choice of the majority. Let me explain.

There are many forms of censorship: moral, political, religious, military, corporate. Right now, I'm going to talk about the actual philosophy of censorship, its implications, and reasons for its negative effect on society. For this purpose, I'll use the film classification example.

The main worry with the idea of freedom from film classification would probably be the effect of the prophesied explosion of films limitless in their violent and sexual content would have on society. To believe in the idea that the human race would spiral into rapid deterioration if censorship was lifted is to not understand humans at all.

Let's pretend, for example, that censorship of film was no more. And let's say a company wanted to make a film with extreme violence of the kind never before seen in a film. Incidentally, a film of this nature could only be made possible in today's human-depravity-addicted climate - as small a minority as it is - and only by someone actually despicable enough to actually want to make it.

I mean think about it, who in their right mind actually gets turned-on at the thought of humans ripping each other to pieces? The kind that want to make films like these, that's whom. In a truly rational, human society, there would really only be a tiny minority - if any - that would actually want to make this type of film. And there would be an equally tiny minority - if any - that would want to watch it.

Now imagine that your twelve-year-old kid wants to go and watch this film. A lack of film censorship has made its creation possible, right? But it's you that now has the choice of whether your child watches it or not - NOT a third party organisation.

So the choice now, is, do you let your child watch the film or not? If you have any standards of course, you wouldn't let your child watch it. And in an ideal world, NO parent would let their child watch the film. But what about the adults that want to watch it?

Assuming no children would be allowed by their parents to watch the film, it would therefore only be adults that would want to go and watch it. At this point, adult fans of these films would be the hungry market giving life to these films via ticket fees and video sales - the profits transformed into further, sicker films AND the existence of their fans acting as proof that there was indeed a market for the films.

So, in our example here, every party so far mentioned now has the power and freedom of choice (except the kids, whose parents forbade them going to see the film. This is part of the role of a good parent and contributes to the maturing of a good, rational adult. To let one's children's impressionable minds be exposed to films like these would result in offspring of weaker morals, since the concept of humans ripping each other to pieces as entertainment would be embedding itself into the child's philosophy.)

So with that said, with everybody in our example completely free - the filmmakers to release the film uncensored, the adult viewers to watch the film uncensored, and the parents to allow their kids to watch it or not - how does this all back-up my claim that censorship is bad?

Let's break it down. The filmmakers are free to create and release any film they please. And in this example, they've chosen to create a film of excessive violence. How is this a good thing? It's not. But it wouldn't be the freedom from censorship that would be to blame. Analyse why they made the film - it's because of the way they are as persons.

Why are they the way they are? Because of the choices they made. Why did they make the choices they made? Because of their philosophy. Who grew their philosophy? They did, based on what was fed to them as children, during the development of that philosophy. Who fed them as children? Those that reared them. Who reared them? Their parents, guardians, monkeys, criminals, etc.

So if their philosophy, obviously, has led them to create negative, depraved films, then surely those that reared them are ultimately to blame? Yes, mostly, but also are the 'morals' most prevalent in their society. What if society HAS had a big effect on their wanting to create these films? The genetic parents chose to have them, and in doing so, accepted FULL responsibility for what went into their minds in the child's formative years AND the admission that the society they chose to bring them up in had the potential to influence them in great ways, too.

What about the adult viewers? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for watching it. What about the parents? If they didn't stop their kids from going to watch the film, why was that? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for letting their child watch whatever they want. What if the kids somehow escape and watch the film anyway? See the previous answers - but swap creating the film for having and rearing kids that want to escape guardianship.

Moving on. Consider those that phone up, or write to a television company, complaining about the lack of quality television programs. Acknowledging the power of choice, what's the solution, here? Change the channel. What if you're not happy about paying for a television license where most of the stuff you're paying for is rubbish? Don't have a television license and get a new hobby. What if you demand high quality television programs, but there are none? Make your own television programs!

We're talking about the power of choice. Every time something is censored, the decision is being made for us by an organisation, the representatives of which we've likely never met before. We can conclude that the negation of choice and, with it, the implementation of controls, inhibit the growth of humans, caging a man, making him want to break free.

If we lived in a truly free society, and I mean FREE in every way, with objective laws existent only to protect this freedom of man, a police force to enforce it, and an armed force to protect the borders from foreign invaders, the world would be very different.

For a start, the savages would die out with effective policing and the protection of the civilised, therefore stifling the savages' barbaric ways.

The non-productive would be forced to produce as their line of welfare and support - their passive, automatic means of survival - would be cut.

The irrational would be forced to become rational, as they would no longer be protected by subjective laws, the validity of which dependent upon the arbitrary philosophy of random judges.

The mystics would be forced to finally realise that the beauty on this earth that wasn't here before they arrived, was actually created with their own hands, since any hypotheses suggesting otherwise would finally become transparent in light of the belated recognition of there being no proof of it.

The strong, creative, industrious and honest would thrive as they would finally be free to operate at a maximum human capacity, thus advancing the human race further. Any irrational minority would simply be impotent within such a system.

Therefore, there would be no need for censorship in a completely free society. There would be few - if any - making stuff that REALLY needed censoring, anyway, and there would few - if any - consuming it.

This is what we should be fighting for.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

You've probably heard the proverb, "The meek shall inherit the earth." It is a classic line from the Bible, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (MATTHEW 5:5). By 'meek', the Bible is referring to those that are humble, placid and gentle and whom are willing to share and sacrifice on behalf of others, putting their lives before their own.

The book means 'meek' to denote the opposite of arrogance and violence, and infers that those whom are NOT meek can be seen seeking domination and will use any means necessary to trample over and crush others with complete disregard. And in true Bible-style, it implicitly places anyone with confidence, ambition and individuality in THIS category.

Let me define exactly what the Bible means when it uses the term 'meek'. It means anyone that is unselfish. I.e., anyone that places someone else's life before their own. The funny thing is, the only place you could meet such a person would be in a mental home! I've said it before: humans are self-sustaining animals. We get ourselves out of bed, we feed ourselves, and we wipe our own arses (I'm talking about the average, able-bodied, healthy human, here.)

I.e., we put ourselves first, every damn day of our lives. To say otherwise is a complete lie. Any human that didn't put himself first would be a complete burden to himself AND society, spending his time lying around waiting for his arse to get wiped, which would never happen since his fellow 'unselfish' would be lying around waiting for theirarses to be wiped, too!

It is anyone that shoots below his capability. It is anyone that, armed with a spear, chooses to aim it at the mountain instead of the moon - which is too high - and eventually shoots at the barrow so as not to appear greedy to his other bottom-feeding bromides. Ladies and gentlemen: welcome to the meek.

Yep. Thanks to the power-hungry, vote-collecting-by-pleasing-the-inept-nil-by-mind 'brain-dead' - the meek have been having a fine old time on yours and my expense for some time, now. And the worrying thing is, their existence and support for have become part of culture. To give your money to the meek - indirectly via taxes - is the norm. To not have to pay taxes would be 'outrageous', "How would the poor and needy survive?" the statists would wail. They wouldn't.

Business and goals philosopher and speaker, Zig Ziglar has a good analogy for this, which I shall paraphrase, now. Up in the smoky mountains, there lied a village that lived in fear. There were wild boars in the woods that had grown so used to human activity that they had become fearless, and would run amok, eating crop, attacking people and causing great disturbance to the village's inhabitants.

One day, an old man rolled-up in an old, rickety horse and cart, climbed down, and explained that he'd heard about their problem with the wild boars and had come to help. On noting the dilapidated state of the cart, the skin-and-bone nag and the old timer's moth-eaten garb - the villagers weren't exactly filled with the greatest of confidence. But since they'd tried everything else to be rid of the boars, they accepted the old man's offer of help.

So he disappeared up into the mountains and wasn't seen for days. A few days later, he returned with the triumphant news that he'd captured all of the boars. Astonished, the villagers demanded he tell how he did it. "Well," he started, "First of all I went up there and knocked a wooden post in the ground and sprinkled some feed on the ground by it."

"The boars eyed me suspiciously at first, but eventually, their lust for the free feed won them over and they shuffled to eat the grain. The next day, I banged a second post into the ground, and scattered more feed down. Again, the boars were wary at first, but on recollecting no riposte from me yesterday after eating the food, they came over and did so, again."

"On day three, I put in a third post and the boars started to wander over before I'd even finished with the post. I laid the feed down for them and they gladly ate it. On day four, the boars were waiting for me. I put the fourth and final post in, and sprinkled more grain."

"Over the next few days, I continued like this, this time strapping wire to the posts - the boars snapped-up the free food as per normal. On the tenth and final day, with a four-sided, strong wire fence in place, I rigged-up a trap mechanism on the gate into the pen."

"I walked in, scattered the feed as per usual, walked out, and waited a few yards away as the boars wandered in to have their fill. As soon as the last boar was in the pen, I let the trap go, and as we speak, all the wild boars that have been terrorising your village - are trapped safely in the pen."

When you give a man a fish - you feed him for a day. When you teach him how to fish - you feed him for life. When you give him fish, shelter and health care every day for the rest of his life - you turn him into parasite. A man that offers nothing of value to society, is of no value to that society whatsoever. He renders himself useless.

It is thanks to the meek that we have such things as 'diplomacy'. Diplomacy can be defined as side-stepping the issue via bullshit in an attempt not to upset the other person by a process of dormant-self-esteem pity, thereby keeping that person weak by means of ineptness-approval.

Diplomacy can be seen in such guises as a pat on the back for coming second, or as a reward for bad behaviour. This encouragement of a sub-standard, sub-human way of living is good for no man.

Another great invention of the meek is 'democracy'. democracy is when a minority - its smallest denomination being an individual human - being at the mercy of the majority in a group consensus. Noone is free. It is like a giant hoop thrown over an entire group, with the minority forced to comply with the majority's arbitrary wishes - all for the sake of collecting more votes for the power-hungry inept.

This results in a dilution of human greatness potential, as the great are brought back in line with the undeservedly-promoted masses. Anyone showing a hint of greatness is seen as arrogant and megalomaniacal. Who knows where our race would be now if it weren't for the impedance of the meek? The meek have had their fill. It's time for ours.

But the reversal of this process cannot be carried out overnight. We are talking about generations of meeklings, past and present, that have lived off the strong in such a way that the complete extinction of their drip-feeding would leave us with a society full of savages brandishing any kind of weapon they could lay claim to.

You can guess what would happen next. No, to go back, or rather: to go forward - would require a plan consisting of stages of re-independence, or 'weaning'. Only then could the meek become strong, and of value to themselves and society. Any other form of existence is a waste and disrespecting of one's human potential. That's not being a humanpreneur.

The meek are inheriting the earth. It's time to reclaim it.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens