.
VR
Uzziel's Journal


Uzziel's Journal

THIS JOURNAL IS ON 51 FAVORITE JOURNAL LISTS

Honor: 0    [ Give / Take ]

PROFILE




3 entries this month
 

ALL THE GUYS WANT A SKINNY GIRL...NOT!

09:59 Jan 17 2012
Times Read: 478


Skinny women get all the guys....

Copyright ©2012 Fred Parkinson. All Rights Reserved.

Nicole Kidman. Keira Knightley. Miranda Kerr. Cheryl Cole. Victoria Beckham. Anne Hathaway. Teri Hatcher. Amy Winehouse (RIP), Taylor Swift.



Size 00 00 00 women. Thin women. Skinny women. All men like thin women. Men only want skinny women.



If a woman wants to get a man she has to get thin because men want thin women.



Skinny women get all the guys.



Men don't want size 14 women, dear Lord no.



Fatties. That's what size 14s are.



Waddling their fat derrieres ever down the street to the burger bar.



There they are, point at them derisively - shun their company lest their fatness creep across the street and attach itself to you.



Yes, indeed the just been liberated from Auschwitz look is very in darling.



Anyone who isn't size 00 00 00 is doomed to live a solitary life, bereft of human companionship - a life of bitter isolation assuaged only by the murmuring cries of mange ridden felines.



Small, pimple sized, breasts; backsides resembling a malnourished horses mouth and ribs protruding so far that the bearer looks in profile like a corrugated roof or glockenspiel; no this isn't another Overseas Aid appeal, this is a peak inside this weeks' leading fashion and celebrity magazines.



Who set this benchmark for feminine beauty? What lofty wisdom of the Gods hath shaped our world view? The musings of the great philosophers? The Nobel Prize Winning Scientists of our age?



No, silly, the fashion industry of course. I mean, duh; how stupid are you?



And what sector of society makes up the fashion industry?



Well let's see: there's gay men, pastie unhealthy looking albinos with bad teeth and elderly women of course.



Well, there you have it girls - you can't get more authoritative than homosexual males, buck toothed albinos and post menopausal shrews now can you?



I mean if you ignore their advice you don't deserve a sex life do you?



But men like thin women, skinny women are the most attractive - that's a fact!



Which men? Which men like thin women? Who are these skinny women obsessed hordes?



Oh, you mean those guys over there with the lemon and pink shirts, skinny jeans and hairstyles that make them look like they've been slapped over the head and across the face with a wet tea towel? I see.



So let me get this straight?



You're taking your life purpose and all of your self esteem and placing it in the hands of medium height skinny guys wearing clothes that would not look out of place at a "Freddie Mercury didn't die it was all a bad Dallas Dream" comeback tour?



Answer me this.



What does a woman without breasts, curves or shape look most like - a real woman or a very pretty man?



Eh, voila!





Wait! You think me wrong?



Emma Watson in her first Xmas perfume ad was put in a man's jacket, with a man's hat and with short, slicked back hair. Elfish woman? Or pretty prepubescent boy? Disturbing? Isn't it?



And there folks we have it!



Let's try this another way.



Ask yourself, who best meets the platinum standard of feminine beauty in the eyes of the fashion industry?



A pretty, gay, approaching puberty male who is clearly unburdened by any attachment to his penis?





(Cue show tunes and triumphant entry of the Lady Boys of Bangkok as paragons of feminine beauty).



That's right girls, forget about Barbie: your role models are sex change and (to a lesser extent because of that pesky penis) transgender males.



And just how representative of the male population are sex change or transgender males; or for that matter, straight, medium height, pink shirt wearing, skinny jeans fitting, no shoulders bearing, skinny guys?



Do they even describe 10% of the population, collectively?



But wait, who is that huddled mass of males over there - could these be the mythical real men of legend? Rumor has it that they might even represent the vast majority of males!



Let's look at them!



My God, what are those strange bulges in their trousers (front AND back)?



What are those swellings in the upper body and what are those masses at the tops of their arms - they look like, no...wait..could those be the broad shoulders that the old timers used to whisper about in the old Mills & Boon novels?





Real men are clinically overweight - pom pom pom!



(For those of you men about to burst into tears and reach for the biscuit barrel W.W.E. star John Cena would be regarded as clinically obese by these outdated clinical standards).



Real men come with shoulders, backsides that fill trousers, stomachs that fill out shirts and they have hair curiously bereft of the heady scent of cocoa butter hair conditioner and deprived of the loving ministrations of straightening tongs.



(Interestingly, there is medical evidence to suggest that both the medium height skinny guy and the increasing numbers of genetically homosexual or androgynous males are the direct result of the decline of the Y chromosome (that will inevitably lead to the extinction of the male gender) the main culprit being, among other things, the extent of Estrogen fostering chemicals in the water supply).



Real men have real bodies and surprisingly don't see their penis as a burden - in fact they see their genitalia as a way to make both of you very happy.



And what do these men look for in their ideal woman?



Well, check out their internet histories - how many men are masturbating to pictures of malnourished men? Don't answer that.



Instead tell me how many of them are looking at women who would fill size 16+ clothes because they have breasts, hips and thighs?



As my grandfather used to say, "When you're looking for a woman you want summat you can grab hold of".



Can you imagine grabbing hold of a size 00 00 00 woman - it would be like trying to squeeze a bar of wet soap! Size 00 00 00 women look to real men like transsexuals - if that's your tree than by all means shake it baby but it's not everyone's cup of tea; in fact it's not the greater majority's cup of tea either.



Real women are not coat hangers, nor are they closet males longing for a larger penis. Real women are though curvy, full figured and damned sexy for it.





Well, that's what real men think


COMMENTS

-



Seshat
Seshat
13:19 Apr 11 2012

I am a size 0 and I have never had a problem attracting "real men". I am yet to hear someone tell me I look like a transsexual.



"Real men" don't put women in boxes.





fr4gil3
fr4gil3
15:37 Jun 13 2012

Absolutely Brilliant!!!





LightningCaelum
LightningCaelum
15:18 Jul 24 2012

I used to be a size 0 but I'm between sizes 10-18 with a big chest and big butt.. Bit this the result for having 4 boys..





QueenVeronika
QueenVeronika
18:59 Jan 28 2013

I really love this :)





 

STARTING A BUSINESS WITH JESUS

09:57 Jan 17 2012
Times Read: 480


JESUS CHRIST’S GUIDE TO STARTING A NEW BUSINESS

Copyright ©2012 Fred Parkinson. All Rights Reserved.





This short guide blog is not intended to be a religious work; nor is it intended to preach, convert or convince anyone to take up this, that or any other faith.



This guide is not intended to generate nor does it condone any blasphemous appraisal of Christ or his message.



Belief and faith are matters of individual conscience – all faiths have wisdom at their heart, much of it universal and of value to any who would widen their knowledge and broaden their minds.



My views on Christianity and its Church (as distinct from my views on Christ’s intended message) is the product of personal experience of Christian dogma and politics and serves as a lament to what has been lost in the battle to claim ownership of the keys of the kingdom.



It is my view that the views of Christ the Builder have as much relevance to the secular or atheist thinker dealing with real world issues as they have to the “bell jar” Christian who is fortunate enough not to have responsibilities, family, a career or a universal dream to live up to.



But for those of you not in a position to abandon your dependents, give away all of your belongings and live under a tree, this guide takes the gospels and teachings of Jesus and considers what light they might yet shed on established and new revolutionary principles of setting up and running a successful business.



This guide serves to illustrate that not all commercial wisdom lies in eastern philosophy or in military manuals written by Nazi generals or Attila the Hun.



Lo, commercial wisdom is there to be discovered under your very nose if you have but the eyes to see and the ears to hear.



This guide is the product of many years spent researching, conversing, listening and ultimately applying.

Of all these skills, that of listening is the most important one to have and to develop in business:



“I understand the business, I hear it…”

(A Winter’s Tale Act IV, Scene iv, Autolycus)



I have spent a lifetime listening to the wisdom of people from around the globe and from all walks of life: billionaires, millionaires, small businessmen, professionals, charities, religious leaders and organizations, clients, customers, , bankers, economists, martial arts teachers and even beggars and the homeless (who had it all and lost it or gave it all way).



All I ask of you is that you buy this guide (obviously), that you read it, talk to your friends and family about it, and that you listen: to your heart, to your mind and to those around you.



If you do then you will see that business success (like the kingdom of heaven) is within you and was always there, just waiting to be found.



DEVELOP A THICK SKIN



“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

(Matthew 6:39)



Rejection is a fact of entrepreneurial life.



Del Trotter (in the late John Sullivan’s much loved UK TV sitcom: “Only Fools and Horses”) may prescribe to the “He who dares, wins” philosophy of trial and error but it is his ability to cope with social, commercial and moral rejection that makes him an endearing and ever popular “have a go” icon within the business community.



If you start any venture and enterprise you will face opposition, ridicule, well and ill-meaning skepticism and yes, rejection.



No matter how good the idea, how fantastic the product, or how marvelous the service there will always be someone who just doesn’t like who you are, what you are and what you are doing.



A good salesman spots a selling opportunity, tests it and if the perceived opportunity is found wanting seeks feedback, learns and moves cheerfully on to the next opportunity; thereby generating goodwill, making future approaches to the target easier and creating an overall ambience of success in the making.



“I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you…That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

(Matthew 5:44-48)



In the same way, a good chat up merchant spots a likely mate, “chats up” the target and if there is no chemistry at least makes a new friend (who just might become a prospect at some future date).



“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth”

(Matthew 5:5)



A bad salesman assumes that the target ought to (and therefore wants to) buy, spends hours and resources trying to persuade the target by force to buy and then stalks off in disgust when the target eludes capture; thereby generating “bad-will”, implementing a scorched earth customer policy and an all-pervading vibe of inevitable failure.



“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

(Matthew 7:1-2)



In the same way, a bad chat up merchant flatly asserts a rehearsed chat up line, persists in making advances regardless of the signals being given and then stalks off declaring the target to be a lesbian or homosexual; leaving behind a reputation as an embarrassing creep or bunny boiler that one would be well advised to steer well clear of.



“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them, for this is the law...”

(Matthew 7:12)



TECHNICAL EXPERTISE DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS



“When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them, “You snakes -who told you that you could escape from the punishment God is about to send? …And don’t think you can escape punishment by saying Abraham is your ancestor. I tell you that God can take these stones and make descendants for Abraham!…The axe is ready to cut down the trees at the roots; every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown in the fire.”

(Matthew 3: 7-10)



One of the gravest and most common errors made in the “start-up” game is to assume that technical knowledge of one’s own sphere of knowledge is sufficient to create and develop a successful business.



The assumption is that because you know how to do your job well that people will see that and buy that technical expertise as a commodity with buckets of cash.



This is an assumption most prevalent in the technical professions the worst example of which is the legal or (more particularly) the solicitors’ profession.



The legal profession in the UK is currently facing the most devastating reforms of its generation; from October 2011 virtually anyone will be able to offer legal services to the public.



Gone will be the days when it was sufficient to open an office and legal clients would have no choice but to buy services from you (as there was no one else who could); instead, consumers will be able to look to familiar brands such as the Co-op and WH Smith to provide them with customer focused, value for money services at a clear, affordable price.



And what has been the response to this “ice age inducing” meteor?



“We are solicitors. Nobody knows the legal market better than we. As long as we keep going on as we are, we will be ok! Sure we might spring for the costs of say: a new lick of paint on the door, or to get someone to do a new logo on our headed notepaper. But when it all comes down to it: we will be spared the worst because, after all, we are lawyers and they are not.”

An attitude little changed from Shakespeare’s day:

“Whether it like me or no, I am a courtier. Seest thou not the air of the court in these enfoldings? hath not my gait in it the measure of the court? receives not thy nose court odour from me? reflect I not on thy baseness court-contempt? Thinkest thou, for that I insinuate or tease from thee thy business, I am therefore no courtier? I am courtier cap-a-ape; and one that will either push on or pluck back thy business there…”

(A Winter’s Tale Act IV, Scene iv, Autolycus)



The equivalent reform of the rules affecting the financial services industry in the UK scythed down the numbers of independent financial advisers; now the axe is being sharpened for solicitors.



It is not all bad news though.



Those solicitors’ firms that have embraced the need for a co-ordinated business strategy and clear plan have prospered and look set to prosper yet further in the foreseeable future.



And how have they ensured that their strategies are properly executed?



1. By employing business and management consultants to run the business of providing legal services; and



2. By designating managing partners from solicitors within their practices that demonstrate real commercial acumen; and



3. By keeping the commercial involvement of “legal expert” solicitors to a minimum.



In other words, they have recognized that being a solicitor means nothing at all if the business isn’t making any money.



What every successful business does need is an entrepreneur, a person with a dream – a dream to:



1. Reject failure and failure inducing patterns or behaviors; and



2. Seek a new, untried path based on a deeper appreciation or understanding of the business they are in



3. To rebuild and remake the business so like the Six million Dollar Man (my favourite childhood show and the only threat of withdrawal of which could get me to go to bed on time) it is better than it was before – better, stronger, faster.



SUCCESS STARTS WITH A DREAM….



“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus –for he shall save his people from their sins….Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife”

(Matthew 1:20-24)



Every successful business or venture starts with a dream.



A dream is limitless, inclusive of all who would share it and makes the world an even better place to be.



A dream brings hope, fosters growth and chases away negativity like a candle chasing away the dark.



So, we know what a dream can do, but what is a dream – if I need a dream to be successful how do you get one or recognize one in yourself?



A dream is not to be confused with a desire.



Most new businesses fail because they are not based on a dream but on a desire to have what others are seen to have.



God, seeking to save his people from all of the misery and evil associated with desire, gave his people this commandment:



“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbours”

(Exodus 20:17)



Other than the command to worship no other gods but the One God, this is the most labored of God’s instructions to his people, and for good reason.



Desire, being a breach of one of God’s fundamental commandments, carries with it all of the retribution and punishment of God in the form of failure or deprived success.



Desire is distraction dressed up as achievement.



But the rewards of desire are meager: like the rewards of a junkie’s last hit, of an alcoholic’s last drink or a smoker’s last cigarette.



“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward…hungered. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones may be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”

(Matthew 4:3-4)



Desire is a species of fear: a fear of losing:



“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also”

(Matthew 6:19-21)



The fear of losing produces a petty, small individual that weighs everything in terms of what may be lost rather than what can be gained.



“Therefore, take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? Or, wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.”

(Matthew 6:31-32)



Every fruitful business or venture starts with a dream:



“But seek ye first the kingdom of God…and all these things shall be added unto you.”

(Matthew 6:33)



The dream is the “why” to the inevitable result, the motive for action and therefore for achievement.



Without a motive there can be no motivation.



The dream is the answer waiting to be found, to be discovered:



“…your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him”

(Matthew 6:8)



Americans, with their uniquely deft knack of summarizing much in a few words refer to the zest to create a better, brighter economic future as “pursuing the American dream.”



One of my favorite British comedians Peter Kay jokes in his TV parody Phoenix Nights (a comedy about the hapless efforts of club owner Brian Potter to run a successful night club) of “living the dream.”



Honda, one of the world’s largest and most innovative car manufacturers has adopted the strapline: “The Power of Dreams”



John’s Gospel tells of the Universe and everything in it being created from a dream of God:



“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.”

(John 1:1-5)



It is a vital attribute then for any would be entrepreneur to be able to differentiate between a dream and a desire as the motivation for business.



But the path of the dreamer is harder to pursue than that of the desire-monger, as it leads the individual into uncharted territory and even though it is the only path that offers success as its reward few yet have the courage to take it.



The reluctance to embrace dreams is a reflection of the hold that desire has over mankind.



Desire is made to seem powerful, its path the path of goal-centered achievement and its rewards tangible and realistic – yet nothing could be further from the truth.



The “goal-centric” is seen by society as a “go-getter”, an achiever destined for success.



However, the concept of “controlled outcomes centering” is not a human one, it is not even a concept found in nature – controlled outcomes centering is the product of a machine led culture, more specifically of a computerized, systems based culture.



Systems are held up as the new gods that will carry society to a new golden age.



For Jesus and the writers of the New Testament however, systems are weapons of mass destruction wielded by the Devil in his modern guise as Machine God.



Make no mistake, the gospels tell us, this is the Devil’s world and he intends to maintain and extend his rule over it with whatever weapons best suit his aims.



“Again, the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and sayeth unto him, “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” then saith Jesus unto him. “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the Devil leaveth him”

(Matthew 4:8-11)



The Machine God seeks to replace utterly the Judeo-Christian God or Allah; whereas Christians have (for the most part) tried to harness the Machine God’s tools for good, Muslims have been far more vocal in their rejection of the Devil and all his works.



Many Muslims have embraced scholarship and rhetoric as the battlegrounds of choice – some however, have more notably shaped their opposition to the Machine God by adopting a scorched earth policy; although one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter the collateral damage caused to the innocent remains the same.



Such actions (however well or ill meant) are however largely in vain as the Machine God’s hold over man is just too strong, and is getting ever stronger.



The Machine God’s willing servants are or become the “blockers” or systems-thinkers whose collective aims serve the Machine God entirely by diverting mankind away from the narrow path of dreaming to the wide, easier path of desire focus.



The Machine God’s finds his most willing acolytes among women.



Women are most receptive to systems (shopping lists at the grocery store; reading manual before unpacking the item etc.,) and are themselves the authors of many systems now in use (however unfairly credit may be given to their male counterparts).



This is because women tend to think in terms of patterns and find it easiest to adopt patterns as a “strategic response” to the tasks at hand.



The female trait of system generation is a genetic response to the responsibilities thrust upon women to be mothers and homemakers; in order to assert control over the myriad tasks generated by motherhood and wife/partner-hood, women create systems as coping strategies.



This trait becomes a habit that carries over into the world of work as women struggle with the unforeseen (but foreseeable) implications of their drive for equality: namely, less pay for the same work and lower salaries for male employees.



This in turn has resulted in a need for both halves of the average couple to go out to work to earn the same extent of money they already enjoyed from one salary when only the man worked, that is, before privileged, armchair feminists were thrown nuts or otherwise had their cages shook by the Machine God.



The Mother Goddess was for many cultures the supreme god, and women were revered in many ancient societies for their greater connectedness to the godhead.



The feminine is as equally important as the masculine (gender is not the comparison here, males can exhibit feminine qualities just as females can exhibit masculine qualities) and any advanced culture must have at its core an appreciation of the need for equality geared to balance.



However, some feminists have instead sought to insist that a woman is an advanced man and that therefore there is no need for a balancing masculinity to society; they go on to assert that a feminine centered society would result in a utopia.



The absurdity of this comparing “apples and oranges” analysis to justify a female utopia is best illustrated by a simple analysis of the growth of the “blame culture.”



The question is where did the universally reviled blame culture come from? Was it a by-product of a male-dominated society?



Was there a blame culture when Life on Mar’s Gene Hunt held sway? No!



So what is different?



Some feminists would have us believe that in 1973 the world was living in a dark age ruled by male chauvinist pigs.



Male chauvinists went to work all day for a decent wage, went out at the end of a day to spend a little bonding time with their male counterparts and then went home – but to what?



They went home to one question: “what have you been doing until this time?”



In that single question was encapsulated the innate and singularly female desire for accountability, apportionment of blame and retribution regardless of the cost.



In 1973 that question held limited sway over mankind; but what of now?



In 2011, where the role of women in the workplace is increasing at such a rate that the male population is facing a real prospect of never securing work where a woman is in the running; that same question threatens economies, professions, occupations and the peaceful harmony of nations.



The tools of the Machine God are systems – contrived matrix orientated constructs that are a reactive response to events that cannot be controlled (such as independent thought) and which threaten the power of the Machine God over the whole world.



If anyone doubts this analysis one only has to look for support of its conclusions to the new regulatory framework currently being thrust upon UK lawyers (more specifically the solicitors’ arm of that profession) in October 2011.



The new Solicitors’ Regulatory Handbook is overtly “outcomes focused” and seeks to control outcomes by a focus on “indicative behaviors”.



The intended approach is to compel all UK solicitors to employ approved or pre-approved systems of work that have been determined by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority to be behaviors indicative of a desired outcome!



By limiting the collective mind of man to desire focused thinking, the Machine God is able to control what we eat, what we drink, what we wear, what we earn, where we earn and even how we form relationships (which in turn permits control over who we have sex with, who our friends should be, who we should marry and where we will spend our lives together).



Systems driven thinkers are the “false prophets” of our age and their aim, like Macbeth’s witches, is to fog our minds so that fair becomes foul and foul becomes fair.



Jesus tries desperately to awaken man to the purposes and outcomes mantras associated with the Machine God by admonishing his followers to see things as they are and not how the Machine God would have you see them:



“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there be that go in there: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth until life, and few there be that find it”

(Matthew 7:13-14)



Jesus has forewarned us of these “false prophets” and has gone as far as to help us to identify them so that we may escape their web of deceit and be spared their path to destruction:



“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”

(Matthew 7:16-20)



Dreams are not weak nor do they suffer weakness.



Dreams are threatening but are not a destructive force save where they are confronted by the machinations of the Machine God.



Dreams dare, dare to challenge conventional expectations and to render the now familiar landscape in a totally new rainbow of opportunities and possibilities.



He who dares, wins.



Dreams are the new chaos from which a new order will rise:



“Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the world, but a sword”…



Dreams are, like fire, both a destructive and a creative force – purging the decay associated with fear of loss and fostering a more productive belief in growth, wealth and abundance.



“I indeed baptize you with water…but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire”

(Matthew 3:11-12)



If all this is true: that dreams are the powerful creative force behind all successful enterprises, then why are so few businesses founded on a dream?



The reasons lie in the nature of a dream and its implications for the dreamer:



1. A dream is bigger than the dreamer!



Control freaks have a desperate desire to keep everything small so that they can continue to exert control - so they micromanage, bean count, cut back, squeeze and nickel and dime their business resources, their staff, their customers and ultimately themselves.



“…why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye: and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”

(Matthew 7:3-5)



They then seek to blame everyone around them for the failure of their businesses to grow to their expectations.



A miser is never rich, or as my grandmother was fond of saying “there are no pockets in a shroud”.



2. A dream makes demands of the dreamer, creates a responsibility, a duty, something to live up to, to be worthy of!



Abraham Lincoln dreamed of a United States of America that would shine as a beacon of hope for lovers of freedom;



Martin Luther King Junior’s dream was for an America free from division by color; and



Mother Theresa’s dream was for a world without poverty, a world where love and care for one’s fellow man chased away the demons of hatred and despair.



3. A dream, lie star blazing bright in the night sky, has a life of its own and cannot be controlled or limited save by the imagination of the dreamer!



A dream grows ever more, attracting ever more people and ever more resources:



“…behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him”

(Matthew 2:1-2)



“…and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts: gold and frankincense, and myrrh.”

(Matthew 2:9-11)



As the dream grows it generates needs: needs for more effective communication; for sharper more responsive management; for keener financial awareness and planning; and for a firmer grasp of co-ordination and strategy.



TIMING IS EVERYTHING



“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus if becometh us to fulfill all righteousness…”

(Matthew 3:13-14)



The relevance of timing ought to be obvious – there is no commercial sense in closing a flower shop on Valentine’s Day; or of boarding up a seaside bed and breakfast hotel over the summer months.



Good timing identifies the pivotal moment to launch a brand or a service to the market when the market is most receptive.



This requires research of the market (more specifically of the target customer).



Timing is also about knowing when it’s time to quit a venture that has stopped working the way it used to i.e. it has stopped yielding results.



“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt shall have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men”

(Matthew 5:13)



EMPLOY THE RIGHT PEOPLE FOR THE RIGHT JOBS



“And Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Pete, and Andrew his brother Andrew, casting a net in the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”

(Matthew 4: 18-20)



Choosing the best employee for the job is a big “ASK”:



Ask, and it shall be given you;



Seek and ye shall find:



Knock, and it shall be opened to you



For every one that Asketh receiveth;



and he that Seeketh findeth;



and to him that Knocketh it shall be opened.

(Matthew 7:7-8)



What should you look for in a new employee?



A. S. K.:



A = Attitude

S = Skills

K = Knowledge



Attitude represents the outlook that the employee has to the job.



As such, attitude is an aspect of the employee’s innate character or nature and cannot readily be changed within the narrow confines of a working relationship.



A working environment is an ecological unit; as such any additions will have an effect on the ecology as a whole.



Entrants therefore must either be compatible with the ecology or (if the desire is to shake things up a bit) at least likely to have a broadly positive effect on the rest of the ecology.



If the ecology is disregarded wholly in choosing further entrants then the employer is playing a very dangerous game of Russian roulette with the well-being of his existing employees which could in turn give rise to malcontent resulting in employee attrition, bullying, harassment and sabotage.



If there is a choice to be made between two candidates of equal technical ability and experience, the balance-tipper or decider must be: attitude!



Posed as a question - whose attitude is best suited for my type of business, my brand and for the fulfillment of my guiding dream?



Skills represent the taught abilities of the employee, whether “on the job” or in education.



In specialist roles qualifications are likely to influence significantly your assessment of the skill set on offer.

However in more general roles the range of skills is likely to differentiate one candidate from another



GET RID OF “BAD APPLE” EMPLOYEES



“And if thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body shall be cast into hell”

(Matthew 5:29-30)



TELL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS



“And Jesus went all about Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria…And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem, and from Judea and from beyond the Jordan”

(Matthew 4:23-25)



Much is often made in business circles of the value of reputation – however, reputation is a dangerous foundation upon which to build any venture.



“Cassio: Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!



Iago: As I am an honest man, I thought you had received some bodily wound; there is more sense in that than in reputation. Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit and lost without deserving: you have lost no reputation at all, unless you repute yourself such a loser…”

(The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice, Act II, Scene iii, Iago & Cassio)



The truth is however that many businesses run on the bald assumption that their reputation is all they need to stay in business and, applying that reasoning, they skimp on marketing or worse employ marketing initiatives that either have no prospect of success or which they never take any time to assess in terms of effectiveness.



Some businesses regard any sort of mass marketing with distaste bordering upon horror, seeing any sort of hawking for business as at best undignified and at worst sordid.



Some even (bizarrely) see ethical or religious issues arising from the act of marketing one’s wares.



The result is that many business managers preside over businesses that are ever gliding serenely into obscurity.

To illustrate the point, let us consider the plight of the mother’s favorite superstore: Woolworth’s.



The last memorable TV advertising made (“that’s the wonder of a Woolies’ Christmas”) was made more than twenty years ago!



What had the managers been doing for all that time – making questionable strategic decisions, relying entirely on their perceived resilience of Woolworth’s business reputation (a reputation incidentally that their strategy dismantled brick by brick) and thereby gliding the business serenely into utter obscurity.



The established Churches of Rome and of England are the very best (or worst) example of just this sort of muddle headed thinking.



The belief persists (despite all evidence to the contrary) that the reputation of the Church is intact and that it is sufficient to maintain the Churches’ collective hold on the minds and consciences of the public at large until whenever God determines to show his hand.



What the Churches of Rome and England fail to appreciate however is that their reputation as keepers of the kingdom is not only flawed but positively deluded.



The collective belief of the Churches of Rome and England is that if they keep churches open and build more church buildings that their churches will grow and prosper.



They have no grasp of their market because they have never been in it!



There is no preaching (save to the gentle few who attend services), no outreach (save for secular programs which carry an unspoken admission that the churches are only useful for the space they can offer to secular support networks such as toddler, youth, gay and lesbian groups) and no presence in the minds and hearts of the public the Churches are looking to save from damnation.



What we have instead is attempts to introduce secular values of equal rights into the concept of apostleship and ministry; knee jerk initiatives bereft of purpose and ethical dithering over the moral raison d’etre.



Groups are sometimes targeted for special attention but with no prior intelligence as to whether there is any fertile ground to sow there; so for example, a radical priest might decide to target the Goth community for converts and obtain the backing of one or more bishops without there being any apparent or meaningful appreciation of the fact that the very essence of Goth culture is its overt rejection of accepted paradigms, societal “Judeo-Christian” norms and organized religion.



Why not go the whole hog and preach Christianity at the door of the synagogue or mosque!



But at least they’re trying aren’t they?



To try without knowledge, purpose or planning is to try to fail – so if failure is indeed their objective then they are a roaring success!



If the Churches were a success what we should have is a harmonious trinity of Christ, Christianity and Church all working to a common purpose and ushering in a golden age of enlightened thought and universal spirituality.



Instead, by a combination of dithering, dabbling and dickering is created an unholy, mutually divergent trinity of Christ, Christianity and the Church:



1. CHRIST whose long forgotten teachings (delivered so that they could be discovered by all (regardless of academic acumen or station, waiting to be revealed to all and intended to be lived by all) have been superseded to the point of rejection by Christian tradition, or to put it more accurately, Christian mythology; and



2. CHRISTIANITY whose origins lie in the subjective preferences of men such as St Paul, the manufactured infallibility of Popes and the “wisdom” of the early church fathers (whose unbridled opinions, ever embellished by other church scholars, have done more to stamp out Christ’s real message than Herod, Pilate and the Sadducees put together); and



3. CHURCH whose edifice is founded on an hypocrisy, an hypocrisy of living contrary to the will of Christ in order to preserve Christ’s message for a society that isn’t listening anyway.



The way forward for the Church is to get back to Christ – back to the Dream and to the Way that is no other way:



The truth is that Jesus did not snooze in the synagogue or in an armchair fashioned in his carpenter’s shop (the translation of Jesus’ supposed occupation is more likely to equate to builder), waiting for his message to find its way to the people by some mystical process of divine osmosis.



Jesus did not send out waspish, sanctimonious letters to the Roman Governor nor did he scrawl discrete coded advertisements on the walls of the Temple.



Jesus, still to many the son of the Supreme Being, got off his Nazarene behind and walked, talked and squawked his message of love and truth across Israel and its neighboring towns:



“A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let you light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven...”

(Matthew 5:14-16)



As one retiring financial adviser told me (after a successful career): “And for God’s sake don’t sit behind your desk; better to chop the damned thing up than let it become a hurdle to the making of new business”



LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION



“But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt , Saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go in to the land of Israel, for they are dead that sought the young child’s life. And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel”

(Matthew 2:19-21)



If your business requires you to take on premises then you must choose your location carefully, mindful of the opportunities and threats that may affect your business:



“But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene”

(Matthew 2:22-23)



DON’T WASTE MONEY ON LEGAL COSTS



“Agree with thy adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him: lest any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge…”

(Matthew 5:25-26)



The most common (and most absurd) reason people get into legal disputes is “it’s the principle of the thing.”



Lawyers love this reasoning most as it allows them to justify ruinous legal costs incurred in the pursuit of actions that should never have arrived anywhere near a courtroom.



Mediation is quicker, cheaper and just as (if not more) effective – so use it


COMMENTS

-



 

Making a Monkey out of Man

09:56 Jan 17 2012
Times Read: 481


Dawkins' Planet of the Apes - Or, How to make money making Monkeys out of Mankind

Copyright ©2012 Fred Parkinson. All Rights Reserved.



You’ve got to hand it to him: Professor Dawkins has managed to turn a minor league scientific discipline (zoology) into a massive money maker that has made him rich beyond any academic’s financial aspirations.

And how has Professor Dawkins done this?

By resurrecting the dry bones of a suspect theory of the origins of life on earth and shaking them in the faces of religious fundamentalists to generate financially lucrative controversy.

There is No Science of Interpretation

The fundamental error that Professor Richard Dawkins makes and which underpins all of his “professional” works is the assumption that there is a separate and distinct “science of interpretation” – of which he naturally claims supreme, if not sole, mastery.

Professor Dawkins asserts that since all scientists interpret data in a purely scientific way to arrive at wholly reliable conclusions (the only reliable conclusions he would insist); theirs alone is the kingdom of heaven and everything in it.

Believers in any God he asserts, on the other hand, insofar as they interpret “differently” (i.e. without donning a white coat and goggles beforehand or affiliating themselves to the Oxbridge scientific community) are doomed to reach inherently and massively flawed conclusions about everything.

Professor Dawkins would have us believe that scientists interpret their data according to some independent, objective and infallible code that prevents any possibility of error or misdirection in subsequent inferred thought.

The truth is, however, that there is no such thing as a science of interpretation.

What is science?

Dictionary.com defines science as:

Noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing [my emphasis] the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.[my emphasis]

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.



If science then is:

- merely an arrangement of systemized facts and truths;

- organized to present a view;

- that everyone else is then expected to accept as truth

…then to go on to assert that this methodology is in any way different from that employed by religious leaders of any faith is to attempt to draw a distinction without showing any real difference.

The Roman Catholic faith, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are all faiths founded upon “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of” their respective God’s laws.

If systemization is the main plank of science then insofar as it is also the main plank of religion any attempt to drive a wedge between the two is at best strained and at worst borderline Nazism, with all the book burning implications thereof.

The flaw of any body of knowledge lies in the chosen interpretation of its adherents; not in the body of knowledge itself.

Judeo-Christian doctrines can draw upon themes of violence and war just as easily as they can draw upon themes of peace and love; and Islam can dazzle the world with its beauty and sense of community just as easily as it can be invoked by terrorists.

Scientists are in fact every bit as capable as the religious community of twisting knowledge to peculiar and even dangerous ends by employing the imperfect lens of interpretation.

When a scientist embarks on an experiment of any sort the methodology employed is usually to record the same under four main headings:

1. Apparatus

2. Method

3. Results

4. Conclusion

Procedures 1-3 are capable of being recorded entirely objectively.

So, for example a scientist may take a match and a sheet of paper (apparatus), strike the match and set it to the paper (method).

When the paper catches fire, the state of the paper and match is then recordable (Results).

We then encounter the final fence for the scientist – the conclusion.

Every single scientist is left to interpret the results of any and all experiments in the only way possible, namely a non-scientific and entirely subjective way.

And every single scientist does interpret the results of any and all experiments in the only way possible, namely a non-scientific and entirely subjective way.

In other words, the interpretation of data by scientists is neither independent nor objective and it is certainly not infallible.

To go back to our paper lighting scientist: the conclusion drawn will depend entirely on the subjective purpose of the experiment.

For example: to test the reliability of a brand of matches; to test the resilience of a brand of flame-proof paper; or to test the degree of heat emitted by the match or the burning paper.

At this point Professor Dawkins would probably assert that since science has determined that paper will catch fire when a match is applied to it that the conclusion is simply proof of that science (perhaps even that the experiment is redundant as the expected outcome is in his view obvious from a scientific perspective).

My answer to this would be to refer Professor Dawkins to his attack on what he asserted was the ignorance of a group of young schoolgirls schooled in the Islamic faith (details of which can be viewed variously on You Tube).

The Qur’an speaks of Allah(by means of a natural barrier) separating in the sea salt water from that of freshwater.

Professor Dawkins (displaying his own unique brand of scientific objectivity towards all things Islamic) spoke out vehemently on the validity of religious schools insofar as they were clearly imparting erroneous religious views as infallible science.

Professor Dawkins corroborated his hateful tirade by describing how science has proven that a glass of freshwater and a glass of saltwater would mix and not separate.

Clearly, Professor Dawkins credentials as an eminent zoologist eluded him entirely as both David Attenborough and the Arctic Halocline clearly exhibit both the phenomenon described in the Qur’an.

Moreover, the admirable assimilation and retention by the young Muslim girls of scientific knowledge acquired during science lessons taught in an Islamic religious school environment was clearly superior to that of the much honored Professor Dawkins.

And (going back to our scientist) what if the paper being tested was made or discovered to be immune to flame or the match made or discovered to be incapable of transferring heat?

The rulebook would then be of no help and the scientist would be left to conceive a new subjective interpretation of the results.



Fighting Religion with Religious Fervor

Professor Dawkins is keen to point out that Darwin (whom Dawkins worships with all the fanaticism of the religious fundamentalists he purports to decry) is every day having his evolutionary theories proven by subsequent developments and breakthroughs in scientific study.

But before we venture further let us first examine this outline position carefully:

- a written work;

- prepared by a man with few scientific credentials other than enthusiasm (it is interesting to postulate whether Darwin’s views would have carried the same clout today given the snooty attitude of the scientific community to amateur academics however significant their contribution);

- pushing interpretations of observed facts without any real material qualitative or quantitative apparatus;

- is received as truth;

- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up;

- and is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.

How does this approach to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution differ materially from say, the Islamic position regarding their most holy text, the Qur’an (Koran):

- a written work;

- taken down by a man with no known scientific credentials other than enthusiasm;

- pushing interpretations of the handiwork of Allah in matters as diverse as mankind’s genetic composition; bacterial risks associated with pork and shellfish; and in natural phenomena such as the Halocline separation of salt and fresh water in the sea;

- is received as truth;

- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up; and

- is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.

Or, dare we say it, from the approach of Christians to the Bible:

- a written work;

- taken down by a man with no known scientific credentials other than enthusiasm;

- pushing interpretations of the nature of God’s handiwork in matters as diverse as cloning; zoology; economics; care of the elderly, infirm and less fortunate; psychology; and politics;

- is received as truth;

- is received as truth not only in relation to its own limited field but as a prevailing truth that answers ever question that life, the universe and everything throws up; and

- is hailed as wisdom because emerging science bears some of its findings out.

What Science is that Professor Dawkins?

Professor Dawkins key flaw is that he does not approach any topic that he sets his eyes upon with any scientific objectivity; rather he skips steps 1 to 3 (Apparatus/Method/Results) and goes straight to Conclusion.

In his case that conclusion is that all belief in God is delusional and without foundation or corroboration and that therefore no further exploration thereof is necessary.

The Late great Lord Denning (in the then House of Lords) was often criticized in delivering his judgments for starting with the right conclusion as he saw it and then finding the law (re-interpreting it if necessary) to corroborate his findings.

However, compared to Professor Dawkins Denning’s approach is at least partially scientific in the sense that there is at least a review of the available data!

Professor Dawkins on the other hand does not even look at the evidence of a God – he just assumes without meaningful investigation that there isn’t any; but ask yourself, could the concept of a supreme being really have lasted 10,000 years with no supporting evidence of its worth or validity?

There is no science in Professor Dawkins’ rants on belief in a God; at best we are being treated to intellectual snobbery and at worst we are witnessing a sinister desire to propel the world into a new dark age where science and utility supersedes love and morality.


COMMENTS

-






COMPANY
REQUEST HELP
CONTACT US
SITEMAP
REPORT A BUG
UPDATES
LEGAL
TERMS OF SERVICE
PRIVACY POLICY
DMCA POLICY
REAL VAMPIRES LOVE VAMPIRE RAVE
© 2004 - 2024 Vampire Rave
All Rights Reserved.
Vampire Rave is a member of 
Page generated in 0.0654 seconds.
X
Username:

Password:
I agree to Vampire Rave's Privacy Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's Terms of Service.
I agree to Vampire Rave's DMCA Policy.
I agree to Vampire Rave's use of Cookies.
•  SIGN UP •  GET PASSWORD •  GET USERNAME  •
X