===

A little bit lost and
A little bit lonely
A little bit cold here
A little bit of fear

But I hold on and I feel strong
And I know that I can
Like to know who I am

Been talking to myself forever
And how I wish I knew me better
But never seen the sun shine brighter
And it feels like me on a good day

On a Good Day/Oceanlab

===

I’ll be honest. I’m not sure I am writing with a viable idea in mind or writing simply because I has scribbled minimum viable predictability on a piece of paper and started wondering if there was a viable idea lurking within. So lets go on this journey together.

While it’s natural for people to crave predictability because it offers some stability maybe we should all crave limited predictability. Part of this may actually just be reducing environmental uncertainty. It’s possible I could suggest that this is all harnessing aspects of complexity, but, simplistically, the concept may simply be harnessing aspects of the world as it exists just trying to figure out how to get things done and how to do them well. and maybe what I am thinking is that while we are never really prepared for reality, if we can find a minimum viable predictability it’s possible we will least be prepared for the really important things.

Which leads me to the role of fear.

A sense of ongoing continual uncertainty only breeds a high level of continual fear. So, what is the price demanded by continual fear? On one end we get pseudo-intellectuals analyzing an uncertain world and suggesting things like ‘we are in a polycrisis.’ On the other end we simply get people careening between holding onto anything perceived as certain as their world tilts and letting go of anything and everything believing that living in the now is the only sane thing to do. So let me suggest that Polycrisis isn’t really a thing and it is actually just an accumulation of our fears. I say that because yes, the world is complex and we face complex things daily, but suggesting we can’t untangle enough to tackle things is a less than useful suggestion. It may be more useful to seek out some of the deep structural patterns and attempt to either navigate them or nudge them in different directions. This would demand that we avoid only what I would call point and shoot thinking, i.e., data shows this, so we do this and data says this, so we do this. But. Fear leads to measurement and numbers. We measure what we fear. Yeah. Numbers making decisions for us. Scary stuff. I call not non-viable predictability.

Which leads me to the past and numbers.

Fear and predictability often intersect with the past and numbers. What I mean by that is we tend to lean into the past on “historical learning” and the future on numbers or “what the future will be comprised of” with the intent to reduce our fear.

• The past

The past offers seductive analogies. Yeah. Exact analogies do not hold up to the scrutiny of the existing situation, but the illustrations they offer are often vivid. Through those illustrations it’s possible to discern some general improvements which might contribute to better outcomes. Ah. That “discern” thing. Part of the challenge is being able to discern whether change has happened, or is happening, or will happen, and maybe most importantly, if it is even happening at all. The past can certainly inform imaginative scenario thinking but (a) it has its limits and (b) we should constantly be testing those limits. To be clear. Scrutinizing the past CAN help in planning which provides for essentials to be in place – to expedite, limit, guide, counter, accept – as the situation suggests. This demands visualizing a desired future in realistic terms, or, envisioning the future which is undesired and the plans made to avoid it – both of which the past can help inform, but not predict. In rummaging around the past for some minimal viable predictability you must simultaneously hold these truths:

• recognize the future has no place to come from but the past, therefore, the past has some predictive value
• recognize what matters for the future – in the present – is departures from the past; the alterations, changes, which effect familiar flow and patterns thereby affecting any predictive value.
• Recognize time, and the situational context, is a reflection of the constant weaving of present to future, to past and present, making any decisions contingent upon ever-changing comparisons

My point is that none of this is exact which is what minimal viable predictability is actually all about. It has to do with dealing in the margins, maybe a little bit sharper sense of purpose, maybe a little bit better definition of a desired future, and maybe a little clearer sense of the danger and obstacles.

And while the past may not be analogous that doesn’t mean that it’s not useful to accumulate an inventory of historical learnings and the context within which those learnings occurred. This creates accumulated points of reference readily available within the thought process. Through that processing of the past you end up with a minimal viable predictability surrounded by an array of options all of which have associated probabilities defined by current conditions and capabilities within which the probabilities reside. To be clear. Looking back at past realities can suggest some limitations on some future possibilities and probabilities, but, the bottom line is it can illustrate some possibilities within the future.

That said. I cannot remember who offered this framework, but when viewing the immediate situation it’s helpful to think through things in terms of known, unclear, and presumed. This is a derivative of Follett’s law of the situation. This allows you to be able to think about the past or see the past analogies a little bit more clearly in order to be able to see that sometimes they share some characteristics to a degree and, though not analogous and specific, can surely offer reference points for the current situation.

• The numbers

It seems a common belief, in a fear driven world, to assume that any numbers about the future are better than none. Well. That’s just weird. Logically, in order to produce numbers about the unknown (the future) the current method is to make a guess about something or other, usually called an assumption, and to derive an estimate from it through some subtle calculations (numerical-based reasoning). The estimate is then presented as the results of scientific reasoning which is, supposedly, something far superior to mere guesswork. This is a pernicious practice which can only lead to the most colossal planning errors because it offers a bogus answer, absent of any real experience-based judgment, to some important questions. As a consequence, this means what is often called the foreseeable future is actually nothing more than wishful thinking. But there is another really dangerous practice. That is ignoring past erroneous ‘predictions’ (and their predictors) or simply excluding them from all analysis. It’s as if because they were erroneous it somehow establishes an eternal truth or, well, that particular prediction, in any form, will ever come true. Silly, and dangerous. And then numbers get used to define reality and, unfortunately, reality doesn’t automatically translate into some “correct” data set or some neat numbers. It always exceeds what can be measured so then, in seeking some concrete predictability, what is measured becomes a kind of argument for a particular understanding of reality. And this is where numbers really go off the rails. This may sound odd, but when it comes to numbers one must consider ‘numbers significant to whom.’ What I mean by that is leaders, statisticians and numbers people showcase an unprecedented amount of numbers to be able to prove what is significant and what is not; what is reality and what is not. These experts may have never asked whether these numbers are significant to the everyday schmuck like me and you or, more to the point, what it would take to quantify what they deemed important to the larger society to make it significant to the everyday schmuck like you and I. And maybe that is my point with numbers. Numbers struggle to bridge the past, present and future and when we attempt to force them to explain not only some ‘reality’ but also offer some certainty in the future it falls apart.

Let me end this section with something Rob Estreitinho just said: “imaginative leaps into the future are one of our greatest strengths. But i’d argue being able to borrow from the past in thoughtful ways is a strong second. The reality is businesses need rationalisation most of the time, so evidence is indispensable. And being able to log good evidence as you go, therefore, saves you a lot of time. Or, if not evidence, then enough precedent to give confidence this new thing might work. Point is, you need a system to let you quickly find what to borrow from.”

I imagine I could argue this summarizes an aspect of minimal viable predictability. I imagine I could argue this summarizes the role of the past and numbers in crafting a minimal viable predictability.

“There are two sets of futures, the future of desire and the future of fate and man’s reason has never learned to separate them. In action they may be intertwined, but distinguishing one from the other easy. The future of desire is always predictable; the future of fate seldom is.”

Desmond Bernal

Which leads me to optimism.

I wanted to end on a more positive note. If you take a more optimistic view of the future, even without a shitload of predictable stepping stones or even predictability, you tend to find your way. So maybe if you attach maximum viable optimism to minimal viable prediction you can find a happy, successful, progress path. In fact. Maybe that is the pathway of meaningful progress. But that’s a piece for another day. Ponder.

——————-

“Have more than you show,

Speak less than you know. “

William Shakespeare

——-

“If you say I’m great, thank you very much.

But I know what I am.

I could be better …  you know? “

Keith Richards

—-

“I exist as I am, that is enough.”

Walt Whitman

=========

Ok. I hate egotistical people. I hate arrogant people.

Ok.

Hate is a big nasty word. Let’s just say I have less patience for someone who is overflowing with confidence than someone who appears solid and tends to be more silent. For once I will begin with my point <so you can stop reading after this if you want>.

First.

I do not believe you can coach confidence. I believe you can only help people manage self-doubt. In other words you either decide to manage how to live with whatever demons you may have inside or decide to mask them on the outside <with confidence … or arrogance>. In fact I could also argue that if you learn to live with the demons inside it can actually make you a much better person than the people who brim with bombastic confidence <the ones who have only learned to mask the demons>.

Second.

I tend to believe we confuse what is important on this whole confidence thing meaning that maybe it isn’t really confidence, but instead we should focus on words like ‘dare’ or ‘courage’.

Ok. That said.

To me confidence is not, and never will be, a character trait.

To me courage is, and will always be, a character trait.

Courage is doing things despite the fear. Confidence is faith <in your abilities and yourself>. Courage is going forward even when you don’t feel that faith. It is about taking action in the absence of certainty that the task can actually be completed, if not completed well.

Third.

Labeling  behavior justifies it. Huh? Think of this like a warped version of ‘personal branding’ where once “he who shall not be named” is named you are almost encouraged to live up to your label/brand.

Yikes. Did I just type that? Yup.

In today’s world we have become masters labeling everything. It permits us to “slot” things in our heads and in the world more easily. In this case we have come up with labels to justify our self professed abilities. The big umbrella label is this thing called ‘confidence.’ I would suggest that simply by labeling it, well, it really becomes arrogance. And we all know <I think we do> that arrogance is often a mask for insecurity or some other emotional difficulty. Arrogance, or overestimated ego, can be cloaked in a variety of labels maybe the most famous, and insidious, over the last generation is “type A” personality.

Whew.

Type A has become not just a label, but a fucking badge for people who think highly of themselves. I read a fun little book recently called “Assholes” which reminded me that regardless of the context associated with this badge “I’m type A” most often precedes some asshole attitude or behavior.

–

the categories encourage and launder shitty personalities – and that’s largely unhelpful. It’s possible, one would presume, to be overachieving without being the jerk who yells at the guy working the double shift on minimum wage … or to be decisive and effective without being totally full of yourself.

–

People who self-identify as type A use the term as a synonym for success. To be clear. That is bullshit.

–

“Hey, I may be a bit maddening at times, but it’s only because I have higher standards than you.”

–

The corollary to this standard Type A assholedness is that anyone who objects to ‘type A’ somehow simply becomes something ‘lesser than.’ Suffice it to say that this type A label is a fabulous example of how overestimated ego assholes use information incorrectly to forward their own agenda <in pseudoscience ways>. We should note that over the years type A, and all the other letter personality types, have been warped by pop culture:

——-

… this is not at all how the term “type A” was initially intended to be used.  It first reached the mainstream in a 1974 book called “Type A Behavior and Your Heart” and its 1996 follow-up, “Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment”.

These books were not written by a psychologist but by a cardiologist, Dr Meyer Friedman, who described the type A category in mostly negative terms, as a group of angry, thoughtless people whose behaviour put them at heightened risk of a heart attack.  You know who else was type A in this schema?

Hitler.

——

Let’s just conclude point three by saying that labels are often fancy packaging for something less than what a truly humble confident capable person aspires to being.

Fourth.

The line between true confidence and overestimated ego <arrogance>can be a very fine line.

Can.

Thinking you can do something and believing you can do something is a very very fine line and confidence or arrogance are things people use to drag themselves over the line. Regardless, it can wear on you mentally by wandering this line. I say that because whatever tool you use to drag yourself over the line is often a mask for insecurity, or maybe not full on insecurity, but simply underestimating ‘self.’

Uhm.

That’s called ‘self doubt.’

Uh oh.

As we all know self doubt is evil and sly and has the ability to slip inside who and what you are and eat you up from the inside out. Regardless. With any degree of self doubt playing a role in this formula, confidence <or full blown arrogance> is not the solution. It isn’t because that would simply mask the real issue. The solution is facing self-doubt and learning to have a relationship with it <because you will never eliminate it>.

I read a survey somewhere suggesting something like 85% of us believe that we’d be more successful in careers if we were more confident. And 60% believe that greater confidence is one of the top two changes that would most enhance our career success <more than a better team, additional training or knowledge, or more time for actual work>.

Suffice it to say that most people assume confidence is critical for career success.

They are wrong.

Dealing with your inner critic is what is most critical to success. Confidence means having the courage to argue with your inner critic. Arrogance means you ignore your inner critic. Confidence means that at least I THINK I have a chance of out arguing my inner critic.

In fact. Confidence can lead to maximizing a healthy inner critic.

Self-doubt can be insidious, but it can have some practical aspects. Practical in that it suggests you are approaching the edge of what you can do or at least what you may feel comfortable doing. It makes you stop for a second and assess the edge of the comfort zone. In addition your inner critic has an uneasy relationship with truth. Many times it is not really telling you the truth and yet a part of you feels sure its words are true.

Confidence permits you to separate the ridiculous from the practical. Confidence permits you to listen, assess, and step out of a comfort zone and make some progress. On the other hand arrogance means you just blindly step out of your comfort zone.

Yeah.

Arrogance blinds you and confidence means living life with open eyes. Please note, while I made some very clear distinctions in discussing this ‘fine line’, it is a fine line. And any time someone suggests that confidence and arrogance are worlds apart I would suggest that they truly do not understand the issues at hand.

Anyway. I sometimes wonder if the self-help “business” has added to our levels of arrogance. There are so many self-help books and self-help “gurus” espousing a selfish and preposterous “believe and you will get everything” mantra or “fake your confidence to get what you want” it almost seems to suggest an arrogant belief in entitled success.

Ok. Let me spend some time on ‘overestimated behavior’ and why it can happen <and it happens pretty much to all of us>. Well. Overestimating is easy to do because we base future behavior <or success> on past success. That’s it. And, unfortunately, far too often the answers we had yesterday are not ‘the’ answers necessary for today or tomorrow.

As stated earlier confidence is not static.

——

“Confidence, like art, never comes from having all the answers; it comes from being open to all the questions.”

Earl Gray Stevens

—–

“Thoughts aren’t facts.

Just because we think something, does not mean it’s true.”

Lucy Elizabeth

——-

Confident people accept the fact they don’t know the whole truth … heck … the whole of anything, and are comfortable, or ‘quasi-comfortable’, with partial glimpses of things.

——

“No human being is constituted to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and even the best of men must be content with fragments, with partial glimpses, never the full fruition.”

William Osler

——-

I would suggest that confidence is actually a state of mind. It’s the feeling of self-assurance that arises from the appreciation of your abilities and qualities. You believe you have something, or a combination of things, to offer, i.e., knowledge, skills, and/or maybe some experience. I imagine it is kind of knowing that you can get the job done, but that doesn’t mean we do not overestimate on occasion as we vie the next job to be done.

Uhm.

To be clear it is often a constant struggle to not overestimate your behavior and instead simply seek to do the best you can <and while it may not actually be ‘the best’ it is a job well done and you don’t overestimate what you know based on a job well done because you always recognize there is ‘more knowledge’ to be found>.

All that said. Just so everyone doesn’t think I didn’t do any homework on this assignment let me bring in some research on talent or confidence and what drives success. To me this brings to mind the chicken or egg discussion as well as perception versus reality.

Huh?

Well. While I am going to share some research let me suggest one thing first:

First.

Perception versus reality. False confidence <you don’t really have the ability> supports the ‘fake it until you make it theory’. This is about creating a perception of confidence. And anyone rising up thru an organization, good or bad, has to do this or they die in an organization. You almost always assume responsibilities on the way up that you have no clue on how to do, but you figure it out. After a while this experience <actually doing it> either creates a sense of overblown confidence or a realistic ‘I don’t know what I am doing but will hunker down and figure it out’ attitude.

The former is bad.

The latter is good.

Second.

Chicken or egg (or The Halo Effect). Does confidence drive success or success drive confidence?

Well. Research studies on drivers of success inevitably judge confidence against … uhm … well … success. I would suggest that success breeds some confidence. If you don’t experience success in any amount that matters, your confidence lags. Basically, as I suggested back in 2013,  confidence. alone, isn’t worth shit (https://brucemctague.com/confidence-is-worthless ). Sorry. That’s just the way it is. There is a correlation between experience <doing something> and confidence. Therefore confidence is not an attitude, it is actually something you do.

That is “understanding reality.”

That is “understanding what your strengths & weaknesses are.”

For example here is some research:

=

– According to Medical News Today, confidence, not talent, is a driver of success. Researchers at the University of California (UC) Berkeley’s Haas School of Business found that those who were more confident experience more success than their peers, despite their talent.

<what they fail to note is that of two people with disparate talent but similarly confident … the ‘more talent’ has more success>

=

– According to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology those who appeared more confident achieved a higher status than their peers. At work, “higher-status individuals” tended to be more admired, listened to, and had more influence over group decisions.

<what they fail to note is that if the ‘appear confident’ was not matched with good decisions or actual behavior they no longer appeared confident but rather looked ‘overestimated ego.’>

 =

Business News Daily also published studies on confidence that suggested confident employees have more fruitful careers than their peers who aren’t as self-assured. Their research discovered a correlation between confidence and career success and also revealed that those who self-reported higher levels of confidence earlier in school earned better wages, and were promoted more quickly.

<what they fail to note is that the confidence is also linked with ‘courage’ and ‘courage to try’ both of which reflect “you are more likely to have success if you get in the game then if you do not”>

=

What does all that mean?

Is confidence really the key to greater success?

<nope>

Confidence is inextricably linked to tangible doing. With no link it is not confidence; it is empty arrogance <or overestimated ego>. We always need to remember that confidence is not static. Our confidence to perform tasks can increase and decrease. Some days we even feel more confident than others. And how we perform our tasks can create the overall ebb & flow. Assertiveness, confidence and self-confidence are linked to these tasks <action> & behavior. As people become naturally more assertive in actually doing things confidence follows & develops.

——–

“On the whole, human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time.”

George Orwell

———–

Anyway. I do wish more people were reminded that confidence, the frame of mind or ‘believing’, is only a part of the equation and in fact percentagewise it probably represents the smallest fraction <albeit a powerful little fraction> and that performing, doing, taking action is really the majority of success. I do wish more people were reminded that true confidence is paid off with a deed and typically a deed done well <not just completed>. Therefore if confidence isn’t backed up by actual skill … well … you’re delusional and that equals an overestimated ego <or arrogance>.

In the end.

To me the line between confidence and overestimated and overblown ego is defined by the deed. And even then some arrogant asshole is going to misconstrue the quality of the deed they did, versus the reality of ‘lesser quality than what they attribute to it, simply because we all have our blind spots, and arrogance increases the depth of the blindness.

— 

“When we define ourselves by what we can recognize, by what we can comprehend- rather than, say, by what we can describe- we are continually under threat from what we are unwilling and/or unable to see.

We are tyrannized by our blind spots, and by whatever it is about ourselves that we find unacceptable.”

Adam Phillips

—

Arrogant people are constantly tyrannized by their blind spots.

Confident people see the blind spots, accept they are there, use innate curiosity to eliminate or limit the blind spots, and keep on aspiring to do better each time. And maybe that is the truest of distinctions between arrogance <overestimated ego> and confidence. Curiosity every day. Why? Because curiosity leads to learning more and learning leads to skill acquisition. Getting better each and every day, getting into the “know more” business rather than the “here is what I know” business. And embracing curiosity doesn’t have anything to do with confidence or arrogance, but courage. Courage to accept what you do not know, publicly & privately, and proceed forward ‘forthwith.’

<I just wanted to use that word>

Arrogant people with overestimated egos are cowards.

They don’t have the courage to face what they do not know.

They don’t have the courage to admit their best is not really the best … just a skill that gets the job done in the here & now.

Arrogant people have to be blind to their blind spots because if they were not the truth would kill them. Ponder.

=======

“If the truth shall kill them, let them die.”

=

Immanuel Kant

=========

A man said to the universe:

“Sir, I exist!”

“However,” replied the universe,

“The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation.”

Stephen Crane

============

“Nature uses as little as possible of anything.”

Johannes Kepler

==============

The universe has no real obligation to us. Period.

Yup. That actually means we are on our own. We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

That said.

Let me make sure we are all on the same page with regard to ”rights” which means you need to ponder rights, freedom, liberty, prerogative and privilege. All of these are words which refer to the fundamental claims a person can properly make or his unfettered ability to choose <Use The Right Word: S.I. Hayakawa>.

• Right suggests a concrete claim established by legal, ethical or religious sanctions <e.g., right to equality before the law>. Although … someone claiming a right tends to argue it is inherent, a person’s rights are differently spelled out in different cultures & countries.
• Liberty is a more abstract and general notion suggesting the opportunity to choose among alternatives. A document such as the Bill of Rights spells out these conditions a citizen may construe as his rights. However … these liberties may sometimes in fact refer to an unwarranted breach of someone else’s right to consideration <we do not enjoy unbridled liberty without regard for the rights of others>.
• Civil liberty is understood to refer to all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and its amendments.
• Freedom is close to liberty in its abstract generality but stresses a total lack of constraint more than the opportunity for choice.
• Prerogative and privilege are much more specific in their meanings than the other words here. Prerogative refers to a right that one has by virtue of age, sex or position. Privilege suggests advantages given as favors or added luxuries rather than necessary rights.

I share all that to point out that while we may complicate our lives by confusing all these dynamics we also complicate our lives unnecessarily.

Anyway. We tend to complicate our lives in a number of ways.

Sometimes it is we feel like Life, or the universe, should be a little more helpful.

Sometimes we confuse privileges and rights.

Sometimes we seek an easier path because the way we are going seems a little too hard.

Sometimes we abuse rights in the pursuit of bad things.

Sometimes we assume privileges with regard to desire of good things.

============

“People tend to complicate their lives, as if living weren’t already complicated enough.”

Carlos Ruiz Zafon

=============

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”

Søren Kierkegaard

===========

Far too often we view freedoms as freedom to be stupid, idiotic or thoughtless.

Specifically, far too often we view freedom of speech as a way to shared well-articulated insightful thoughts to better the world around them simply because, well, we were fortunate enough to be nearby when speech, freely given, was shared.

Well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say only smart things. It also means freedom to be stupid, idiotic and thoughtless.

Yeah.

Freedom is a sticky wicket. It permits freedom to say stupid things, factual things and nonfactual things.

And, yet, as John Stuart Mill argued in “On Liberty,” freedom of expression is the freedom on which all other civic rights are based.

Now. Two things.

First. I do believe those who speak have a responsibility to be responsible. Freedom of speech, and expression, is a privilege not to be abused. But that is my opinion.

Just mine.

However, stupidity aside, I would rather someone speak, regardless of what is said opinion wise, than for there to be silence. In a world in which we complicate our lives and confuse liberties and freedoms and privileges … we shouldn’t shut up. And we shouldn’t simply shut off someone because they confuse all these things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down lies <because we should> but, generally speaking, if someone wants to say something stupid, we should let them because of this universal truth:

“Idiocy thrives in the dark, not in dialogue.”

Jen Floyd Engel columnist

I have had this debate, sometimes argument, with several people.

I want neo-Nazis speaking on campuses.

I want feminists raging through megaphones on stand at street corners.

I want pro Life & pro Choice advocates debating on stages throughout America.

I want the most extreme of all sides and dimensions and directions to publicly have the opportunity to speak out.

First of all.

We should all want that.

We, here in the USA, actually live in a country where unless you shout “fire” in some movie theater or seriously offer harmful threats you actually have the privilege & right to speak your mind. This is a gift that USA gives its citizens — a gift many of the 192 countries around the world are not so quick to give their citizens.

Second.

We should abhor silence.

It seems to me that we are quickly  heading down a path where the only opinions safe to say out loud  are the benign most milquetoast ‘safe havens’ of speech — Hitler was bad,  genocide is bad, beets are bad <oops, that last one was just a personal benign opinion>.

We say we want honesty.

We say we want to hear the truth.

We say we want free speech.

And yet we are relentless in chastising those who choose to speak and the words they choose to speak are wrong, maybe even stupid and possibly ignorant.

Uhm. This makes me say …

“I have met the enemy and the enemy is us.”

I do believe we are in the midst of a crisis of truth, ignorance and enlightenment … and freedoms, rights & privileges.

And it is an odd crisis in that we may actually speak up and out, but constantly get trapped in some simplistic dualisms/binaries — liberalism versus authoritarianism, Islam versus … well … Christianity/America/constitution/etc., white versus non white,  intellectual versus nonintellectual, urban versus rural and any other dualism thing you want to add.

But our issues seem to be more complex than ‘if this or maybe that.’

Our issues get compounded by the natural ebb & flow of “rights” <speech, religion, press, etc.> and what we believe is ‘right’ all combined with the unfortunate situation that the everyday person struggles to discerns fact from fiction <I would be remiss if i didn’t point out that 5+ years of Trump where he created his own fictional alternative universe in which his ‘facts’ exist and he wanted to manage the narrative as ‘his universe depicting reality’ didn’t help any of this>.

We complicate our lives needlessly.

And while Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in the 1830s that the American promise of meritocracy, its uniformity of culture and manners, and “equality of conditions” would make for immoderate ambition, corrosive envy and chronic dissatisfaction and could swell “to the height of fury” and lead many to acquiesce in a curtailment of their liberties all leading to a longing for the rule of a strongman … I do not agree.

No matter how divisive we may get and no matter how much we complicate our own lives and how much we may confuse what we deserve and what we earn, what is a privilege and what is a right, all of our freedoms & rights are grounded in the one unchangeable thing we have … the constitution.

That said. I am reminded of some words written by William Martin in his fabulous book “The Lost Constitution”:

=======

“A real American will tell you that our Constitution is not a tool for politicians hoping to make points, whether it is a cynical Republican pushing flag burning amendments because their poll numbers are down or a do-gooding Democrat who decides to protect ourselves by banning guns. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made the Constitution difficult to amend, so let’s think hard before we mess with it. 

What it says is what t said two hundred years ago. I think the men who set their thoughts down here were men who cared about America. Some of them believed in a strong central government, some believed that government governs best which governs least, but all of them believed in the ability of thinking Americans to get up in the morning and resolve their differences and solve their problems. And we have lost that in this country.

The framers created a means of changing this document because they understood that the world would change. But they didn’t want to make it easy. So it up to you, the people, pick up your newspaper and read them, and think about what you read, and don’t always believe what you hear just because it is what you want to hear,. And don’t listen to what you want to hear because you hear it from somebody who shouts it loud or makes you laugh. The constitution demands more. Don’t believe the people who vote straight democrat any more than you believe the people who befoul the airwaves with rightist rhetoric every day. The theme, on every night, is that we are all American. “

==========

All that said, I circle back to where i began by saying I wanted to say two things. The first had to do with individual rights and choices, the second has to do with amplification <the megaphones of the world – tv networks, podcasts, social media>.

While I believe any individual has the right to be an idiot I think we would all be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge we are in a universe in which the amplification universe is not indifferent. In addition the amplification universe has the ability to exponentially share idiocy – not additively or even multiplicatively. Therein lies the accountability and responsivbility issue. While it sounds nice to say every platform can say whatever it wants to say <kind of a misplaced freedom of speech play> the reality is it isn’t about saying iodiotic things or lies or disinformation, its about teh amplification. So without any rules on how things get amplified <usually this comes down to algorithms> we inevitably have to talk about the source of the things that are getting shared. I, personally, think twitter, Facebook, instragram, whoever, should clamp down on disinformation and lies. Will they always get it right? Nope. Will in most cases , even in their errors, benefit society? Yup. Anything at this point which slows down amplification, or mutes what may take some time to be proven, is good. we do not need to “know everything” immediately. Give some time to vet everything. Let idiots speak but maybe limit how far and wide their idiocy spreads <at least initially>. That actually seems to protect the privileges and freedoms of citizenry more than it limits it.

Which leads me to end with the thought that it is an odd place we are in today.

It seems like never have so many free individuals felt so helpless and in their helpless feeling many people seem almost desperate to wrest control from anyone, and institutions in particular, they can blame for their feeling ‘lostness’ <however you would like to define lost>.

As I finish up this piece today it seems important to remind everyone that freedom of speech is just that … freedom of speech – and that freedom of speech is the foundation upon which all civil liberties reside.

I would rather idiocy, our confusion about what we deserve and do not deserve, be discussed rather than have to thrive in the darkness of silent strength.

Because all speech does is to start a dialogue.

It forces people to talk.

Personally, I don’t want to read, or watch, only whatever validates my beliefs.

I want to challenge my assumptions.

Personally, I know I get confused about what is a right, what is a freedom and, sometimes, what is a privilege.

The only thing I am 100% clear on is that I am privileged to exist in a country in which I can be confused on all those things and still be able to speak out.

And, lastly, I am absolutely clear that the universe has no real obligation to me … or us.

We have no rights, no privileges, no nothing to support or comfort our existence except what we choose to provide each other.

What this means is that only we can complicate our lives and/or uncomplicate it.

Let’s be a little bit easier on each other.

Let’s listen a little bit better with each other.

Let’s become the universe in which we become obligated to each other rather than worrying about where my freedom begins and yours ends. Ponder.

=================

“No enterprise can exist for itself alone.

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

Calvin Coolidge

==================

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

Bob Parsons

=========================

Originally posted in 2017

Let me take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Just a reminder but “fraternite” is one of the  French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité (“liberty, equality, fraternity/brotherhood” the national motto of France).

Anyway. Business. Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress. What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure (systems), part leadership, all glued together by “fraternité”. That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’ or even ‘culture.’ We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept, i.e., one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

Napoleon

Oddly enough, while this sounds like relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean? Current business is kind of in a wacky spot. It talks a lot about vision and purpose and culture as if they are “things” — like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home. By the way, I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless. Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.” That may sound like some wacky nuance, but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion. By the way, this thought is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored.

** note: most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit – things they cannot measure or score.

Anyway. Not to beat this metaphor to death, but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed. I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” as a core principle just ain’t the way business is run today. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. A lot of people talk about a “community” or “company team” or some other nice sounding platitude which sounds a lot like “fraternité”, but its mostly lip service. Its lip service because fraternité is a ‘collective’ thought and most businesses reward and incentivize individuals.

Anyway. On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters worldview versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects. Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces on both of these but, on the former, the best piece I can share is from Corporate Rebels “Cut The Crap: The Made-Up Nonsense About Generations At Work” which states all people want meaning at work (regardless of age or generational label).

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter. To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away to non-profit because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business. And, yes, they are important and good pursuits but, from a larger perspective, business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words <and the business office/working groups creates behavioral cues which ripple out into culture>.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles and principled behavior’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope and remind them, empower them and enable them that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place. They can make society and people and lives better. And they can do it in and through business, not just altruistic career opportunities. If we do that, and do that well, I tend to believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding or shared values, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

====================

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

Alan Greenspan

===============================

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive, but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now. Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and how that shit is designed to meet specific objectives/results and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you”, i.e., extrinsic importance not intrinsic importance. Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural. Obviously, when it is not natural it is not as strong.

In the end.

Fraternité in business. I believe we have forgotten this. And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go”, i.e., there are your principles and rules for camaraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look. I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. What makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those intangible things that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership. To steal another word from the motto, by creating a fraternité organization you inevitably create liberté for the organization to be the best version of what it can be.

This is what I thought about today and “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”. With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for a fraternité organization. Ponder.

=============

obfuscate

This is the word to use when evasion is achieved by clouding the issue.

Creating a smoke-screen.

prevaricate, evade, dodge

==================

“When shrouded meanings and grim intentions are nicely polished up and pokerfaced personae are generously palming off their fantasy constructs, caution is the watchword, since rimpling water on the well of truth swiftly obscures our vision and perception.

(“Trompe le pied/wrong foot.”)”

Erik Pevernagie

===============

So. There is possibly nothing more aggravating in business than someone not answering “the” question. To be clear on what I am speaking about. The person answers a question just not the one you asked.

I am not going to argue that some questions are not easy to answer. I won’t even argue that we get asked questions we don’t know the answers to, but the situation dictates we make something up <yes … that happens in business>. But abandoning the question completely is complete bullshit.

But you know what?

I think the main reason it is so aggravating is because it is truly a reflection of intentions. There is even a book called The Anthropology of Intentions by a professor, Alessandro Duranti, who kind of tackles this whole discussion of intentions and words. He offers us the thought of ‘intentional discourse’ wherein an individual filters words through their beliefs & desires and their plans & goals to guide the discourse <regardless of whether the rest of the people want it guided that way>. In other words, using another phrase he offers us, by engaging in an intentional continuum people ponder their use of words through self-interest motivations <some good & some bad>.

By the way I am fairly sure I mangled his academic masterpiece, but you get the point.

Ah. “You get the point.” I share that again because while we sit there aggravated at someone who completely avoided answering the question asked we almost always also sit there wanting to invest a little of our own energy trying to assess why they did it. Because, in our aggravated minds, in its most simplistic viewing, avoiding the question is solely about shifting attention – away from something and toward something else.

…………… question deflection …………

Sure. It could be something as simple as steering you away from their lack of knowledge and steering you toward something they may actually know. But, in most cases, a full abandonment of a specific question is complete & utter deflection.

In the intelligence community they call this effort to shift attention as deflection or misdirection. Magicians do something similar getting people to focus on one thing and away from the trick itself. Completely avoiding the question is the business version of a distract-the-audience approach. It is this weird moment in which someone pretends to answer the question by actually answering some other question that magically appeared to replace the question really asked. It’s almost like entering an alternative universe for a while.

Sadly, aggravated or not, the more practiced the deception <the more practiced the business magician is> the more likely you hesitate to step in <and the more you get aggravated as you hesitate> and correspondingly … the more many of these people actually believe deception works.

It is maddening.

Worse? If they are good at it, when someone responds to a question by not addressing the points of the question, thereby avoiding the issue itself, it doesn’t create unrelated discussion to the issue … it simply avoids the issue in totality.

Well. I am fairly sure we have all sat there in a meeting and watched something like this unfolding right before our eyes. The visceral response, the aggravation, we have to this ‘answer evasion’ situation is most likely found in the revelation it is occurring (watching it unfold before our eyes). Philosophically, we can see that through some internal conviction to retain something they feel like they should own <their reputation, their title, their perceived intelligence, their whatever> they justify evading the question.

Conviction. Yeah. I just used ‘internal conviction.’ This means their intentions reflect they are more important than not only the question itself … but you. You are not even dignified with an answer.

It is irksome <at its least worst>.

It is loathsome <at its most worst>.

Look. I give a partial pass to the asshats you can see who have some answer they want to give everyone, regardless of what question is asked, and blurt it out when given the opportunity. They haven’t deflected the question they just ignored it as unimportant to what they want to say and have been planning to say no matter what has been said up to that point. It’s the ones you know heard the question and just ignored it. Or avoided it. Or just didn’t answer it despite the fact they heard every word, every syllable and every intention from the question giver. In other words, they intentionally do not answer the question.

<envision a deep sigh here>

I want people to face questions head on. And what makes this even more aggravating is that you know these people are quite capable of taking things head on.

How do I know that? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the intentions of the question giver themselves. It is a common tactic for the answer avoiders. The natural instinct is to ‘defend’; to answer the attack. Fuck that. I want to say “just answer the fucking question asked.”

How else do I know these people are quite capable of taking questions head on? These are the same people who will attack, or ‘aggressively question’, the question itself. This is not a deflection tactic. This is a ‘turn the question back on itself’ tactic. And, once again, your natural instinct is to defend or, well, answer the question you are asked.  Aggravating. I want to say “just answer the fucking question asked, you shithead.”

And maybe what makes this ‘not answering the question asked’ so maddening is that we, most sane pragmatic business people, tend to sit back <after saying “WTF”> and try and unravel why it happened and what the hell just happened. Unless you are in an interview scenario <in which you always have an opportunity, one-to-one, to hunker down and hammer out a clear answer> you are most likely in a room with other people and the non-answer has sent at least some of the people careening down a completely different road.

That makes it even MORE aggravating.

One intentional non answer to a question can completely derail a meeting or a discussion. That is intentional discourse. Or how about the other phrase from that academic’s book: engaging in an intentional continuum.

Oh. One last way you know these asshats are intentionally not answering the question is when they cleverly decline to answer the question with the infamous head fake answer: “I don’t know the answer to that question. I’ll work on finding the information for you and then get back to you with an answer” <and they have no intention of ever getting back to you>.

Yeah. You know … sure as shit … they have no plans to work on it and will never ‘get back to you’ unless you call them on it. They are intentionally refusing to answer the question assuming the conversation will move on and, in a laundry list of other shit to do, that this one will either never make the list or be so low on the list they can stiff arm you on answering based on “working on things more important.”

Its bullshit. You know its bullshit. They know its bullshit.

Well.

Fuck you.

Fuck you and the non-answering horse you rode in on.

In my mind a good well-articulated question demands some accountability. The one given the question is now accountable for the answer. They may try and deflect and they may just answer a completely different question, but a question asked exists, it does not disappear. You cannot get away from it.

Let me share a graphic example of why accountability remains whether the question dodger likes it or not.

You open your front door in the morning and there is a nice pile of dog shit squarely in the middle of your front door opening. You either clean it up or you avoid it. The question dodger never acknowledges the pile and steps over it moving on to something else. The shit stays at the front door and over time the smell increases and the flies crowd around. A good question unanswered is just like that. And a question dodger cannot avoid the smell in the end.

All that said. My message to the asshats who completely do not answer the question asked:  You will be accountable to the question and to cleaning up the mess … now … or later <and quit aggravating me by not answering the question, you shithead>.

====

Author note:

When I reread this, which took me less than a ½ hour to write, I was a little surprised by how … well … aggravated the tone was.

Some ‘fucks’ and ‘asshats’.

I left it as is because as a 50something business guy who has always attempted to take on what needs to be taken on regardless of how painful it may have been <and career wise possibly less than prudent> I get a little angry about how the business world has become incredibly unkind to the risk takers & truth tellers and seems to reward the less-than-competent and ‘political maneuverers’ more often than it should. That’s my excuse for why I let this one stand as it does.

=======================

============

“It is perchance without reason that we attribute to simple-mindedness and ignorance to the readiness to believe and to be convinced.

For it seems to me that I once learned the belief was, as it were, an impression that was made on our minds, and that, the softer and less resistant the mind, the easier it was to imprint something on it.

As the scale of the balance must necessarily sink when weights are placed upon it, so the mind must yield to clear proof. The more empty and without counterpoise the mind is, the more easily the scale sinks under the weight of the first argument.”

—-

Michel de Montaigne

=================================

Murphy’s Third Law

Nothing is ever so simple as it first seems

======================================

Ok. As we near what I hope is end of a one term presidency I still cannot believe we are discussing whether Trump is actually a competent president. He is a stupid, narcissistic, incompetent person. Period. I know junior business people smarter and better managers than he is. Now. I will not begrudge the people who can rummage around among the things that have happened within hist presidency for things they like or thought were good, but, I would point out they happened despite him – not because of him.

……….. listening to Trump nonsense ………..

While I have always known Trump was a crappy business person with crappy instincts <he only has one gear & cannot adapt>, let me tell you how I got to where I am thinking now and some things you should know.

Yes. There are times I listen to something Donald J Trump says and I am torn between laughing so hard my sides hurt and banging my head on the table. The recurring ‘somethings’ we keep hearing are his statements that “no one knew it was this complicated” or the other version … “its not that easy.” I remain mystified on how he can so consistently sound like he is actually learning something for the first time <even though a high school sophomore knows it>.

Look.  I am not the president and I cannot even fathom the sheer weight of responsibility & decision-making. But in my fairly common career I have seen the inner workings of the complex healthcare industry, the inner workings of what it takes to make a global organization set standards & meet standards, the inner workings of a complex energy grid industry delivering electricity across the country, the inner workings of complex manufacturing, the inner workings of a successful complex customer service initiative in a global hospitality brand … shit … even a small business is complex and, well, almost every industry between sales, service, production, financial management, operations, regulatory, multi-channel distribution and management is complex with complications keeping it from running as smoothly, and as well, as it should on a daily basis.

Suffice it to say there is never ‘one part’ you can focus on. There are always lots of moving parts — some in your control and some not in your control, therefore, there is never simplicity.

So when he gives us a smug look of concern and says “whew, this shit is complicated” … I say … well … no shit Sherlock <and think of Scooby responding to something Shaggy said>.

Look.

99% of business leaders know everything is complex … nothing is simple.

80% of people, everyday schmucks like me, are fairly sure everything is more complex than it often appears to be <and how we talk about it>.

But apparently our 1 president is convinced that everything is straightforward, simpler than others were making it out to be and he is not only the “only one who could solve it” but also the only one who has the smarts to simply snip the Gordian Knot of complications associated with, well, running a country.

What a stupidfuck thing to say … and think.

As I noted in my “last stand of the old white men’  piece, I know we have had most of the intelligence & critical thinking in us scraped out by the ”simplicity is everything” knife, but you would think that the creators of this ‘hollow communications initiative’, the 60 & 70somethings, would not really believe the shit they’ve been selling us for years. You would think that they wouldn’t really believe that everything can be communicated in an elevator speech or three bullet point or some PowerPoint slide.

Ok.

Ok.

Maybe most do know that, but Trump seems to have missed the message.

He is an immature idiot.

————–

Communication.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated … and a good thing for society. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

That is Trump in a nutshell.

—————–

Anyway. I don’t need my president to be a Mensa member. Shit. They don’t even have to know big words or have a good brain or even be a stable genius. But I do need them to be intellectually curious, interested in learning and have at least a passing interest in history <or historical precedent>.

If I were generous toward Trump I could suggest much of what we are watching, in painful real time, is that he simply didn’t know what the hell he was talking about <the facts of the issue> and now he does.

** note: (after 3+ years) who the fuck am I kidding

If I were less than generous, I would hearken back to the Montaigne thought I shared upfront the softer and less resistant the mind, the easier it was to imprint something on it. The more empty and without counterpoise the mind is, the more easily the scale sinks under the weight of the first argument. I offer that thought because  one could quite easily be convinced someone who publicly states “no one knew it was this complicated” <when pretty much everyone already knew> would be someone who had a ‘more empty and without counterpoise mind.’

If I had lost all my generosity I would be tempted to suggest that Trump is a double whammy <a> a blank slate mentally and <b> only sees round holes where he looks.

Huh? Simple minds see problems as simple ‘holes’ to be filled by jamming in whatever peg is at hand.

I am sure Trump has no real policies <let alone an ideology>, just a bunch of pegs he has had in hand for the past 40 years <yes, the same pegs> to jam into holes. But it gets worse. The pegs are so poorly constructed and so weakly held that, literally, one would assume the final decision filter is really the only thing he holds dear – his ego, his ‘brand’, his wallet.

People should ponder that last thought as they discuss a scary, possibly misguided,  belief that Trump’s tendency is to take up the position of the last person he spoke with on any given issue – because that is too simplistic.

His dazzling combination of little knowledge, no practical organizational management experience, a lack of ideological commitment to anything and an ongoing puzzlement that things just aren’t as simple as he believed <or he believed anyone believed> suggests America is in for a rough ride <short term and long term>.

Why? Because the empty mind will sink against the weight of <a> the first argument which <b> meets his ego/brand.

Sigh.

“No one knew it was this complicated.”

I am at a loss for words … so … the more empty and without counterpoise the mind is, the more easily the scale sinks under the weight of the first argument. <Michel de Montaigne>

I used to try to not call Donald J Trump an idiot out of business respect <you assume anyone who has run a business knows something you don’t know> but, whew, he made it more & more difficult every day so I stopped trying and now just call him an idiot.

Here is what I know <and I am not the president>.

The world is a complex place and all Trump does, and has done, has made it a complicated place. Ponder that as you vote this year.

====================

“I don’t pay attention to the

world Ending.

It has ended for me

many Times

and began again in the morning.”

=

Nayyirah Waheed

————————————

Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide

In the strife of truth with falsehood

For the good or evil side.

=

James R. Lowell , 1845

<poem protesting America’s war with Mexico>

———————-

Is the world heading for another Global War?

As I read through the headlines on Yahoo News and other Media Outlets, it seems that there is a lot of anger, posturing, threats, paranoia, fear and distrust being expressed here in the US and elsewhere in the World.

The Iran deal, North Korea threats, Turkey and the Kurdish separatism, ISIS, Syrian revolution, radical groups in Western Africa, failed states in Somalia, Israel/ Palestinian continual war, Russian aggression and the European response.

Is this our reality, or just the manufacture of NEWS that the media creates to fill a 24/7 cycle? Are these all isolated situations or are they an early stage of a 20th century cycle that must repeat itself?

—

TED Discussion Topic in 2015

==============

Well. I admit. There are times I feel like I am ready for the world to end. Okay. Not really. Maybe I only want the entire discussion of as we know it today as predicted by numerous “experts” of the imminent destruction of our world, and everything we now about it, to end.

It seems a little crazy, but, we sometimes seem to always live on the edge of the end of the world. There is no lack of predictors of doom online, on television or on radio talk shows today.

But you know what?

Being good at predicting doom, and the end, seems like an uneasy contradiction. If you are actually accurate and good at your prediction skills, who will be around to actually give you credit for being right?

Shit. Who would actually want to give you credit?

In addition more often than not the predictions are wrong <albeit the predictors are cannily good at>:

<a> post- doom: finding the random thread that actually did come to fruition or,

<b> post-doom: find the next phase of doom.

Here is the craziest aspect. Doom prediction is not a generational thing nor is it worse at one point versus another. Every decade, shit, every year has a new doom or Armageddon ‘thing.’

There is moral crisis <pick the 1740’s, 1880’s, 1910’s, 1970’s and now>.

There is economic crisis <pick the anytime in the 1500’s, the 1780’s, the 1890’s & 1920’s, the 1980’s and now>.

There is unsustainable overpopulation crisis <beginning of the industrial age until now – every year>.

There is terrorism crisis <every decade in recorded history>.

There is political crisis <war of the roses time, 1780’s, 1920’s, 1960’s, 1990’s and now>

Oh. And religion all by itself has a long history of ‘end days’ predictions <242 dates list >.

I cannot remember the first time I heard that the world was going to end because of an existing crisis other than maybe the imminent nuclear attack from the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Heck. Nostradamus and the Mayans as well as the Christians had the corner on the end of the world predictions until people came along trying to create a variety of manmade end of the world scenarios.

It has been my fortune that I have ignored the noise enough that no matter my age I haven’t stopped doing what I was supposed to do awaiting the end <I did my homework, I showed up for work, I didn’t quit exercising> and I still fulfilled the painful commitments which could have easily been shirked under the guise of “who will know I didn’t do it.”

Maybe it is because at a relatively young age I understood that most end of the world conspiracy theories begin with some crackpot wearing an aluminum foil hat sitting in their mother’s basement teasing out “what if” scenarios from actually was.

Maybe I had parents who ignored the bullshit and the foil hat people <who they believed were kooks>.

So are there any real threats?

Most of the conventional ways you’ve heard of the world ending are pretty much speculative bullshit. Even the original apocalypse, nuclear weapons, falls far short of what was promised/predicted. There are simply not enough nuclear weapons to destroy every major city on Earth therefore the entire world as we know it. Even in the 1980s, when the global arsenal reached its height, estimates were that 400-500 million might die in a first strike and perhaps double this number in total from famines, plagues, and radiation.

I will not bore you with real numbers, but that means the vast majority of humanity would survive.

The same numbers apply to any other Armageddon like event you want to worry about.

Pandemic.

Having recently worked with a bunch of highly qualified ER physicians I can factually state that we have them all the time. Before you get all worked up over “what if pandemic scenarios” I will point out that not once in four billion years has a disease mutated to the point where it could wipe out every living creature on Earth. Dangerous pandemics that kill lives? Yes. Dangerous pandemics that kill civilization? No.

Asteroids.

We only get a major asteroid hit <one that can destroy all major life forms> about every ten million years. Ok. Uhm. Maybe we are due (yikes). But. We are probably at a point where we could spot it and do something about it before it crashed into someone’s living room.

Solar Flare.

Possible. But lets say it knocks out every electrical device on the planet. At worst we would struggle with regaining our non-electrical footing and most likely set back the economy, the way we live and standard of living several decades.

Uncomfortable? For sure.

Extinction? Not so much.

Aliens.

Despite some of those TV shows speculating alien involvement with building the pyramid and such … the Earth has been circling the Sun for at least four billion years with no visitors to date. While there is a chance … it kind of seems like a Dumb and Dumber chance <one in a million>.

Manmade.

TV movie <see The Day the Earth Stood Still>.

Regardless. We <people in general> seem to confuse a variety of common everyday occurrences with Armageddon and “the end.”

Why? Let me share 3 reasons.

– Change <in general>

Change sucks and most people balk at changing. As soon as some major innovation that creates a big sweeping change in the way things are done <farming instead of hunting & gathering, printing press, industrial revolution, TV, computers, internet> it is like a tectonic shift within civilization.

Everything gets affected.

People freak.

Some people freak enough to predict the end of the world as we know it. Many others wonder if they are right. Most just ignore it and, well, change.

– Different from us <generations>

Each generation sweeps into the world shoving aside that which was <and how it was done> and puts their own imprint on the world. Each generation doing what is currently being done gives ground grudgingly. And each grudging step, which includes giving something up, seems like a step towards the end of the world as we know it.

Some of the ‘I want to hold on to the way it was’ freak out enough to predict the end of the world. There are enough ‘others’ within their age cohort who wonder if they are right <and comment on it>.

< I encourage everyone to pick up a copy of The 4th turning by Strauss & Howe which outlines the historical turnings of generations and how our freaking out is cyclical in theme>

– Different from us <culturally or ideologically>

This has nothing to do with generations or periods in time, this is simply a constant undercurrent of which current affairs can make the undercurrent bubble to the top. What we don’t know, or understand, freaks us out. When we see others who do, and act, significantly different from “us” <our country cohort> we freak. We freak because we believe we are living Life right <by the way … so do they>.

This is a constant and the freaking typically settles in at a ‘slightly uncomfortable feeling’ but nothing that makes us actually feel uncomfortable enough to say or do anything.

Most of us.

There will always be a few who will place the ‘different & differences’ up on a pedestal and start screaming “it will destroy us.” Depending on what else is happening in the world at that time others may shift from ‘slightly uncomfortable feeling’ to “maybe we should freak.’

<note: populists prey on this underlying fear>

Lastly. We confuse what time, in general, does to reshape the world and us:

==

New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,

They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;

==

Life naturally destroys what was, what is and creates what will be. This restless nature of life, which is constantly destroying, can create a sense that EVERYTHING will be destroyed.

Don’t panic.

The chances that everything will be destroyed falls into the Dumb and Dumber chances <one in a million>.

Yes. I will admit <using Orson Scott Card’s words>:

———

… we do appear to live in a time when people like me, who do not wish to choose the extreme ridiculous, inconsistent, unrelated ideology, are being forced to choose – and to take one whole absurd package or the other.

We live in a time when moderates are treated worse than extremists, being punished as if they were more fanatical than the actual fanatics.

We live in a time when lies are preferred to the truth and truths are called lies, when opponents are assumed to have the worst conceivable motives and treated accordingly, and when we reach immediately for coercion without bothering to find out what those who disagree with us are actually saying.

In short we are creating for ourselves a new dark age – the darkness of blinders we voluntarily wear, and which, if we do not take them off and see each other human beings with legitimate , virtuous concerns, will lead us to tragedies whose cost we will bear for generations.

Orson Scott Card

====

Orson’s words resonate and the sense you may get from what he describes is “Armageddon is upon us”, but it isn’t.

It is simply the uncomfortable chafing of culture & events & civilization trying to find its way. I would also like to remind everyone of something I read somewhere in a book … “all these quarrels had been minor bumps and potholes along the road of a lifetime of respect and trust. When you stop and think about it, what good is a friend who agrees with you all the time?”

Uncomfortable, but what good is a world where everyone agrees with you all the time? Events are uncomfortable, and we will disagree on those events, but .. aren’t the solutions found in the disagreements?

Regardless.

Here is what I know.

Don’t panic

I would guess that if you could visit 2115 you would see a world pretty close to the way it is today.

Sure.

Computers, technology and nanotechnology will most likely have evolved to some absurd heights, but there will still be suburban barbeques, Amish communities, farm communities and a shitload of regular people doing their own thing.

So relax, maybe have a drink or go for a run and accept the likelihood that despite all the blowhards on TV and books about the ‘decline of’ or ‘the end of’ there will still be a relatively normal world for our ancestors to inhabit in a hundred years.

originally posted August 2015

————

“I’ve seen plenty of your kind … you Americans.

Refugees from that brave new world you have over there.  Pilgrims in search of your Mecca … only you have no Mecca.

You’ve rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls among all the libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe … never quite seeing or catching hold of anything that lies outside those musty, but god knows elegant, interiors. It’s called ‘finding oneself’ I believe … as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.

Yet it’s kind of a fear isn’t it? A fear of Life.”

=

Celestial chess

—

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I am
a hurricane.

That they will step back and be intimidated by my muchness. “

=

Michelle K.

———

So. Muchness. Muchness is what resides within each one of us. The problem is Life, in general, encourage us to exhibit, well, much less. Therefore we seem to spend a lot of time in the wretched hollow between our muchness and what we believe the world can accept of our muchness. In other words, we are always seek to constrict not expand.

Oddly this creates a lot of self reflection. A lot of “who am I”, finding onself and defining what is the right level of public muchness. We search as in “as if a self can exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold.” Far too often finding one’s muchness, paradoxically, seems a lot like stagnancy. There may seem like a lot of movement in that you may be moving around a lot <going places, visiting libraries, museums, palaces and cathedrals of Europe>, but in actuality, you are stagnant … personally.

All the movement appears to be some kind of search within oneself, but you are doing it by seeking ‘out-of-self’ things. Worse? Your self search often gets judged by what cues the ‘out-of-self- things provide you. Its almost like the search makes you a refugee from yourself. You invest energy not on progress but rather in searching backwards or ‘within’ <by viewing within the past for insights> to find ‘something.’

Well. This all seems crazy to me. Seems like maybe by the time you finish your search the rest of the world has moved on by. I would suggest time may be better served by something in which typical ‘finding oneself’ discussions do not appear to encompass — the word ‘disturbing.’ As in maybe ‘disturbing oneself.’ As in disturbing the universe. Kind of like shaking the personal etch a sketch a bit and in doing so be willing to shake the societal status quo of “what you should expect” etch a sketch..

By the way, to me, the fact ‘disturbing’ rarely is included in any ‘finding oneself’ discussion is crazy. Mostly because emotion is the energy for change and I would argue emotion is the engine for muchness.

Ok. What the hell am I talking about? The roots of disturb is the latin word – Emovere.

===

<latin> emovere: to disturb

===

Emotion literally means disturbance. The word emotion comes from the Latin emovere meaning “to disturb.” Therefore, emovere can be seen as a version of how we find ourselves. A combination of emotion & disturb is the creation of one’s muchness.

Look. Disturb may sound, well, disturbing or maybe a little extreme but, what the hell, you spend gobs of energy going out and about having rejected one world and can’t quite smuggle your way into another so you wander like lost souls.

The whole idea of ‘finding oneself’ all with the overall intent to seek opportunities to find out about ourselves and discover your muchness, i.e., what we are made up of and what we can be.

Disturbing, at its core, is about shifting shit so that opportunities can be uncovered.

This leads me to a guy named Pittacus … one of the Seven Sages of Greece. While each of the seven sages was supposed to represent an edict of worldly knowledge <Solon of Athens was actually “know thyself”> it was Pittacus who proposed ‘you should know which opportunities to choose.’

—

Other Pittacus Quotes

“It is hard to be good”

“Know when to act”

“Seize Time by the forelock.”

–

Disturbing is the energy which creates opportunities <not wandering the world of libraries and museums> and then … well … you gotta know which opportunities to choose.

Shit. No wonder we decide to try and find oneself by wandering the world, it sounds a shitload easier than disturbing, recognizing opportunities, than actually knowing which opportunities to choose. In fact all that sure sounds like there is lots of room for errors or missed opportunities are even a lot of bad choices.

Well. That’s the deal if you want to find yourself and let the world see your muchness.

It ain’t easy. And there is a lot of room for mistakes and bad choices. You gotta keep your eye on the prize.

Oh shit. The prize. The prize is actually finding being oneself – being your muchness.

Now. ‘Muchness’ is a great thing for you … uhm … but can be scary for others around you.

However. Not everyone, in fact, I would suggest the majority of us never discover our maximum muchness. Most of us just find crumbs of our muchness <and are quite satisfied>.

Some of us just get a bite or two of our muchness <and that is even more satisfying>. And then there are the few who actually find ‘oneself’ and all their muchness. Which leads me back to where I opended today:

————

“I have a deep fear of being too much.

That one day I will find my someone, and they will realize that I am
a hurricane. That they will step back and be intimidated
by my muchness. “

—————–

Well. This makes me think that maybe the reason most of us go about finding ourselves the wrong way is because most of us fear becoming the hurricane we could be. Muchness is scary. Muchness is not only a little scary to ourselves but absolutely can be intimidating to others. Hence … “you can be a little too much on occasion.” Frankly, this is where it gets tricky. When you hear that you naturally pull in your muchness. Which is a little nuts. Nuts because YOU can handle your muchness its OTHERS who cannot – its their issue and not yours.

Anyway.

I imagine my real point in all of this is that while finding oneself is not easy once you embrace your muchness it gets difficult.Here’s what I do know.

—

disturb + recognize opportunities + choose the right opportunities = muchness

—

Let’s be honest. Most of us, even if we are really lucky, will only find crumbs of our muchness. Yup, even if we do most of the formula right … just crumbs. And that is manageable. And while crumbs sounds … well … crummy. It’s not. They represent glimpses of our greatness. The muchness inside us is the best of our best … the best version of I … the greatness within.

And even if we only get a glimpse of it? Well. In the immortal words of the coach in the movie The Replacements:

==

“Greatness, no matter how brief, stays with you forever.”

Gene Hackman <the replacements>

==

Finding oneself truly has to be done with some intent of finding some greatness <I mean, c’mon, why else would we invest energy doing it?>. It’s all about finding whatever glimpse of greatness, of muchness, we have within us <and most everyone has at least a glimpse>. And why wouldn’t we seek to find ‘oneself’ the right way?

Fear.

The opening quote suggested ‘a fear of Life.’ Well. I would suggest it would be more ‘a fear of Muchness’.

Regardless.

Suffice it to say that Self, or our’ muchness’, does not exist at the end of some tourist’s itinerary like a pot of gold. And that said … remember … if you truly desire to ‘find yourself’ don’t head out like a pilgrim in search of your mecca just think one word – emovere.

In other words … Disturb.

Disturb your world and your universe and watch for the opportunities and don’t fear your muchness and, mos importantly, don’t let the outside world’s fear of your muchmness make you make your much a lesser version of what it can be.

Embrace your muchness and disturb the universe. I could think of worse advice.

====

“Perhaps we should love ourselves so fiercely that, when others see us, they know exactly how it should be done.”

—

Rudy Francisco

=====

Ok.

Society norms.

Group norms.

Individual norms.

They are (kind of) the three behavioral levels of why we do the shit that we do.

Each is powerful in its own right. And while creating alignment within all three can sometimes be a real bitch of a challenge, I would actually suggest we should view individual behavior the following way:

Society norms.

Individual norms.

Group norms.

I suggest this because I believe individual norms, our personal behavior, is constantly being squeezed by society overall as well as the groups in our circle of influence.

I note this because, if you are not careful, you get squeezed into, well, maybe not nothingness, but certainly “lessness.”

I note this to suggest you almost always have to fight back.

Okay. How about this instead?

Let’s say you gotta sharpen your elbows and create some space for you  in between what society is suggesting <which often feels a lot like it is actually demanding> and what your current circle is outlining as the right way to think and behave.

I once called this ‘pushing back … not stepping up.’

But here is the hard part. And it is kind of surprisingly hard.

It is fairly easy to sharpen your elbows and fight back, but without some thought you are simply fighting. You end up fighting with no purpose other than it feels good to fight back in some way. And while fighting back in and of itself is somewhat satisfying because you feel like you should it is less than satisfying because it has no real focus or purpose. I will not suggest it is completely ‘wasted energy’ but it is certainly less than efficient use of your energy.

So what about the ‘thought’ part then? This is where ‘knowing what you want and knowing who you are’ rears its ugly head.

Being “anti” something is pretty easy. I could actually suggest in some ways it is lazy. But what I do know for sure is that being “for something” is hard. Like … well … really hard. You not only have to convince yourself that what you are standing for is something … but also mentally accept it is not going to perfectly align with your group norms as well as the societal norms. Yeah. That means on occasion, maybe even often, you may not be in alignment with all the shit going on around you.

I would argue the former, convincing yourself, is the most difficult part.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will be tomorrow … combined with … you cannot really hide from what will be … which makes fighting back partially a constant battle of movement and adaptation.

Here is what I know.

Society is not always right.

Your group is not always right.

So why should you always have to be right?

Fighting back isn’t about being “right.” It is simply about fighting for what is right … you. I will not call it individual rights but rather the right to be an individual. Maybe it is also partially a fight for the part of you that you love. I imagine this suggests you gotta find a part of yourself to love … but that I most likely a different post and thought for a different time.

But I love the quote I opened with. It is different than the typical “you have to love yourself before you can …” idea.

It is more about the benefit to you.

It is living Life by example. And maybe that is the bigger thought.

Fighting back against society … against some of your circle of acquaintances norms … is not about simply fighting for fighting sake but rather fighting to show that you, who you are and what you do, shines a fierce light on something you love <who you are and the things you do>.

Yikes. That’s kind of a scary thought. Maybe it is a “hope to attain one day“ type thought.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Hard.

But okay.

Hard because society & group norms suggest the only way you can fight back is to “know now” and not “hope to be.”

Fuck ‘em.

We are a work in progress. All of us and all ‘norms.’

No matter what society says and your group norms state <sometimes unequivocally> we are a constant work in progress. The fight is never a battle for ‘lessness’ … no one can even kiddingly suggest that … all norms at all levels desire ‘moreness.’

They may just not know how to do it or what it looks like.

If you love your ‘work in progress self’ fiercely maybe, just maybe, you will show how it’s done.

Now.

There is a thought for the day.

 (originally published January 21, 2017 after Trump inauguration & updated given consistent Trump ‘join or else’ messaging)

———————

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end,  it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>. Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>. I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

• The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

• Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

• Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

• And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

• “Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

• “Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

• Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else” is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion.  Let us see who is the strongest.”

Henry David Thoreau

================================