If you ask most people what it means to be spiritual, they'll tell you that it means to believe in God. They'll tell you that it means to pray in times of desperation and need. They'll tell you that it means to talk to angels. They'll tell you that it means to be in contact with the 'other side'.

I used to spend time meditating and visualising and drawing 'Angel Cards' and muttering mantras in an effort to 'be in touch with my spiritual side'. I read books on the soul, love, angels, etc. I referred to myself as a spiritual person. I fooled myself, with the aid of the books, into believing that by being in touch with my spiritual side in this way, I was laying the foundation for a solid and moral philosophy that would lead me into a life of integrity.

But after years of living in this way, at the end of it all, I was left looking into a vacant hole where a little thing called happiness should have been - and with it the stark realisation that the stuff doesn't work. It's literally just a waste of time. It's just an alternative for action. Intelligent action. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not completely condemning any form of introspection.

On the contrary, it's intelligent contemplation of my thoughts, feelings and direction that lead me here, to the discovery and undertaking of a life purpose that consumes my entire soul. But there's a big difference between intelligent, rational thinking and reasoning - and the emptying of one's mind or the conversation between invisible fairies and your soul.

So what IS the soul? The soul is not just some ghost that flits from one incarnation to another. But at the same time, we're not simply lumps of flesh. In that respect we, as humans, are no different to any other animal on earth; a butterfly is not simply a lump of flesh. Where we DO differ is the fact that we have a mind capable of choice, or free will. The soul is really the composite of your mind, body and emotions. When one of these dies - you die. End of story.

As I've grown as a person, I've come to realise that, actually, everyone is spiritual. Everyone sane, that is. The reason for this is that to be spiritual is to be in touch with your soul. Your soul - you, your self - can tell when it's happy or not. When you do something wrong by your mind, body, or emotions - it makes you feel bad.

When you do something right by your mind, body or emotions - it makes you feel good. And every sane human seeks to be happy - it's their number one goal. To live otherwise is insane. Everyone seeks to be happy by pleasing themselves - everyone is therefore selfish.

Anyone who practises a life of selflessness - that apparently lives to ignore their soul (mind, body, emotions) - i.e., who lives to deny their own happiness, is either a liar or masochistic (and hence won't live long). These types of people are not spiritual, no matter how adamant they wail that they are.

So, then, if everyone sane is spiritual and lives to be happy, then they welcome - they strive for that which makes them feel good. Anything that makes them feel good. Laughing, good sex, rollercoasters, football matches, fast cars, beachfront properties, a good book, the theatre, sky diving, etc.

With that said, being spiritual does not mean going to a haunted house every Sunday to kneel on a mat and pray to ghosts. It does not mean sleeping on the floor in a mud hut, wearing a loincloth and swatting flies. It also does not mean living in world where money doesn't exist. The mystics would have us believe that to be spiritual is to denounce money and the 'material' as evil. But what is the 'material' exactly? The dictionary definition of 'material' is:

Composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be perceived by the senses.

So, then, the material is anythin that can be touched with your fingers, smelt with your nose, heard with your ears, seen with your eyes, and tasted in your mouth. Anything material you wish to own costs money - clothes, fast cars, good books, beach front properties, mobile phones, cutlery, etc.

So to denounce the 'material' is to denounce not only those things which make you feel good, but also those things that make your life comfortable. To denounce the 'material' is to opt out of a life of comfort and advancement, and in to a life of the Neanderthal. And there's nothing spiritual about that.

Ideally, the solution to a rewarding, spiritual life is to figure out exactly what it is you want to do with your life, shut out everything else that detracts from that, and just do it. So why not just live ideally? Well, if you're anything like I was, you may have qualities, traits and beliefs that you know are not congruent with your purpose, yet are proving just too damn hard to shake-off.

I've shaken-off some of mine. I still have some - sometimes the programming goes deep. But I reasoned that burying my head in an angel book, or meditating, or repeating affirmations until I'm blue in the face - are all not the answer.

No. The answer is smart work. Just like anything in life that you want to become good at. You work out what's holding you back from becoming who you want to become, and you go to work on improving these weak areas. With action. I physically work on my fears everyday, and I can honestly say they are disappearing. No angels. No 'ohm'-ing. No closing my eyes and picturing that which is invisible to me. No tricks. No gimmicks.

Sure, I have pictures and images of my dreams and goals in my line of vision at my desk, but these merely serve to constantly remind me of the prizes waiting for me during my journey. Their attainment will be realised by nothing other than intelligently conceived hard work. Not meditation or affirmations.

It's good to be spiritual. Just not in the way you were thinking.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

I used to love the television series, 'Friends'. I still watch an episode, now and then - there are some scenes and episodes that never fail to crack me up. I just love the character, Chandler. Absolutely hilarious.

But there's an episode that I just can't watch. It annoys the hell out of me, in fact. It is 'the one where' anti-capitalist hippie, Phoebe, wants to undertake a completely selfless act of charity, so she decides to give some money to a charity in such a way that she won't benefit from it. I can't remember exactly how it happened, but it transpires that, unwittingly, her gift did in fact make her feel good.

An analogy of this is a dog trying to bite its own tail. It spins in circles chasing its elusive tail, never catching up with it. You see, there was nothing selfless about Phoebe's donation right from the start. Why did she want to give to the charity? To make herself feel good. Read, selfish. It didn't matter how fast she span trying to catch up with her tail - she never would.

Whenever you help someone out, for example, by giving them a lift somewhere, or collecting a parcel for them, you do it because you feel good by helping that person. This is called, 'selfishness'. It is NOT being 'selfless' as the mystics and statists preach.

Selfishness has been given a bad reputation, and the sad thing is, people don't even know what it means anymore. Or rather, people refuse to acknowledge its true meaning. This is the lie that they have been living for centuries. This is the lie that will bury the human race if it is allowed to continue to exist.

So, what if you help someone out all the time and they never return the favour? What's happening here, is that you're giving value to them, but they're not giving value back to you. The two of you are both being selfish, since you're giving them a lift because you get joy out of helping them, and they're receiving the lift because it meets their needs.

If they continue to take the mickey like this, and you decide you now want to redress the balance by not helping them anymore, you're doing so because you respect yourself and you don't want to carry on giving away your value for free - you're being selfish here, too. And that's fine!

Any time you do something selfless, what you're doing is something that doesn't make your 'self' feel good. There is nothing noble about that. To live a life of selflessness is to live a life of masochism.

As humans, we have a capacity to achieve very great things, and likewise to enjoy the journey. To honour this by striving to achieve something - and by doing fun things in life - is to respect your existence. This is true selfishness. This is how to live. That's being a humanpreneur.

To live a life of 'pure' selflessness, it would involve the pursuit of something that didn't make you feel good, or your soul soar. It would mean straying away from anything that made you feel good. To live a life like this would be to live a life of zero value OR to live a life evading any values you had aimed to achieve.

Selflessness is NOT a value. It is an ANTI-value, since by acting selfless, i.e., doing something that does nothing for your soul, you are paying your self no value. A value is something that is good for you and your soul. It is anything selfish.

Of course, you can life a life whereby you give value to everyone else except to yourself, but this is a life akin to prostitution. Are prostitutes selfless, then? No - they get paid for it, at least, don't they? Just an aside

Now, when you truly analyse it, is there anything you do right now in your life that actually doesn't make you feel good on some level? I don't mean helping someone out when you don't want to. This is still being selfish, as the person whom you are helping invariably holds some value for you. Helping someone whom you hated - now that would be selfless. But what about if you were helping someone you hated, but it was for a cause you approved of? Good point.

You'd have to be helping someone you truly hated, doing something toward a cause you truly despised of, for it to be truly selfless. But ask yourself: "What would make you want to fill even a second of your life with this?" Insanity, I'd imagine. Show me a selfless person, and I'll show you a nutcase - to paraphrase Sinatra. Kind of.

Remember, being selfish is doing something that ultimately makes you feel good. Doing something selfless is doing something that ultimately doesn't make you feel good at all. Who knows how long you've got. Make it count, fill your soul with passion. Be selfish! Don't listen to what the nil by minds tell you. You CAN help someone out AND feel good about it. That's being selfish, too, and that's good! You do it because of the joy it gives you.

Be selfish. It's the only way to live.

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

You've no doubt heard the term, "Choose your friends wisely". But do you actually do that? Where did you meet your current friends? Maybe it was at your place of work, a previous job, or even at school. Sometimes your best friendships can be the ones you've had the longest.

But 'longest' doesn't always mean 'best' - not to be confused with another popular subject. Imagine the person you were at school. Remember what you wanted to be - your goals, dreams, desires. The music you liked, your hobbies and your ambitions all defined whom you were.

At school, I was always a drifter. I remember when I started playing guitar, at thirteen years old. I befriended - and started to hang around with a bunch of guys who also played the guitar and were into the same kind of music as me: rock. We all had the long hair and used to wear the black jeans and the token gothic T-shirts symbolising our hate for the world. And for a while, that was who I was.

Then I realised I'd had enough of that phase, and my identity changed. I stopped spending time with that group of friends and started spending more time with other friends. This happened a few times throughout school, college, early jobs and deep into my adult life - constantly changing identity and swapping-out friends to fit accordingly.

The point is, up until the time where you realise you can actually make your own decisions in life, your friendships are based more on proximity and practicality than compatibility and similarity of purpose and goals.

Is it a good thing to change your identity? Yes it is, if you need to. When you realise who you are, where you are going in life, and how your identity is defined by it, you may be happy with that realisation, or not. You may realise that, actually, what you want in your life is completely different to what you first thought.

And when this happens, you'll discern that the person you are - your identity - is not congruent with your goals. So you then have to change your self, and mould your character into the person that is going to ultimately achieve the goals you want in the pursual of your purpose.

It's exciting stuff. I went through many identity changes until, at twenty-nine, I eventually discovered what I wanted to do with my life after opening many doors. That's twenty-nine years old. Not sixteen. Thirteen years after choosing my A Level courses at college which, looking back now, are completely incongruent with my purpose.

Anyway, to get back to the point of this article, the person you are now may be vastly different from the person you were at school. The same goes for your school friends. So if you are still close friends with your school friends - and by 'close', I mean you spend time with each other every week - have you both really changed since school?

And maybe you both have changed, and you've followed the exact same path in life, toward the same ultimate goal. Or maybe you both haven't changed, and you are both still on the same exact path that you were both on at school.

Either way, this is called coincidence, or influence. To explain, let's use a fictitious example. At school, you were best friends with someone. One day, you decide you want to become a professional tennis player. It becomes your purpose in life. You practise and play at every opportunity you get.

And your best friend also makes that same decision, playing tennis with a view to becoming a professional. Now, did your friend also decide to become a professional tennis player - as influenced by you (which is fine if that's what they really wanted to do)? Or was it just a coincidence that they started to play, too.

Either way, you both decided to become a professional tennis player, and hence your purpose is the same. Your friendship is compatible and beneficial to each of your purposes, since they are exactly the same.

But let's say that after you decided to become a professional tennis player, at school, your friend realised that he wanted to be something different in life. One of two things can happen. You can go your separate ways, since the time you once used to spend together is now taken-up with the pursual of your respective purposes (likewise, the time you do spend together is strained, since it's harder to relate to one another with your both now having different and incompatible goals.)

Or, you may still stay best friends. This may be a good thing or a bad thing. It really depends on how much time you spend together and how that time is spent. The question is, is it beneficial to your own purpose and life by keeping a friendship going just for the sake of longevity, if it is taking your energy away from your actual desired goals?

I have ultimately, unabashedly chosen my current friends based on the value they offer me and my purpose. They fit. That's honouring them, since it confirms they have values that I hold high. I have had many friends fallen by the wayside - some that were close. To have stayed friends with them would have been lying to them and to myself. That would be disrespecting myself and my purpose in life. I don't have time for that. Life's too precious.

Take a look at your friends. Would you swap any of them out, if you could? Yes? So what's stopping you? To stay friends with someone just because you've known each other for a long time is criminal. It's fake. It's lying to yourself, and it's lying to your friend. It's completely disrespecting your existence and purpose.

And that's just not being a humanpreneur.

Time for a clearout, maybe..?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

So today is St. Valentine's Day. The shops are full of teddies, balloons and big red cards. But do you actually know what it all means? I'll bet you don't. But I bet you still celebrate it, don't you? Thought so.

Now, I don't know what it means, either. I've never been interested enough to find out. In fact, now, I don't even celebrate it. Call me a scrooge, call me unromantic, call me boring - but I don't need a special day in the calendar to tell me when it's time for me to tell a girl how I feel about her. You see, I am spontaneous when it comes to romance.

And it's the little, original things that keep a romantic relationship strong. The little notes left in the lunch box, the dirty little text messgaes, the shirt ironed for you. But consider this loving couple. They both have busy lives. They both work, they both have active social lives. Consequently, they don't spend a lot of time on romance, or passion, or fire. The relationship seems incidental to their lives.

So when the festive holidays or Valentines Day roll around, suddenly they're reminded that they're actually in a romantic relationship with each other. They suddenly remember that there were bigger reasons for their courtship than mere proximity, companionship and business-like sex.

The shops are stocked full of red delights: cards big enough to be cupboard doors, teddies that take up a whole bed, balloons galore - anything you want in any colour you want, as long as it's red. The couple, separately, while walking past a garishly-decorated shop window on their lunch break, think, "Ah! While I'm here, I'll pop in and get a card for my other half." They leave with a bag full of goodies, and their work is done for another year.

That's not love. The couple think, "Oh well, at least they got me a card - they must love me." But love is more than a word, and it's more than a reminder of that word. Love is a doing word. And true love is earned. It's a reward. So it's a trade-off. Someone shows their excellent qualities to you, and you reward them with your love.

And, as a corollary, rewarding someone for their bad behaviour is, obviously, a bad idea. Would you give a dog a bone if it ate a chunk out of your sofa? No, of course you wouldn't, because if you did, he'd think, "Okay, every time I bite the sofa, I get treats!" You'd soon be sofa-less.

So why do people act differently when it concerns humans? Why do people think that love from others is a given? Unconditional? What makes people think that they can be a useless lover/child/parent/sibling/friend, safe in the knowledge that it’ll soon all be forgotten and themselves, forgiven? The answer is prevalent in today's society in many forms: film, music, advertising, shop windows, etc.

The basic message being preached is: treat your loved ones badly - it's okay if you do because they'll forgive you. Because to err is human, to forgive is divine. True love is unconditional, and the forgiving of sins is the demonstration of that.

Excellent. So for how long exactly is it okay for someone to be a rubbish human being and be rewarded for it? "As long as shops are full of big cards and teddies" is their answer. And there lies another example of the sub-human way of living that is being taught to society from birth. And therein lies another example of my reason for this project.

I'll say it again – true love is earned. It's constant. It's shown in how you live, and it's rewarded as such. It's who you are. A big red card once a year is NOT love. That's forgetting what love is, and then remembering that you were supposed to show it, and then stating it in black and white on card as proof of the non existent love in hope that you will be given a year's extension to your contract of love.

No. True love is being proud of who you are, of loving yourself, of respecting yourself, of being a bullet-proof giant who doesn't have time for dishonesty and fake, and whose vivaciousness is repelling to the evil, and attractive to the good.

Love is the rewarding of - and the reward for - being selfish. The man that loves his life enough to fill it with good people, by virtue of him keeping those people in his life, is loving them, and their place in his life is guaranteed by virtue of their loving their own lives.

It sounds complicated, but it's simple, actually. Be selfish. Love yourself. Get yourself a Valentines Card. For every day of the year.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens