I've often heard people say, when discussing their careers, that they "love it so much they'd do it for free." And this always makes me wonder, would they? If there truly were no way to make any money from their career, would they still do it? And if they were making no money from it, would that then be because their service or product was of no value to anyone else?

Imagine if you were a musician - a guitarist, let's say. Your music is popular, people are happily putting their hand in their pocket to come and watch you play and buy your music. You're getting paid well for what you do. It pays you more than enough to have to do anything else to live the life you want to live. You love what you do, and you say, "I've love this so much, I'd do it for free."

Suddenly, all your music stops selling and people stop coming to watch you play. You are now no longer making money from performing and recording. But you love what you do, so do continue to do it? Let's say you do carry on. Eventually, your funds start to run dry as you've no money coming in from anywhere. You love what you do, so you can't stop.

You take to sitting in a treehouse in your pyjamas, living on berries, guitar in hand, reasoning it’s the only way you can continue playing. Eventually, you run out of money. It's decision time: do you quit playing the guitar and get a job instead? Or do you make your way to tribe-inhabited lands where you must catch your food with a spear - just so you can continue doing what you love? If you're not getting paid, who's listening? What are you moving? Noone and nothing.

Let's pretend you're a therapist. You have an office with a nice comfy couch for your clients, who gladly hand-over their hard-earned money for the unchallenged opportunity to vent their frustrations. You're doing well for yourself. You live in a nice place, drive a fast car, and go on exotic holidays. You love what you do, and you say, "I've love this so much, I'd do it for free."

All of a sudden, people stop coming to you for help, and your client list shrinks. You love what you do, so you continue to do it. You move your office into a caravan - which also doubles as your home - and offer your clients cardboard boxes to sit on instead of the comfy couch. You see where I'm going with this?

For your product, career or service to drop in value is for you to allow it to do so. The market determines what you can charge for your service and how much to pay your employees. The better your product, the more the market will support a higher price, allowing you to live even better. To work for free is not honouring your existence and potential as a human being, since you're not pushing your life to the maximum.

When people wail that they'd do what they do for free, is this a dig or a misunderstanding of capitalism, maybe? Spiritualists will happily defame capitalism all day long, spouting idioms such as "love conquers all" and "money isn't everything." Getting paid as much as you can to do something you love is what being human is all about - it allows you to reinvest into your excellent life: read, humanpreneur.

As I said before, capitalism is the free (marginally) movement of product and service from the producers to consumers in exchange for equal value. Without capitalism, nothing would have any value, and so there would be no demand for anything other than bows, arrows and loincloths. There's no shame in earning money from what you do. It's a capitalist economy (although not free like it is intended to be) that gives your career the value it is giving to you, to your customers and to your employees.

Were it not for capitalism, you'd likely not be doing what you do since there wouldn't be a market for it. Without capitalism, your days would probably be spent climbing trees looking for fruit, wandering around in a robe muttering ancient spells or toiling away in squalor in payment for a stale loaf of bread. The whole "I'd do it for free" argument, therefore, is redundant.

Another point to note is that even if you were wealthy enough anyway to be able keep your therapy business running for free, it would scarcely get the business it would otherwise get if you were charging. When something is free, or well below the expected market price, people wonder why. Not only that, but for any takers of your free service, they wouldn't appreciate it, anyway, since noone appreciates something that is handed to them on a silver platter.

In conclusion, if you'd do what you do for free - the question should be, is it really the right business for you? Only you can answer that.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

I'd been recommended by my mentors in the self development field a million times to read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged before I finally got round to getting it: Christmas 2006 - some six years after I'd first heard of it. And even then, it lay dormant on the bookshelf for another few months. Before I continue, let me point out that there will be spoilers of form in this review.

Being an avid reader of anything self development, its one thousand plus pages put me off reading it, since I was expecting a much shorter, non fiction book of true self help style and not some monster of fiction; I didn't want to spend a few weeks or months plowing through a book, hoping it would measure up, only to discover I'd wasted my time on rubbish when it could've been spent on a decent read, such is the value I place on my time.

Eventually, on reading the synopsis one day, which resonated heavily with the philosophy I'd been furiously honing for a while, I decided it was time to delve in, reasoning that it was now or never. And was I pleasantly surprised. The more I read, the more I couldn't believe what I was reading! Every chapter, every scene, every interaction, left me reeling and exclaiming, "Yes! That is how to live!"

To say that this book, which is the fictional representation of Ayn's 'Objectivist' philosophy, fit with my own, new, growing philosophy - is an understatement. Rather, at a time when I was just building the foundation for this site, I was suddenly given fresh purpose and impetus.

The book itself is very well written. The plots are racy, the characters - deep, the backdrops - massive and the moral - right. Ayn Rand leaves no stone unturned in giving a detailed background on all major characters - and even some of the smaller, less important ones.

The book's events are broken down from every relevant viewpoint, allowing you to form your own alliances with the teams and characters of your own, calculated choice. Although you won't have gone too far in Atlas Shrugged before taking the right side.

Indeed, for anyone that has a flicker of, at the very least, 'suppressed' anger at the seemingly unrelenting, merciless, surreptitious journey toward a totalitarian state - worldwide, I challenge you to not get riled and fired-up at the evil in the book - because it is this evil which is represented in our media today.

The antics of the enemy in the book will fill you with fight, passion, cause and ambition and you will duly feel inspired to become your own version of a Hank Rearden, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, to step out your door and face our own Dr. Robert Stadlers, Mr. Thompsons and Jim Taggarts. And you wouldn't be alone: A poll carried out in 1991, by The Library Of Congress and The Book Of The Month Club reported Atlas Shrugged to be the second most influential book behind the Bible.

And if a survey of 1,239 American adults - conducted by Freestar Media/Zogby between October 10 and October 14, 2007 - asking the question, "Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?" is anything to go by, its 8.1% affirmative would seem to suggest that I'm not a member of an exclusive club in being a reader myself.

Quite simply, if you're reading this site, there's a good chance that this book will do something to you. Something good. I strongly recommend you make it the very next book you read. You can pick up Atlas Shrugged over here. And when you have, come back here and tell me what you think. I could use someone like you…

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

Nobility. A word once ascribed to warriors on a battlefield, kings on horseback (not to endorse monarchy) and to all-round high achievers. But now, it seems the word has an entirely different meaning, in light of those that are today labelled as such.

Various definitions of the word 'Noble' pulled from a dictionary include:

- Of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence;
- Admirable in dignity of conception, manner of expression, execution, or composition;
- Very impressive or imposing in appearance; stately; magnificent;
- Of an admirably high quality; notably superior; excellent;
- Famous; illustrious; renowned.

Yet today's 'dignitaries' and 'admirals' apparently can be found cleaning a toilet for a living, such is their moral elevation granted by society. Observe the multitude of reality television shows aimed at scooping the dustman off the street, thrusting him onto the stage or into the fake house with the other misfits, giving him a microphone and granting his 'life of struggle' as capital into a life morally reserved for those whom actually earned it. Today, you can aim low in life, but as long as you're seen to be making a struggle of it, you are noble. Ladies and gentlemen: introducing the working class!

Now there is nothing wrong in starting out in life cleaning toilets and sweeping floors (I've had a million such jobs whilst building various businesses), but every human has the capacity to achieve greatness, and to ignore this potential is disrespectful of oneself. To forfeit a life of attainment in favour of a life of mediocrity is a waste of a life. To reach for shortcuts is an admission of one's said ineptitude.

So why is bottom-feeding seen as such a noble art? It would seem that this view is congruent with that of the anti-capitalist, "To rise above your station is greedy" doctrine. It's a common view that today's world is a greedy, heart-less, animalistic arena of material bloodthirst. But in reality, it's the other way around.

It's actually the capitalist, intellectual, mindful, rational realm of reason and freedom that is the minority, today. It has slowly succumbed to the mindless, spiritual (the false kind), emotional creed whose foundation is represented by such axioms as: 'love' over reason, effort and 'right' over ability, 'need' over desire, and paucity and 'integrity' over prosperity and abundance. It's this crippling ideology that is today's 'nobility'. Let me explain.

To use an issue currently under scrutiny: underlying the vitriolic outbursts against fuel and utility 'price hikes' is a complete misunderstanding of the market and the real meaning of freedom. Due to centuries of ignorance and brainwashing it is a belief that everyone is equal and deserves the same reward.

This said anti-capitalistic monster again rears its ugly head with outcries of "Greedy billion dollar oil companies!" and "Unfair gas prices!" and "It's a crime against the working man!" The government perks up, salivating at the thought of extra votes, and imposes legislation, regulations and directives that serve to halt the price increases. The consumers are temporarily placated, but nobody asks the question: "How are the prices determined in the first place?"

If the protesters really looked into it, they'd realise it was they who had the largest say in the price their electricity bill by virtue of their demand for it giving it its subsequent value. The 'working man' makes every choice along the path to eventually paying for the apparent extortionate utility bills.

He chose to live where he lives. He chose to use electricity. He chose to pay for it. Noone forced him into it. It was he, along with the millions of other homes, that consumed the commodity, thereby increasing its demand on supplies, thereby increasing the need to replenish those supplies, thereby increasing costs needed to sustain fulfilment of the demand.

As someone who rents a property and uses a key meter system for electricity supply, I am among those that should be wailing for price cuts. Compared to those that use regular meter systems, I am paying more per year for my electricity and gas. But as a tenant, it is not my decision whether I switch to a regular meter. That is down to the landlord.

But while others wail, I remain happy, since I am conscious that it is my decision to live here and use a key meter system. I live in a secure house, in a tidy, safe neighbourhood, and I get to use clean running water, sleep in a warm bed and speak to you through a fast internet connection.

I made this possible by seeking, securing and sustaining employment in a fairly well paid job. I keep my expenses down to minimum, whilst enjoying myself, and I am constantly working on making myself a more valuable human being which will ultimately result in higher income, the quitting of said day job, and the enjoyment of a dream lifestyle. I make this possible by choosing not to be 'working class'.

The naïveté of greed is illustrated in an article, "Are Electric Scooters Really An Oil Company's Worst Nightmare?" The article explains the increased demand for electric scooters in America in light of rising gas prices. The sub-headline reads, "Thanks in part to the public getting sick to their stomachs at the unreasonable profits that the top oil companies are generating at the expense of the working class and the revised interest in global warming, electric scooters can be seen just about anywhere."

But the writer gets it wrong by failing to understand that there is reason for the profits. Who pays the profits? He does. Willingly. Unless, of course, he writes his articles from a treehouse in his pyjamas and rides a bicycle to work. Secondly, he is correct when he states that the oil companies are generating these naughty profits at the expense of the working class.

But he doesn't go on to say that it also at the expense of every person that uses their product, since the consumers are expending their money in payment for the oil (petrol/diesel). That's generally how capitalism works. He also doesn't tell us that the working class and co. are obtaining their oil at the expense of the oil companies, since the oil companies are expending their oil in payment for the money. Oil for money. Money for oil. And all at the conclusion of a rational, free choice - on the part of both parties involved.

The article goes on to say that consumers are, apparently, increasingly choosing to spend two hundred to three hundred dollars on an electric scooter in favour of lining the pockets of the "already billionaire oil companies." But he has nothing to say about 'lining the pockets of the electric scooter companies'.

The article's topic - electric scooters and the high oil prices - is largely unrelated to THIS article, but it's the mindset that correlates. It's the exaltation of the working class, the denigration of the high achievers, the denial of responsibility, the lack of self respect for one's human potential AND the confusion surrounding capitalism and the market - that are showcased in the scooter article.

What will our bemused commuters do when the road is full of electric scooters and prices go up in line with demand? Who will they blame for taking their money, then? Who will they blame for the clogged roads and pavements full of 'Twist 'N' Go's'? The saga continues.

On the battlefield, the noble man is the one at the front, sword in hand, teeth bared, brave and open - completely vulnerable to attack. He is not the man at the back sweeping the armoury and polishing the guns. Yet our simple, happy-go-lucky, whistling floor-sweeper demands the same treatment, respect and privileges as the warrior. And he's granted it by the vote-seeking state.

The opportunity is there for every human to raise their value infinitely to attract the life they see enjoyed in 'Hello' magazine - the life they so vehemently defame, yet spend hours on the sofa following on the television screen. A life of achievement requires accountability for oneself, responsibility for one's choices in life, and the continual improvement, day-after-happy-day.

It's a struggle - more so than raising a family on a cleaner's wages, but with self growth comes a constantly growing capacity for 'struggle' that correlates to ability and guile, to the point where one could take a day off to clean toilets safe in the knowledge that the bills were already paid for that month from the profits of one's expanding business. Now, that's noble.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

Today, in the UK at least, it's Easter Sunday. And here, we have laws that prevent shops of a certain size trading on this day. Now, if you've spent any amount of time on this site, you can probably already guess my answer to the headline question. The answer is 'yes'. What? Just kidding. The answer is a defiant 'NO' - we definitely do not need Easter Sunday trading laws - or any trading laws, for that matter.

The law, called the Sunday Trading Act 1994 states that shops over 280 square metres or 3,000 square feet big are permitted only to open for six continual hours between 10am and 6pm on a Sunday, and not at all on Easter Sunday. In researching this article, I couldn't find any objective reason as to why the law had been passed. The best I could find were generalities such as, "It's a time for families" or "It's for social and religious reasons."

On the BBC news site, I found a story from the 15th April 2006, titled: "MP Opposes Easter Sunday Shopping." At the time, talks were taking place to extend Sunday trading times, as supermarkets had requested the right to open on Easter Sundays AND to stay open for three extra hours on regular Sundays. A cross-party panel, including the said South East Cornwall MP, a Mr Colin Breed, was opposed to such plans, with their 'reason' being, again, "social and religious." They didn't go into detail.

Colin Breed had this to say, "I don't think they [the supermarkets] should be trying to steam-roller over every single aspect of our lives and we don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops. I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion. They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are."

There are so many points wrong about this statement that I almost don't know where to start. Firstly, how are the supermarkets 'steam-rollering' over our lives? I feel just fine, thanks, Colin! Maybe where he lives, supermarkets knock at your door and force you by gunpoint to visit their store? No.

Colin, in keeping with his socialist beliefs, is ignorant as to how supermarkets earn their money. Here's how it works: They stock a product that consumers have shown they want, the consumers agree the price is right, and then they buy it. If they didn't think the price was right, the supermarket, if they wanted to stay in business, would have to improve the quality of the product to match the price, OR decrease the price to match the quality, at which point the consumers start buying.

Freedom of choice is evident at every step of the way, here, from product conception, to stocking, to selling and buying. No 'steam-rollering' has taken place. The market is the only regulator you need. His second point is even better.

He remarks that "'We' don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops." Squeeze what, exactly? What he fails to acknowledge is that the supermarkets were smaller shops at the beginning, too. But their ambitious owners decided that they weren't content with serving milk over a counter for the rest of their lives, and so planned and worked toward the expansion of their one shop into many, much larger ones.

As they, too, had their own competition, they had to operate with guile and genius in creating a product and service that was of superior quality and price to that of their competitors. And their eventual reward was a chain of supermarkets that people regularly, willingly visit to buy their quality products at the right price.

Colin continues: "I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion." Erosion of what? He doesn't say. Then: "They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are." Hmm… Would the supermarkets profit from doing this?

If they did, it would be because people, again, were willingly putting their hand in their pocket to buy things they wanted. If the supermarkets didn't make a profit from 24/7, what would be the sense in their throwing money away keeping the shop open? Again, the market is the only regulator you need.

As an ex-retailer for many years before venturing into the business world, I was privy to the first hand views of fellow shopworkers. Needless to say, the opinions were split as to whether the law (which was a few years old by then) was a good thing or not - with most believing it was. In fact, unsurprisingly again, the majority actually believed the law was a bad thing, and that they believed that NO store should be permitted to open on ANY Sunday.

Indeed, shopworkers are among the loudest protesters. According to another BBC news story from 25 June, 2006, titled: "Shoppers 'Want Long Sunday Hours'", any Sunday extensions were vehemently opposed by the Church of England and Usdaw, the union representing shopworkers. What a surprise. The same cross-party panel 'warned' that extended shop opening times on Sundays could give some parents less time to spend with their children. (Referring to parents who willingly choose to work somewhere that operates on a Sunday)

They explain, "We would like to see this country return to a day of rest, to have a day when families can be together, have the Sunday dinner, go out and go to the seaside, play in the park." That would be really nice for them. I'm sure they'd like to hire officials round to our houses to make sure we're complying with their wishes, too. In fact, we could even sit on the floor, eating spotted dick for dessert, then ride our penny-farthings down to the park, play with our spinning tops and completely return to the nineteenth century. As long as they get their votes.

To briefly touch on the religious aspect of the Easter holiday, in the aforementioned articles a case was made for the 'respect' of Christianity. In light of it being a religious holiday, this is natural. But, being an atheist, and fighting for freedom, comments like these serve to add fuel to my fire.

If it isn't bad enough that businesses are forced to close their doors, the 'reason' given to them - that it is to pay homage to a man who came back to life again - is pure madness. Allow me to be the kid in the street calling-out the emperor wearing no clothes by declaring that this is absolutely insane.

Many businesses have been speaking out in opposition to the trading laws, exclaiming that they have cost them thousands in lost revenue. This is revenue that consumers were happily dipping their hand in their pockets for to hand over in exchange for goods and services they really wanted. Many business owners said that until the regulations were imposed, the Easter weekend was the busiest four days of the year.

Yet anti-capitalist, backward, anti-human organisations such as the 'Keep Sunday Special Campaign' would gladly have those same happy, volitional shoppers forced to stay at home against their will in order to preserve tradition.

If proof is needed that shoppers would rather have a choice to shop on Sundays or not, observe the findings of a 'YouGov' poll carried out for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, (which wants the Sunday trading laws to be deregulated) - as reported in the previous BBC article.

Of 2,331 people questioned for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, 57% said they should be allowed to shop when and where they want, while 23% disagreed. The campaign claims that deregulation would generate an extra £1.4bn for the UK economy and bring England and Wales into line with Scotland. The 23% would evidently prefer to have the choice taken away from them in order that nobody made more money than them. That's mental suicide if ever I heard it.

The poll executers' rival campaign 'Keep Sunday Special' says it wants to see Easter Sunday return to a family day of rest. But the poll clearly indicates that they don't want to rest. So, to force people into doing something they clearly don't want to do, is anti-freedom, and is the brainchild of nut cases.

To sum up, what we have here is a complete negation of choice and freedom. The nil by minds clamour for rules and regulations, but as per usual they fail to realise that with every rule comes another loaded gun at the head of those that break it. This is not freedom. Freedom is waking-up on Easter Sunday and realising you need to stock-up on supplies, remembering you won't have time to shop for a few days, and having the option to pop down the supermarket today, as it's your best chance.

Freedom is wanting to own a supermarket chain offering quality goods to people, at the right prices, deciding to open on Easter Sunday, and either reasoning that the sales warranted a future opening on this day, or not, but being free to choose either way.

Freedom is deciding it's time to hire extra staff to cope with the expansion of your supermarket chain, and being free to do so, pitching wages that you feel represent the value of the jobs you are offering, and either having this wage offer vindicated by the receiving of applicants, OR receiving no applicants - signifying that the wage offer is too low - and being free to offer more (or less, if the converse is true).

Freedom is wanting a job in a supermarket, finding a supermarket that is offering work, learning that they open on Easter Sundays, and the successful applicant may be required to work then, deliberating whether you would want to work on Easter Sunday, and making your final, unforced decision in light of this information.

Without choice, there is no freedom. This is what I'm fighting. Are you with me?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

About a week ago, I posted an article titled, "Who The Hell Are You?". It was all about how one defines who they are. It was a good article. But, since I wrote it, a thought has been nagging me, telling me that I wasn't concise enough with my points, and so may have left some people a little confused. So in this article, I'm picking-up the baton again, and going into further detail…

So, a few years ago, a friend of mine was lamenting about how he didn't like being single and how he couldn't 'get' a girl. Being more experienced in this field, I proceeded to give him some advice on how to change himself to become more attractive to women, and therefore have a better chance of attracting them into his life. His reply was a haughty medley of societal, brain-dead clichés. He didn't believe in changing oneself because that meant 'trying to be someone you're not', and that he'd 'rather just be himself'.

His self defence quietly infuriated me - I knew I was powerless to inspire him to change, or rather, he was powerless to admit that he had to change to attract what he wanted. From that day on, until recently, whenever I've borne witness to someone uttering the same non-specific, meandering self deceit that my friend was spouting, I haven't failed to feel a little frustrated, asking myself the unanswered questions: What makes someone who they are? When is one being someone they're not? Why do I become angry whenever someone speaks this way?

Part of that anger was due to the fact that no matter how much I philosophised upon this, I just couldn't come up with an answer to the above questions. I continued to think about it for years but couldn't put my finger on it. But as my philosophy grew stronger, reasons started to appear, and I will now put those reasons forth.

Firstly, you've heard the proverb: "You are what you are" haven't you? For years that saying frustrated me, because it seemed so abstract and inaccurate. But as I honed my philosophy, I realised that actually, that old adage was a good place to start, in that everything a person does is a projection of who they are. Every action, every subconscious thought, every word uttered - all are an extension of one's philosophy. But the mistake my friend makes, along everyone else in his camp, is to concede that who you are, is who you must remain. Observe.

The man goes to work, he constantly makes mistakes, losing his temper every time, and is not someone to be comfortable around. His colleagues tell him, "Just be yourself!" His manager pulls him aside and tells him, "You're trying to be someone you're not. Don't try so hard!" He thinks to himself, "Aargh! What the hell does that mean? I AM trying to be myself!"

The truth is, he IS being himself. He is what he is. His actions - the making of mistakes, losing his temper, etc, are all indicative of who he is right now: an unhappy, unconfident individual. What his colleagues unconsciously mean when they advise him to 'just be himself' is to be the self that every human has within him the capacity to 'become', the self that every human should aim to be: The humanpreneur.

It's in everyone's best interests to better themselves, to increase their value - to become a humanpreneur. A humanpreneur possesses all the objective qualities that serve to allow him to live to the utmost of his capability. It's this state that every human should strive for. But noone is born a humanpreneur. Everyone must become one.

Indeed, there is no such thing as natural talent, natural ability, 'gifted', or 'natural born' anything. Every baby is born a clean slate; a blank program. You are the way you are because of the way you were programmed in your formative years, until that programming rendered you conscious that YOU could program yourself, and then you took over, still possibly open to outside programming - the extent of which dependent upon the programming you received in said formative years.

So what exactly defines who you are? It's your thoughts, your philosophy, your choices, the way you talk, the way you walk, etc. All of this determines your value. And you attract into your life that which is of equal value to your own. To use an example: walking. The man wants to change his walk. People say, "Why change the way you walk? That's who you are! Stop trying to be someone you're not! Just be yourself!"

But they fail to ask the question: What made him walk the way he does right now? The answer? He did. Based on his programming. Everyone chose their walk based on the programming they've received throughout their lives. They may not realise it, but they did. That walk defines who they are. It defines their value. What if the man has a hunched-over, fast-paced walk? It displays a lack of confidence and pride - inside and out. That's who he is at the moment.

Does that mean he should keep his walk because that's who he is? No! If he really wants to better himself - as every human should - he needs a more valuable walk, one that projects confidence, power, self esteem and pride. He needs to slow his walk down, chest out, head up, shoulders back, head straight forward. When he first tries this, it won't be who he is, because he's never done it.

In the same way as when you first ride a bike, it's not you because you've never done it, and it's incongruent with who are. It's 'learning to ride a bike' that's who you are, when you first try. Then, when you get better at the new walk (or riding a bike), and it starts to become more natural - THEN it is who you are.

It has become your natural walk, and you do it without thinking. The confident manner of the walk and the attributes that define it (slow, free, tall) have served to project a new, inner confidence that has grown from the exercising and practise of other traits. And congruency is attained. This walking example is just one example of the million things you can change about yourself to become more valuable - to yourself.

With all that said, I'm going to put an end to this right now - there's NO excuse for staying the way you are, just because that's the way you are. Unless you really DO want to stay the same, you'd better move out the way of all those that DO want to strive to be brilliant - as every human should want to be.

Improving yourself does NOT mean being someone you're not. It means doing things you wouldn't normally do - things that those whom you are striving to emulate do themselves - until those things are natural, your value therefore increased, and the reward of like value - now, rightfully yours; in the process, becoming a better you.

The advice I gave to my friend all those years ago focused on acquiring traits that a humanpreneur possesses, traits that would serve him in not just the attracting - and enjoying - of a girl(s), but also in achieving greater things in life. I explained to my friend how to act around a woman (how to display masculine, leadership qualities), I told him what to say (how to convey confidence and humour). I was showing him how to become a more valuable human being.

All this advice would have meant him 'learning a new walk', that wasn't his at first. But, with practise and exercise, the walk would soon start to feel natural, until it became HIS walk, and then all the prizes that having a valuable walk such as this wins you, would now rightfully be his.

But he opted to keep his low value walk. With a low value walk, comes a low value life. You can't cheat life. And I realise now, it's this choosing of mediocrity, to deny oneself the excellence that is there for the taking, to crawl instead of walk - it's this that makes me angry. This laziness. There's no reason for it. You are who you are. But if you don't like what you have, then you must change who you are. And you can change who you are. Three things go with change.

First, you must decide you really want to change. If you've been programmed as an irrational human being, then you probably haven't read this far, and if you have, most probably think I'm a freak. More fool you. The irrational are like a computer with a virus. Any programming will immediately become infected and hence ineffective. The irrational are not a lost cause, but they need to wipe that virus before they can change.

Secondly, you must decide you really want to change - for yourself. To decide to change because someone else wants you to, or simply to please someone else - is not a true desire to change. It's a completely subjective and abstract way to live. You may as well be a satellite orbiting a planet: wherever the planet goes, you go, since you are gravitating in their atmosphere. The secret is to become your own planet. The bigger, the better. Let people gravitate in your atmosphere. The bigger you are, the bigger the satellites that orbit you.

Third and finally, changing is not an overnight occurrence. It can take a lot of time and energy to change, depending upon how deep the bad programming is that you want to replace. In conclusion, then, ideally, we all need an objective goal when it comes to aiming for whom to become. That objective ideal is… The humanpreneur. It's the best state of a human being one can be. It's individual. It's free. It's strong. It's respectful. It's genuine. It's excellent.

Aim to become a humanpreneur. It's what you were born to be, wasn't it?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

A few years ago, when at a network marketing seminar, one of the speakers, Chris Mason-Paull, I believe – a successful MLM business owner – put forth a people-sorting analogy that has remained with me ever since. It illustrated how, when building a business built on people, the onus is on you to 'go through as many oysters' as you can, as quick as you can, in order to find the ones with the 'pearls', quicker.

It was a great analogy, and it stuck with me, albeit unconsciously. It wasn't until years later that it resurfaced when I was philosophising upon relationships, and the art of finding the right person to settle down with. I reworked the oysters and pearls 'concept' into my own theory. I've mentioned it before, but for the sake of this article, I will explain it once again. My aim of this discourse is to go further into depth. First, here's my theory…

You see, when it comes to relationships, there are two kinds of people in this world: 'weepers' and 'seekers'. Now, before I explain that, let's first pretend that all the millions of potential partners in this world are oysters. And that only a few of them contain a pearl.

Firstly, what the 'weepers' do is they grab the first oyster that comes their way and they open it up, hoping it contains a pearl, and, realising it doesn't, they close the oyster, and say, "Oh well, if I love it and caress it, and do everything I can for it, then surely, a pearl will appear". So they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it again, hoping a pearl has appeared. But still no pearl.

So they close it again, they kiss it, caress it, put it on a pedestal, do everything for it, and then open it, once again hoping a pearl has appeared. Still no pearl. Eventually, the oyster gets bored from all the pressure and waiting around, and the weeper ends up losing the oyster, and then they cry, lamenting that they hate oysters, that they’re all the same and how they'll never find the right oyster for them. With me?

Now, the 'seekers', they understand that there are millions of oysters out there, they realise that only a few contain a pearl, and they reason that, by logic, they'll have to go through a lot of oysters before they find one with a pearl. So they find an oyster, have some fun, realise there’s no pearl, put it down again, and move on to the next oyster. Have some fun, open it up, realise there’s no pearl, put it down, then move on to the next oyster. But they know that with each oyster they find that doesn’t contain a pearl, it brings them closer to one that does.

And with each oyster they find, they learn more about life, and they become better at understanding oysters, so that they can ultimately spend less and less time with each oyster they find before realising it doesn't contain a pearl. And when they do eventually find an oyster with a pearl, they'll know exactly what to do to keep hold of it. I’m a seeker. My question to you is, are you a weeper or a seeker?

My main reason for my writing this article is that, at times, even after explaining my excellent theory, some people will still hit me with the same question, "What if you find the oyster with a pearl, now, before having gone through many oysters?" Their point, when they ask me this, is that could I really be as harsh as to turn away someone that could potentially be right for me - the love of my life - if I wasn't supposedly, ready?

But the art of choosing the right person involves a lot more than the heart. If you have your values set, you'll naturally fall in love with someone that lives by those same values. If you've fallen in love with someone whose values are conflicting with your own, you need to examine your values.

I've gone into this before in my article, "Is It Right To Play The Field". But, I'd like to be a little more specific by breaking it down, further. So, in answering the question of why I wouldn't settle for a pearl if I found one early, allow me to sum it up in the following points…

1) Every human has a value and he should spend his life constantly increasing his value, because the higher his value, the better value he attracts into his life. This is what it means to be a humanpreneur.

2) I love women. I love the way they walk; I love the way they talk; I love the way they laugh; I love the way they smell; I love the way they feel; I love the way they taste. I love their anatomy; I love that I'm physically stronger than they are; I love that they expect me to lead and to be dominant and I embrace their femininity - I just love women. And in the same way that I love to travel, I want to go to as many places on earth as possible; in the same way that I love food, I want to taste as many different dishes as I can; in the same way that I love adventure, I want to try as many crazy things as I am able - so I want to experience as many different women as I can before I settle with one, and…

3) Finally, because value attracts value, the more I increase my value in life, the higher value woman I'll always want and naturally attract. And the more you increase your value, conversely, the fewer oysters you find with pearls in, since you become more discriminating in your search for that extra special oyster - which is therefore harder to find. But when I'm nearer the man I am striving to become, and I know exactly what I want in a woman, I'll be ready to attract her and keep her for good.

As I said, these points are based on my own situation, so point number two is subjective. But, points one and three should be objective laws to live by. For you, you may find someone like yourself early on, someone who is also a humanpreneur, striving to increase their value. It may turn out you are both on the same path, you are compatible, and therefore can grow together.

Whatever you do, put yourself, first. The partner you attract will only be as 'quality' as you. Make yourself 'top quality'. Remember my motto, 'Mecum et incipio et finio', translated from Latin to, 'I both begin and end with myself'. Words to live by.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

Faith is an emotion that has long been recognised as a pillar supporting a positive outlook on life. Its association with religion aside, the word is synonymous with hope, goal-setting and achievement. But I wonder, is it really enough to simply have 'faith'?

Sure, faith alone won't make all your dreams come true. You don't have to be an atheist to realise that action is what separates conception and realisation. But I declare that it really goes deeper than a mere coalition of faith and action. In fact, I know this to be so. Let's take a look at a dictionary definition of the word, 'faith':

- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing;

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Let's discuss the first part of the definition: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Now, imagine someone in your life whom you know inside-out, someone you don't even have to question, you know them so well. You respect their values, and ever since you've known them, you've never known them to lie. They've proven themselves to be honest.

With that said, then, when dealing with this person, is faith really needed, since they speak the truth? Think about it, if you know something or someone to be true, 'faith' is, therefore, by definition, redundant. Faith assumes that there is an element of doubt in the person or thing. If you know something or someone to be true, it stands to reason that there is therefore no chance that any contradiction could exist. It is not faith, but a knowing, a certainty about this person, based upon your discriminate judgement of them, that leaves no need of faith.

Now let's study the second part of the definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The truth is, it could only be a belief if it didn't rest on logical proof. I remember a few years ago, in my network marketing days, I was at a party thrown by one of the pace-setters in the company I was in - Chris Mason-Paull. He was a successful, wealthy man and lived in a beautiful, big house with a pool, etc, etc. Very nice, indeed.

At one point in the evening, we were in a conversation with a Christian man about religious beliefs. Chris said something that remained with me ever since, because it was, quite simply, logical. He said, "If you have to believe in something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist". If there is no logical proof of something, then there is a chance that it doesn't exist. This goes for religion, the supernatural, creation, etc. Not to get into a deep monologue on the illogic of religion, here, but let me explain my point.

Surely, then, it makes sense to live by objective principles? Yes, it does! As humans, we can only be sure of having five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. We can also be sure that we are limited in the time we have to live. As humans, we are unique in the animal kingdom in possessing a reasoning mind. With all this considered, then, doesn't it make sense to spend one's life in the constant improvement of the power of these five senses AND of the mind?

To spend any time in the believing of that which hasn't even been proven to exist is a waste of a life. As humans, we have so much potential. We are the greatest race that has ever graced this planet. Our existence here, today, is testament to that. We have achieved some astounding things, and it's exciting to think about what else we will achieve. But it will only be by playing to one's strengths that the fulfilment of one's human potential will be realised.

Of some things in life, though, there is no proof for, yet there exist common beliefs for based upon logic. The best example I can think of is taken from a line by Russell Crowe's character in the film, 'A Beautiful Mind'. He said something like he "didn't know if the universe is never-ending or not, but he believed it to be".

Some things in life will be proved by science, logic and reason. Some, such as religion, will not and cannot. As a race, our survival and advancement lies in the hands of those that are striving to grow themselves using that which has taken us from swinging from the trees, to building skyscrapers. I can tell you that in those skyscrapers, you definitely won't find suited executives holding hands in circles chanting mantras and spells.

Time is short. Respect your existence as a human being, play to your strengths, and live in a constant state of improvement. You have everything you need - it's what got you here in the first place. It's time to take it - and you - further.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

This is going to be fun. In the next few articles, I'm going to break down the Seven Deadly 'Sins', each in turn. In case you didn't know, or indeed had never before heard of the seven deadly sins, they are basically a classification of seven 'vices', stated in early Christian writings, as a way to deliver followers from 'temptation' away from the virtues the sins are apparently opposing. Any yielding to a deadly sin is seen as destroying the life of grace, and carries with it the punishment or threat of eternal damnation.

Today, I start with 'Lust'. Now, the dictionary defines 'Lust' as an intense sexual desire or appetite. Is 'intense sexual desire' a bad thing? The Bible and its many versions of preachers would seem to think so. They seem to believe that the act of sex itself is a physical, carnal, animal act of misuse of the flesh, that it's only function should be to procreate. But the human body tells a different story…

For starters, did you know that its women, not men, who have an organ made solely for sexual pleasure? The clitoris. The clitoris actually comes from the same tissue that develops into the glans of the male penis. It has twice the number of nerve endings as the penis and, because it is so much smaller, it is ultra sensitive.

Women's orgasms that can last minutes, or much longer, compared to a man's, which can be over in seconds. Men have one orgasm and then lose their arousal. Women can have orgasm after orgasm - and many different kinds, too. Doesn't it makes sense, then, that women would want to enjoy sex as much as possible on a recreational basis, as well as just on a procreational level, rare as that would likely be?

As for men - the real men - it's no secret that we love sex, even if the act itself is not as intense as it is for women. For a man that truly loves women, a man who completely gets off on seeing his women enjoy themselves in bed, who isn't satisfied until he's enjoyed the look of rapture on her face as he makes her orgasm again and again - merely getting in and getting the job done is not enough; that would not be a true fulfilment or expression of his masculine sex. (And it's certainly not fun for the woman, too).

Now, all this is fine. BUT, the dictionary also defines 'Lust' as uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness. Illicit sexual desire. Lecherous. Hmm… With definitions such as these, one can only reason that 'lusting' in this manner pertains to those who are then committing adultery.

Indeed, according to this article over at 'Our Cheating Ways' on infidelity, writer, Peggy Vaughan, states in her book, "The Monogamy Myth", that recent statistics suggest that 40% of women (and that number is increasing) and 60% of men at some point indulge in extramarital affairs.

The reasons? There are a couple. But before I explain, you may recall my comments on the role, 'value' plays in relationships from my articles, Is It Right To Play The Field?, Is It Shallow To Go For Looks? and Oysters And Pearls. They're well worth a read. But, in a nutshell, every human has an objective value, determined by his values and the measure thereof. It's in a human's best interests to be always working to increase his value.

And because value attracts equal value, a man can only attract and keep a woman of equal value herself - and vice versa, of course. For this reason if a partner in a relationship raises their value, or the value of their partner drops for whatever reason, it is only natural that they will want to seek out someone of like value. So with that said, what attributes are the 'adulterers' seeking when they stray?

Concerning 'lust' and sexual desire, the two main, possible reasons for infidelity are genetic and spiritual. For a man, a diminishing of beauty on the part his partner (and subsequent lowering in physical value), can trigger his in-built need to pursue other, beautiful, healthy females (the embodiment of good genes) in a bid to spread his seed further and ensure the continuing of his line into further generations.

For a woman, a lack, or the receding of masculine traits in her man such as social status, leadership, dominance and ambition personify a male no longer equipped to protect her and the offspring, putting their survival at risk, and can likewise spur her to search for another male of like value, equal to the task.

For both the male and the female, on the spiritual level, referring to what we discussed earlier - men and women both love sex on a recreational level, too. Good sex feels good. And for someone that is good at it, that is a big tick in the box on their part - and a contribution to his overall value.

Sexual prowess equals higher value. Unfulfilled sexual desires are a big void in the value of the frigid/impotent partner. Now observe the restrictiveness and therefore vulnerability of the marriage contract - is it any wonder why, with the continuing sexual revolution, encouragement of sexual expression and the sexual liberation of women, that divorce rates are so high?

But the seven sins were highlighted to correspond with their opposing virtues, with 'Chastity' being the virtue in this case. And of course, chastity means abstinence from sex altogether. Further research, however, teaches us that the 'lust' that features on the Seven Deadly Sin list is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature.

So, then, can we take the Deadly Sin of lust to mean an overindulgence of sex, beyond what's 'required' - i.e., for any reason other than procreation? I'll tell you what overindulgence is: prostitutes, excessive masturbation, hours spent watching porn - among others. Sexual or sociological crimes such as bestiality, paedophilia, rape, and incest can be linked with a downward spiral into a lonely, sociopathic life fuelled by unfulfilled, natural, human lusts and desires - a cornerstone of a high value life. As an aside, it's a well know fact that some of our most ravenous bedfellows are those of a sexually-repressed, religious background.

The fact is, sex - good sex - is a wonderful, spiritual act - a celebration of two or more (or less) person's mutually respected value of each other. A good life is about balance. The ultimate existence of a human is that of a humanpreneur, i.e., one who strives to grow himself mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Sex isn't just a physical act. Those who say that just aren't doing it correctly! The body is merely the vehicle that allows us to enjoy it. The more we take care of the body, the longer we live.

Sexual nerve endings erupt with delight at direct stimulation, but women can orgasm without even being touched, using only the power of the human mind. Real sex is not without emotion, either. To say that sex is a base act is ignorant and despicable. As I said , good sex comes from two or more people celebrating each other's mutually-respected value for each other. Emotions abound; there's no room for the base, here.

All this makes for a spiritual experience that makes the soul soar as if riding a rollercoaster, driving a car fast, listening to an emotive song or savouring sweet sherbet. The continual drive for human improvement and the practise of good sex - coupled with the balanced lusting thereof - makes for an increase in personal value, which results in the attraction of higher value, like partners.

This process negates any desire for an individual to regress into a life of internet porn marathons, trench coat-flashing and stalking. Humanpreneurship - equals - higher human value - equals - attraction of equally-valued humans - equals - good sex - equals - desireless of abnormal sexual activities - equals - balance - equals - sexual fulfilment - equals - happier human race. Simple!

Finally, 'Lust', in the context of the Seven Deadly Sins, also pertains to any form of desire or overindulgence, not necessarily of a sexual nature. The idea is that to desire more into one's life, of a material nature, is sacrilege. We'll go deeper into this in other 'Sins', but my retort to this is the same: balanced lusting and desire is fine, and mandatory for the formulation of an idea of what to aim for. The attainment of (again, which will be discussed in upcoming articles) said desires, is effected by action - and, therefore, fully deserved.

In conclusion, recreational sex is a great thing. The lusting of it is natural and necessitates the realisation of the actual act. Nothing just happens - it is attracted into your life because of the person you are; any action effected by thought-out, conscious action. Excessive, irrational lusting makes for an unbalanced, low value life, which in turn results in low value experiences. The downward spiral continues until the volitional redirection toward a high value life.

Someone once said that if you want your dreams to come true, you have to wake up. Dream well, my friend, but not for too long.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

Today, we continue our in depth breakdown of the Seven Deadly Sins with an analysis of the Sin, 'Gluttony'. Once again, so I can be sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, let's look at the dictionary definition of 'Gluttony': excessive eating and drinking. Simple.

But how does one define excessive? Again, the dictionary tells us it means: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree. So, then, gluttony seems to denote the act of eating or drinking more than one needs to survive, since anything more, by this definition, is unnecessary.

Every vice in the Seven Deadly Sin list is given a corresponding virtue to live by. In the case of 'gluttony', its opposing virtue is 'temperance', which means accepting the natural limits of pleasures in a bid to preserve the natural balance. Resonating with the previous paragraph, by eating more than your body actually needs - into the realm of pleasure - is apparently enough to incur punishment of holy proportions.

Further research into the sin of 'gluttony' tells us that it is seen as an overindulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. So, apparently, consuming more than you need is 'waste'. A more in depth look tells us that, in Christian circles, the 'waste' tag comes from the mindset of "if you're eating more than you need, you're withholding it from the needy."

Citing an article on the sin that is gluttony over at Wikipedia, where the contributor had obviously done their homework, was the following: "Depending on the culture, it can be seen as either a vice or a sign of status. Where food is relatively scarce, being able to eat well might be something to take pride in (although this can also result in a moral backlash when confronted with the reality of those less fortunate). Where food is routinely plentiful, it may be considered a sign of self control to resist the temptation to over-indulge."

This is totally subjective. So, then, if you’re doing well for yourself in a poor community, you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your hard work too much, because it's not fair on the less 'fortunate'. Okay, so this means that those that are 'fortunate' enough to be able to enjoy a good meal, must have received their fortune in a cookie at the Chinese takeaway, since the advocates of this philosophy seem oblivious to the fact that fortune is created by action.

And if you're doing well for yourself, and live in a wealthy neighbourhood, (i.e., you decided you actually wanted to respect your existence as a human being and fulfil your massive potential by getting off your backside and creating something) to, again, enjoy the table of plenty before you after a smart day's work - is apparently over-indulging! Fascinating stuff.

I sometimes find myself completely bemused that today, still, in the twenty first century, my fellow humans are lazily refusing to understand how those that are living the life they read about in magazines are achieving it. They deny that the man that drives the Ferrari, who steps out in beautiful, bespoke cloth, and into the exclusive restaurant to enjoy a five course meal - actually created it all himself.

Those that truly enjoy life, respect their existence as a human being, and honour the amazing potential that goes with it - that live as a humanpreneur - choose not to over-indulge in food or drink, anyway. If they were to over-eat or over-drink, how long do you think these rational life-lovers would keep destroying their cells and clogging their arteries for before realising that they were destroying the very vehicle that allows them to live?

It's not gluttony, my friend, that will destroy our race: It's the existing systems that allow the power-seekers to legally extract a portion of the producers' hard-earned income to appease everyone else with the creation of support systems for complete strangers - including those that wouldn't recognise a hard day's work if it came over and fixed their broken boiler for them. This system is diluting the potential brilliance of our race.

It's stifling the humanpreneurs, and feeding the lazy. A system like this effects the depletion of the earth's resources, since they are being used quicker than they are being produced - the balance is out. Were humans left to be free, to produce, to sell, to charge what they wished for the product of their humanpreneurialism, with every man as an end in himself - only the best would survive, leaving plenty of room and resources for those that actually wanted to 'live'.

Until then, we live in a timebomb, awaiting the discovery of another planet to relocate to before we run out of resources here on earth. Either that, or we derail the system in favour of one that actually befits the human race. Hmmm… Now there's a thought.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis

Just a quickie to say that, in case you wondered where I'd got to, I've been transferring everything from this site, 'The God Is You' to my main site, The Scotty Stevens Show.

'The Scotty Stevens Show' will from now on be my home. 'The God Is You' will be disappearing completely. The Scotty Stevens Show will become what The God Is You was, and more.

It will contain a complete self development program, as well as the opportunity to participate in the movement…

Head over there, now. I'm still putting the finishing touches, but it will be finished, soon. And then I will be adding fresh articles in the same that I was here.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

ShareThis