#the next most common person people make this sort of stuff about is alan but. well. the tone and frequency is VERY different. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

walkonwalkonwithhopeinyourheart · 4 years

Text

I translated Salah's interview with BeIn Sports via /r/LiverpoolFC

I translated Salah's interview with BeIn Sports

Interviewer: Alsalumaikum viewers of BeIN Sports. Welcome to this special interview with the great star Mohamed Salah, champion of the Premier League, champion of the Club World Cup, star of the Egyptian national team. Highlights + The Egyptian King Abu Makka! First of all, happy to meet you. Congrats, a long season, an exceptional season in the history of global football. How do you feel as the champion of the premier league; the first time in 30 years?

Mo: Eh, definitely very happy, it's a feeling that can't be described to win the league with Liverpool after 30 years. I can see how happy people are so it's something pretty big for everyone.

Int: Alright, I'm going to back to a memory from about five years ago. You graced me and invited me to lunch in London when you were in Chelsea. At that time you were still a squad player in Chelsea. Did you imagine that after all these years you would return with another team and to win and be the champion of the Premier League?

Mo: Well, it was in my mind, 100%, that I must return to the Premier League. I had put in my mind that goal of returning to play in the Premier League again. And even said that when I came to Liverpool. So, uh, hamdulillah I returned and won the Champions League, the League, the Golden Boot, and best player. So I think it's not bad, I think I did well.

Int: So, here in BeIn I hosted a lot legends, Alan Shearer, Steve McManaman, Arsene Wenger, all of them say that Anfield is something else in European Football (TN: I'm not sure if he means football in Europe or European football).

Mo: Yes. I felt it even when I played with Chelsea. When I first got here and I was with Chelsea and played the match here and felt how different things were to play here. I wished that one day I could play here. Truly, when I first came here with Chelsea the atomosphere is very different from any other club and because I was with Chelsea I used to travel and see other clubs, other stadiums and such but it was the first time for me to think "I want to play here, I want to play for this club". So, at the time I said that if I had the chance I would come back here, and even after I went to Roma, I'll come back here inshaallah. So I got the chance and I was every excited to come.

Int: We kept the famous Chelsea game where Demba Ba scored and Gerrard ... fell we were there in the field, we had the studio covering that match and I remember with Liverpool's anthem all the pundits agreed that there was a strange sensation. Do you feel that sensation before the first kick? The feeling of electricity, the feeling of positive energy through hearing You'll Never Walk Alone?

Mo: Oh no always. Generally speaking, I like to enjoy the atmosphere here in Anfield. So I just stay like this looks around while they sing and I just watch and sort of enjoy the atmosphere before the match. So for me I'm enjoying it and this is a place I love and I would like to stay here for a long time. Umm, but the atmosphere is different, you feel them all singing the same song and there's just something that just pumps you up.

Int: Alright captain (TN: captain is an informal way of addressing others, probably more common in football), I know on a personal level that before joining Liverpool, before the first day of joining Liverpool you met with Jurgen Klopp. He explain to you the plan, the strategy of the club five and ten years in the future. Is that one of the reasons for your quick signing? Did he achieve a large portion of that plan in your opinion?

Mo: Of course, definately, because I talked with him and he explained to me exactly what he wanted to do in the future plan for the club and I was very excited to be there [in the club] because Sadio was also playing in my position. So that was my first question because Sadio was one of the stars of the team at the time and I came in would he and I keep swapping or will he play on the other side. So his [Klopp's] plan was that Sadio would play on the other side and that there would be consistency of the two of us on the field. So because of that I was very excited to be there and for the squad and the changes he wanted to make in it. That also made me excited to join.

Int: On the subject of Sadio, it's always said that the large stars can always overcome obstacles quickly. It's obvious that you've [you and Sadio] quickly passed the conflicts, you celebrate together, you create chances for each other, very quickly.

Mo: Yeah, I don't think the matter took long. I don't see it as a conflict because in the end something happened on the pitch, "pitch anger" on his part and for me the matter didn't take long because at the end of the day we didn't argue over anything serious. The entire matter was just "pitch anger" and the next day, the next game we were playing together and passed to each other and assisted each other. So the matter didn't take long from either of us.

Int: Captain, the Italian experience, Fiorentina then Roma, do you think this helped Mohamed Salah to reach maturity quickly and at a young age?

Mo: To a large extent yes, to a very large extent yes. I think that at that time I had to change league and country and to change everything I see here when I was in Chelsea and I just wanted to change it. I wanted to try a different experience in a different place and that helped me a lot to acclimate especially since in Italy things are entirely tactics and such. That helped me a lot to mature as a person and as a football player because when I came back here I was ready to play in the Premier League again.

Int: The discussion around the best player of the season in previous years there was a list of names nominated from different clubs, Hazard, de Bruyne, Salah, Kane. Today, everyone agrees that this player would be from Liverpool but who? Some talk about Salah, Arnold, about Mane, about Henderson. In your honest opinion is the best player this season?

Mo: Umm, wallahi I don't know. If you look at each player individually you'll fin-... mo- ... mo-... most of the ... if you ask ten [people], and you told them, umm ... you told them Alisson deserves Best Player of the Season, nine of them would tell you yes. If you ask ten [people], you told them Virgil deserves Best Player of the Season, nine of them would say yes. If you ask ten [people], nine of them would tell you Trent deserves, I deserve, umm, Sadio deserves, Henderson deserves. So it's difficult for me as a player to say that this [person] deserves Best Player in the league. But there are several of us who put forward an excellent season. Or I could chooses someone from outside the league, outside of our team that would be much easier for me.

Int: Perhaps a lot of people talk about Henderson. Me, on a personal level I will remove Salah so as not to include emotions in this matter, I will pick Arnold because he's put forward an extraordinary season.

Mo: So you want me to pick someone other than myself?

Int: Other than Salah

Mo: Other than myself. I don't know. It's possible ... from one perspective, it's possible, Arnold put forward a great season. Henderson put forward a great season. So I, I could choose Henderson because he's the captain and has been here from eight-nine years and ... in the beginning there was a tough time put on him, or with him, there was a tough time with him and a lot of people were against him. So I could choose Henderson because as well he, as a person, is just impossible. He's a great guy, and awesome, and as a captain all the players love him and he tries to help everyone even the smaller players. So I could choose him because he played a large role in helping the players acclimate.

Int: Maybe another part of the pressure and responsibility was that he carried the captain's armband after Gerrard who was-

Mo: Yes, exactly. [unintelligible]

Int: ... also his absence when he was injured affected the team to a large degree in the middle of the season.

Mo: Because he hypes up the players to a large degree and makes all the players give as much as they could. Even if there's a player who's a bit lazy he can push him by talking to him and such to make him more excited and pumped up to be on the field.

Int: But even tactically you could the effect it had on you, captain.

Mo: Yes, exactly. I remember this period.

Int: Ok, so now every football team reach the top, reaches the zenith, think of Barcelona-Guardiola, Milan-Sacchi. Do you feel that Liverpool now reached the peak and maintaining this level will be difficult in the coming years?

Mo: Well you try to take advantage of the years that are there. We, as a team, have been together for three years. So I think that we can continue together to a large part. We know each other, we're used to each other. The relationships between the players is good. So I can say that if we stay together for a large part we could win other titles because, for example, you won the Champions League last year and this year you lost to Atletico Madrid in a match here and we weren't very lucky. We put forward a good effort and everyone said that we deserve to win but Atletico Madrid also won and of course congratulations to them and stuff but at the same time you put forward a good effort. So, keeping this level is difficult but not impossible at all. As long as there is motivation and you're searching for something good to do then I'm certain we can keep this level to a large degree.

Int: Well in the subject of motivation, captain, you know that you have behind you more than 100 million mashallah in Egypt and more than that in the Arab world. Does this give you more motivation? Occasionally a player would reach a level where their appetite is sated, I've won everything, Champions League, Club World Cup, Premier League.

Mo: laughs That's not me, no. That's not me. No there's still a long road ahead of me. What I've drawn up for myself is still, is something that I ... that I ... I keep changing what I want to reach. I change it so I keep going at this level. What I'm motivated to reach inshaallah in the coming years is much better than what was in the past years.

Int: Ok, they're asking me for one last question so I'm going to ask you about Aboutreika. I, today as a Arab journalist, I look at it as an ideal relationship between two stars. A lot of stars, when he reaches a certain level, he doesn't want someone else to reach it. On the opposite is Aboutreika, when you score a goal Aboutreika in the studio celebrates more than you. You win a competition and it's as if he won it. That's the ... what's the secret of the relationship and what's the [role]model that we should learn from you two and apply to the Arab world and for those who are successful in any field.

Mo: Well, me and Captain Aboutreika, when I was first called up to play in the senior national team I was with Captain Aboutreika. He was still in the national team so we played together for two-three years. So our relationship was always good. I was always asking him, what do you do here? What do you do here? What do you do you here? And the same goes for Hossam Ghaly and Emad Meteib, Wael Gomaa. So I don't want to forget anyone from them. All the older players in that national team, and Zidane and anyone who was in the national team because they won three African Cups and I was still a youngster who just came up. I'm the type to ask a lot of questions. I want to learn form anyone in any way possible. So I keep asking quesitions. Sometimes it gets a bit boring but I don't have a problem with boring the person I talk to, the important thing is for me to learn what I want. So I kept on asking him [Aboutrieka] and he kept on answering me and he welcomed that I wanted to learn and such. So our realtionship since then is on good terms and whenever he's here and there's a chance for him to come to watch the games he comes. I met him after the Champions League match last year, in the final. You weren't there with him but I met him. We always talk and he always congratulates me. He was the first person to wish me a happy birthday and he was the first to congratulate me on the league as well. So our relationship together is good and I always try to perserve good relationships between me and anyone even from years ago.

Int: Captain Mohamed Salah, champion of the Premier League, champion of the Club World Cup, champion of the Champions League, best player in the Premier League, best player in the Club World Cup, I enjoyed this interview with you. From the heart, congratulations and I hope we meet again on good terms (TN: He's wishing Mo well but the translation for that is super clunky)

Mo: Habiby, goodbye.

Submitted July 02, 2020 at 12:23AM by SechDriez via reddit https://ift.tt/3ilUW6E

#IFTTT #reddit #liverpoolfc #liverpool fc #lfc #ynwa

2 notes · View notes

newsnigeria · 5 years

Text

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/deconstructing-islamophobia/

Deconstructing Islamophobia

[this article was written for the Unz Review]

Introduction: a short survey of the cuckoo’s nest

My initial idea was to begin with a definition of “Islamophobia” but after looking around for various definitions, I decided to use my own, very primitive definition. I will define Islamophobia as the belief that Islam (the religion) and/or Muslims (the adherents to this religion) represent some kind of more or less coherent whole which is a threat to the West. These are two distinct arguments rolled up into one: the first part claims that Islam (the religion) represents some kind of threat to the West while the second part claims that the people who embrace Islam (Muslims) also represent some kind of threat to the West. Furthermore, this argument makes two crucial assumptions:

there is such thing out there as a (conceptually sufficient) unitary Islam

there are such people with (conceptually sufficient) common characteristics due to their adherence to Islam

Next, let’s summarize the “evidence” typically presented in support of this thesis:

The god of Islam is not the same god as the God of Christianity

The Muslim world was created by the sword

The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was an evil person

Islam is incompatible with western democracy and represents a threat to what are referred to as “values” in the modern day West

Muslims have treated Christians horribly in many different historical instances

Muslims often turn to terrorism and commit atrocities

Islam is socially regressive and seeks to impose medieval values on a modern world

There are more such as these, but these, I believe, are the main ones.

What is crucial here is to point out that this evidence relies both on theological arguments (#1 #4 #7), and historical arguments (#2 #3 #5 #6).

Finally, there is a most interesting phenomenon which, for the time being, we shall note, but only discuss later: the legacy corporate Ziomedia on one hand denounces Islamophobia as a form of “racism” but yet, at the same time, the very same circles which denounce Islamophobia are also the ones which oppose all manifestations of real traditional Islam. This strongly suggests that the study of this apparent paradox can, if carefully analyzed, yield some most interesting results, but more about that later.

Of course, all of the above is sort of a “bird’s eye” view of Islamophobia in the West. Once we go down to the average Joe Sixpack level, all of the above is fused into one “forceful” slogan as this one:

This kind of crude fearmongering is targeted at the folks who don’t realize that the USA is not “America” and who, therefore, probably don’t have the foggiest notion of what Sharia law is or how it is adjudicated by Islamic courts.

[I have lived in the USA for a total of 22 years and have observed something very interesting: there is a unique mix of ignorance and fear which, in the USA, is perceived as “patriotic”. A good example of this kind of “patriotism through ignorance” is in the famous song “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning” by Alan Jackson which includes the following words: “I watch CNN but I’m not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God“. Truth be told, the same song also asked in reference to 9/11 “Did you burst out with pride for the red, white and blue?“. Why exactly the massacre of 9/11 should elicit patriotic pride is explained as follows “And the heroes who died just doin’ what they do?“. Thus when the “United American Committee” declares that Sharia law is a threat to “America” the folks raised in this culture of fear and patriotism immediately “get it”. David Rovics hilariously described this mindset in his song “Evening News” where he says: “Evil men are plotting, to blow up Washington, DC, ’cause they don’t like freedom and democracy, they’re fans of the Dark Ages, they are all around, they’re marching from the desert sands, and coming to your town“. I have had the fortune of visiting all the continents of our planet (except Oceania) and I can vouch that this blend of fear+patriotic fervor is something uniquely, well, not “American” but “USAnian”.]

Having quickly surveyed the Islamophobic mental scenery, we can now turn to a logical analysis of the so-called arguments of the Islamophobes.

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: a unitary Islam

Let’s take the arguments one by one beginning with the argument of a unitary Islam.

Most of us are at least vaguely aware that there are different Islamic movements/schools/traditions in different countries. We have heard of Shias and Sunni, some have also heard about Alawites or Sufism. Some will even go so far as remembering that Muslim countries can be at war with each other, and that some Muslims (the Takfiris) only dream about killing as many other Muslims (who, obviously, don’t share the exact same beliefs) and that, in fact, movements like al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have murdered other Muslims in huge numbers. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest that this notion of a Muslim or Islamic unity is factually simply wrong.

Furthermore, we need to ask the obvious question: what *is* Islam?

Now, contrary to the hallucinations of some especially dull individuals, I am not a Muslim. So what follows is my own, possibly mistaken, understanding of what “core Islam” is. It is the acceptance of the following formula “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God” or “lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llā“. Note that “Allah” is not a name, it is the word “God” and “rasul” can be translated as “prophet”. There are also the so-called Five Pillars of Islam:

The Shahada or profession of faith “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God“

The Salat or a specific set of daily prayers

The Zakat or alms giving

The Sawm or fasting

The Hadjj or pilgrimage to Mecca

That’s it! A person who fully embraces these five pillars is considered a Muslim. Or at least, so it would appear. The reality is, of course, much more complex. For the time being, I will just note that in this “core Islam” there is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, which could serve as evidence for any of the Islamophobic theories. Yes, yes, I know, I can already hear the Islamophobes’ objections: you are ignoring all the bad stuff in the Quran, you are ignoring all the bad stuff about spreading Islam by the sword, you are ignoring all the bad things Muhammad did in his life, you are ignoring the many local traditions and all the normative examples of the tradition (Sunnah and it’s Hadiths). Yeah, except you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say:

Islam is inherently evil/dangerous AND

use local/idiosyncratic beliefs and actions to prove your point!

If Islam by itself is dangerous, then it has to be dangerous everywhere it shows up, irrespective of the region, people, time in history or anything else.

If we say that sometimes Islam is dangerous and sometimes it is not, then what we need to look into is not the core elements of the Islamic faith, but instead we need to identify those circumstances in which Islam was not a threat to anybody and those circumstances when Islam was a threat to others.

Furthermore, if your argument is really based on the thesis that Islam is evil always and everywhere, then to prove it wrong all I need to do is find one, just ONE, example where Muslims and non-Muslims have lived in peace together for some period of time.

[Sidebar: while I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies I had the fortune of having the possibility to take a couple of courses outside my field of specialization and I decided to take the most “exotic” course I could find in SAIS‘ curriculum and I chose a course on Sharia law. This was an excellent decision which I never regretted. Not only was the course fascinating, I had the chance of writing a term paper on the topic “The comparative status of Orthodox Christians in history under Muslim and Latin rule“. My first, and extremely predictable, finding was that treatment of Orthodox Christians by Muslim rulers ranged from absolutely horrible and even genocidal to very peaceful and kind. Considering the long time period considered (14 centuries) and the immense geographical realm covered (our entire planet from Morocco to Indonesia and from Russia to South Africa), this is hardly surprising. The core beliefs of Islam might be simple, but humans are immensely complicated beings who always end up either adding a local tradition or, at least, defending one specific interpretation of Islam. My second finding was much more shocking: on average the status of Orthodox Christians under the Papacy was much worse than under Muslim rule. Again, I am not comparing the status of Orthodox Serbs under Ottoman rule with the status of Orthodox Christians in modern Italy. These are extreme examples. But I do claim that there is sort of a conceptual linear regression which strongly suggests to us that there is a predictive (linear) model which can be used to make predictions and that the most obvious lesson of history is that the absolute worst thing which can happen to Orthodox Christians is to fall under their so-called “Christian brothers” of the West. A few exceptions here and there do not significantly affect this model. I encourage everybody to take the time to really study the different types of Muslim rulers in history, if only to appreciate how much diversity you will find].

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: the “Muslim god” vs the “Christian God”

This is just about the silliest anti-Muslim argument I have ever heard and it come from folks inhabiting the far left side of a Bell Curve. It goes something like this:

We, Christians, have our true God as God, whereas the Muslims have Allah, which is not the God of the Christians. Thus, we worship different gods.

Of course, the existence of various gods or one, single, God does not depend on who believes in Him or who worships Him. If we can agree on the notion that God is He Who created all of Creation, and if we agree that both Christians (all denominations) and Muslims (all schools) believe that they are worshiping that God then, since there is only one real/existing God, we do worship the same God simply because there are not “other” gods.

I wonder what those who say that “Muslims worship another god” think when they read the following words of Saint Paul to the Athenian pagans: “For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Acts 17:23). What Saint Paul told them is that they ignorantly worship a god whom, in spite of that ignorant worship, Saint Paul declared to them. I submit that “ignorant worship” is not an insult, but a diagnosis of heterodoxy, and that such an “ignorant worship” can nonetheless be sincere.

The issue is not WHOM we worship, but HOW we worship (in terms of both praxis and doxa).

And yes, here the differences between Christians and Muslims are huge indeed.

In my 2013 article “Russia and Islam, part eight: working together, a basic “how-to”” I discussed the immense importance of these differences and how we ought to deal with them. I wrote:

The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called “Credo” or “Symbol of Faith” (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest ‘i‘ of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms – the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.

The fact is that Muslims would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made

This part clearly and unambiguously affirms that Jesus-Christ was not only the Son of God but actually God Himself. This is expressed by the English formulation “of one essence with the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί in Greek with the key term homousios meaning “consubstantial”). This is *THE* core belief of Christianity: that Jesus was the the anthropos, the God-Man or God incarnate. This belief is categorically unacceptable to Islam which says that Christ was a prophet and by essence a ‘normal’ human being.

For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called “Shahada” or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God”. One can often also hear this phrased as “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet”.

Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that “Allah” is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don’t – this is really irrelevant here), it’s the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the “Symbol of Faith”). Saint John of Damascus even called him a ‘false prophet’. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the “Shahada” without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the “Symbol of Faith” without giving up his Islam.

So why bother?

Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studied and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.

Bottom line is this: it is PRECISELY because Islam and Christianity are completely incompatible theologically (and even mutually exclusive!) that there is no natural enmity between these two religions unless, of course, some Christian or Muslim decides that he has to use force to promote this religion. And let’s be honest, taken as a whole Christianity’s record on forced conversions and assorted atrocities is at least as bad as Islam’s, or even worse. Of course, if we remove the Papacy from the overall Christian record, things looks better. If then we also remove the kind of imperialism Reformed countries engaged in, it looks even better. But even Orthodox rulers have, on occasion, resorted to forceful conversions and mass murder of others.

And here, just as in Islam, we notice that Christians also did not always spread their faith by love and compassion, especially once Christian rulers came to power in powerful empires or nations.

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: Islam was spread by the sword

In reality the “Islam spread by the sword” is a total canard, at least when we hear it from folks who defend “democracy” but who stubbornly refuse to concede that 1) most democracies came to power by means of violent revolutions and that 2) just a look at a newspaper today (at least a non-western newspaper) will tell you that democracy is STILL spread by the sword. As for the USA as country, it was built on by far the biggest bloodbath in history. If anything, Sharia law and Islam could teach a great deal to the country which:

spends more on aggression than the rest of the world combined

has the highest percentage of people incarcerated (and most of these for non-violent crimes)

whose entire economy is based on the military-industrial complex

and who is engaged in more simultaneous wars of choice than any other country in history

So “Sharia Law Threatens America” is a lie. And this is the truth:

Was Islam really spread by the sword?

Maybe. But anybody making that claim better make darn sure that his/her religion, country or ideology has a much better record. If not, then this is pure hypocrisy!

Finally, I will also note that Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). In contrast, the Prophet of Islam established the first Islamic state in Medina. So when we compare Muhammad’s actions to Christ, a better comparison should be with the various Christian rulers (including Byzantine ones) and we will soon find out that the Christian Roman Empire also used the sword on many occasions.

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: the Prophet of Islam was a bad man

You must have all sorts of stories about how the Prophet Muhammad did things we would disapprove of. I won’t list them here simply because the list of grievances is a little different in each case. I actually researched some of these accusations (about marrying young girls, or sentencing people to death for example) and in each case, there is a very solid Muslim defense of these incidents which is almost always ignored and which provides a crucial context to, at least, the better understanding of the incident discussed.

Since I am not a historian or a biographer of the Prophet Muhammad I don’t have any personal opinion on these accusations other than stating the obvious: I am not a Muslim and I don’t have to decide whether Muhammad was a sinful man or a infallible person (that is a purely theological argument). I will simply say that this ad hominem is only relevant to the degree that some Muslims would consider each action of their prophet as normative and not historical. Furthermore, even if they would consider each action of their prophet as normative, we need to recall here that we are dealing with a prophet, not a God-Man, and that therefore the comparison ought not to be made with Christ, whom Christians believe to be 100% sinless, but with a Christian prophet, say Moses, whom no real Christian will ever declare sinless or infallible. As for the Quran, let’s not compare it to just the New Testament but to all the books of the Bible taken together, including those who were eventually re-interpreted by the new religion of (some) Jews after the fall of Jerusalem: rabbinical/Phariseic Talmudism which found plenty of passages in its (deliberately falsified) “Masoretic” text of the Old Testament “Tanakh” (please see here if you don’t know what falsification I am referring to).

Finally, NO religious text worth anything is self-explanatory or “explains itself” by means of comparing passages. This is also why all major religions have a large corpus of texts which explain, interpret, expand upon and otherwise give the (deceptively simple looking) text its real, profound, meaning. Furthermore, most major religions also have a rich oral tradition which also sheds light on written religious documents. Whatever may be the case, simply declaring that “Islam is a threat” because we don’t approve of the actions of the founder of Islam is simply silly. The next accusation is much more material:

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions:Islam is incompatible with democracy

That is by far the most interesting argument and one which many Muslims would agree with! Of course, it all depends on what you mean by “democracy”. Let me immediately concede that if by “democracy” you mean this:

Then, indeed, Islam is incompatible with modern western democracy. But so is (real) Christianity!

So the so-called “West” has to decide what its core values are. If Conchita Wurst is an embodiment of “democracy” then Islam and Christianity are both equally incompatible with it. Orthodox Christianity, for sure, has not caved in to the homo-lobby in the same way most western Christian denominations have.

But if by “democracy” we don’t mean “gay pride” parades but rather true pluralism, true people-power, and the real sovereignty of the people, then what I call “core Islam” is not threat to democracy at all. None. However, there is also no doubt about two truisms:

Some Muslim states are profoundly reactionary and freedom crushing

Traditional Islam is incompatible with many modern “western values”

Still, it is also very easy to counter these truism with the following replies

Some Muslim states are pluralistic, progressive and defend the oppressed (Muslim or not)

Traditional Christianity is incompatible with modern “western values”

Again, Iran is, in my opinion, the perfect illustration of a pluralistic (truly diverse!), progressive and freedom defending Muslim state. I simply don’t have the time and place to go into a detailed discussion of the polity of Iran (I might have to do that in a future article), and for the time being I will point you to the hyper-pro-Zionist Wikipedia article (which nobody will suspect of being pro-Muslim or pro-Iranian) about the “Politics of Iran” which will show you two things: Iran is an “Islamic Republic” meaning that it is a republic, yes, but one which has Islam as its supreme law. There is absolutely nothing inherently less democratic about a Islamic republic which has a religion as its supreme law than a atheistic/secular republic which has a constitution as its supreme law. In fact, some countries don’t even have a constitution (the UK and Israel come to mind). As for the Iranian polity, it has a very interesting system of checks and balances which a lot of countries would do well to emulate (Russia for starters).

As for modern “western values”, they are completely incompatible with Christianity (the real, original, unadulterated thing) even if they are very compatible with modern western (pseudo-) Christian denominations.

So, now the question becomes: is there something profoundly incompatible between the real, traditional, Islam and the real, traditional, Christianity? I am not talking about purely theological differences here, but social and political consequences which flow from theological differences. Two immediately come to my mind (but there are more, of course):

The death penalty, especially for apostasy

Specific customs (dress code, ban on alcohol, separation of genders in various settings, etc.)

The first one, this is really a non-issue because while traditional, Patristic, Christianity has a general, shall we say, “inclination” against the death penalty, this has not always been the case in all Orthodox countries. So while we can say that by and large Orthodox Christians are typically not supporters of the death penalty, this is not a theological imperative or any kind of dogma. In fact, modern Russia has implemented a moratorium on the death penalty (to join the Council of Europe – hardly a moral or ethical reason) but most of the Russian population favor its re-introduction. Note that Muslims in Russia are apparently living their lives in freedom and overall happiness and when they voice grievances (often legitimate ones), they don’t have “reintroduce the death penalty” as a top priority demand.

The simple truth is that each country has to decide for itself whether it was the use the death penalty or not. Once a majority of voters have made that decision, members of each religion will have to accept that decision as a fact of law which can be criticized, but not one which can be overturned by any minority.

As for religious tribunals, they can be easily converted by the local legislature into a “mediation firm” which can settle conflicts, but only if both sides agree to recognize it’s authority. So if two Muslims want their dispute to be settled by an Islamic Court, the latter can simply act as a mediator as long as its decision does not violate any local or national laws. Hardly something non-Muslims (who could always refuse to recognize the Islamic Court) need to consider a “threat” to their rights or lifestyles.

An “Islamic Matrioshka”?!

As for the social customs, here it is really a no-brainer: apply Islamic rules to those who chose to be Muslims and let the other people live their lives as they chose to. You know, “live and let live”. Besides, in terms of dress code and gender differentiation, traditional Islam and traditional Christianity are very close.

Check out this typical Russian doll, and look at what she is wearing: this was the traditional Russian dress for women for centuries and this is still what Orthodox women (at least those who still follow ancient Christian customs) wear in Church.

Furthermore, if you go into a Latin parish in southern Europe or Latin America, you will often find women covering their heads, not only in church, but also during the day. The simple truth is that these clothes are not only modest and beautiful, they are also very comfortable and practical.

The thing which Islamophobes always miss is that they take examples of laws and rules passed by some Muslim states and assume that this is how all Muslim states will always act. But this is simply false. Let’s take the example of Hezbollah (that name means “party of God”, by the way) in Lebanon which has clearly stated on many occasions that it has no intention of transforming Lebanon into a Shia-only state. Not only did Hezbollah say that many times, but they acted on it and they always have had a policy of collaboration with truly patriotic Christians (of any denomination). Even in today’s resistance (moqawama) there are Christians who are not members of Hezbollah as a party (and why would they when this is clearly and officially a Muslim party and not a Christian one?!), but they are part of the military resistance.

[Sidebar: by the way, the first female suicide bomber in Lebanon was not a Muslim. She was a 18 year old from an Orthodox family who joined Syrian Social Nationalist Party and blew herself up in her car on an Israeli checkpoint (inside Lebanon, thus a legitimate target under international law!), killing two Israeli invaders and injuring another twelve. Her name was Sana’a Mehaidli]

A Hezbollah fighter respectfully picks up an image of the Mother of God from the ruins of a church destroyed by US-backed Takfiris

Recent events in Syria were also very telling: when the AngloZionist Empire unleashed its aggression against Syria and the “good terrorists” of al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/ISIS/etc. embarked in a wholesale program of massacres and atrocities, everybody ran for their lives, including all the non-Takfiri Muslims. Then, when the plans of the Axis of Kindness (USA, KSA, Israel) were foiled by the combined actions of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, something interesting happened: the Latin Christians left, whereas the Orthodox Christians stayed (source). Keep in mind that Syria is *not* an Islamic state, yet the prospects of a Muslim majority was frightening enough for the Latins to flee even though the Orthodox felt comfortable staying. What do these Orthodox Christians know?

Could it be that elite traditionalist Shia soldiers represent no threat to Orthodox Christians?

Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: Islam generates terrorism

In fact, there is some truth to that too. But I would re-phrase it as: the AngloZionists in their hatred for anything Russian, including Soviet Russian, identified a rather small and previously obscure branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia which they decided to unleash against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. From the first day, these Takfiris were federated by the USA and financed by the House of Saud. The latter, in its fear of being overthrown by the Takfiris, decided to appease them by internationally supporting their terrorism (that is all Takfiris have to offer, their leaders are not respected scholars, to put it mildly). Since that time, the Takfiris have been the “boots on the ground” used by the West against all its enemies: Serbia, Russia first, but then also secular (Syria) or anti-Takfiri Muslim states (Iran).

So it is not “Islam” which generates terrorism: it is western (AngloZionist) imperialism.

The US and Israel are, by a wide margin, the biggest sponsors of terrorism (just as the West was always by far the biggest source of imperialism in history) and while they want to blame “Islam” for most terrorist attacks, the truth is that behind every such “Muslim” attack we find a western “deep state” agents acting, from the GIA in Algeria, to al-Qaeda in Iraq to al-Nusra in Syria to, most crucially, 9/11 in New York. These were all events created and executed by semi-literate Takfiri patsies who were run by agents of the western deep states.

As far as I know, all modern terrorist groups are, in reality, “operated by remote control” by state actors who alone can provide the training, know-how, finances, logistical support, etc needed by the terrorists.

And here is an interesting fact: the two countries which have done the most to crush Takfiri terrorism are Russia and Iran. But the collective West is still categorically refusing to work with these countries to crush the terrorism these western states claim to be fighting.

So, do you really believe that the West is fighting terrorism?

If yes, I got a few bridges to sell all over the planet.

Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called “liberals”

There are many more demonstratively false assumptions which are made by the AngloZionist propaganda machine. I have only listed a few. Now we can look to the apparent paradox in which we see the western “liberals” both denouncing Islamophobia and, at the same time, repeating all the worst cliches about Islam. In this category, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are the most egregious examples of this hypocrisy because while pretending to be friends of Muslims, they got more Muslims killed than anybody else. For western liberals, Islam is a perfect pretext to, on one hand, cater to minorities (ethnic or religious) while pretending to be extremely tolerant of others. Western liberals use Islam in the West, as a way to force the locals to give up their traditions and values. You could say that western liberals “love” Islam just like they “love” LGBTQIAPK+ “pride” parades: simply and only as a tool to crush the (still resisting) majority of the people in the West who have not been terminally brainwashed by the AngloZionist legacy corporate propaganda machine.

Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called “conservatives”

Western conservatism is dead. It died killed by two main causes: the abject failure of National-Socialism (which was an Anglo plan to defeat the USSR) and by its total lack of steadfastness of the western conservatives who abandoned pretty much any and all principles they were supposed to stand for. Before the 1990s, the conservative movements of the West were close to fizzling out into nothingness, but then the Neocons (for their own, separate, reasons) began pushing the “Islamic threat” canard and most conservatives jumped on it in the hope of using it to regain some relevance. Some of these conservatives even jumped on the “Christian revival in Russia” theory (which is not quite a canard, but which is also nothing like what the Alt-Righters imagine it to be) to try to revive their own, long dead, version of “Christianity”. These are desperate attempts to find a source of power and relevance outside a conservative movement which is basically dead. Sadly, what took the place of the real conservative movement in the West is the abomination known as “National Zionism” (which I discussed here) and whose ideological cornerstone is a rabid, hysterical, Islamophobia.

Conclusion: cui bono? the US deep state

That one is easy and obvious: the US deep state needs the “Islamic threat” canard for two reasons: to unleash against its enemies and to terrify the people of the USA so that they accept the wholesale destruction of previously sacred civil rights. This is so obvious that there is nothing to add here. I will only add that I am convinced that the US deep state is also supporting both the Alt-Right phenomenon and the various “stings” against so-called “domestic terrorists” (only only Muslims, by the way). What the Neocons and their deep-state need above all is chaos and crises which they used to shape the US political landscape.

Finally, the real conclusion: rate the source! always rate the source…

Whom did we identify as the prime sources of Islamophobia? The liberals who want to seize power on behalf of a coalition of minorities, conservatives who have long ditched truly conservative values and deep state agents who want to terrify US Americans and kill the enemies of the AngloZionist Empire.

I submit to you that these folks are most definitely not your friends. In fact, they are your real enemy and, unlike various terrorists abroad who are thousands of miles away from the USA, these real enemies are not only here, they are already in power and rule over you! And they are using Islam just like a matador uses a red cape: to distract you from the real threat: National Zionism. This is true in the US as it is true in the EU.

Most westerners are now conditioned to react with fear and horror when they hear “Allahu Akbar”. This is very predictable since most of what is shown in the western media is Takfiris screaming “Allahu Akbar” before cutting the throats of their victims (or rejoicing at the suffering/death of “infidels”).

Yet in the Donbass, the local Orthodox Christians knew that wherever that slogan (which simply means “God is greater” or “God is the greatest”) was heard the Ukronazis are on the run. And now we see Russia sending mostly Muslim units to Syria to protect not only Muslims, but everybody who needs protection.

Having a sizable Muslim minority in Russia, far from being any kind of threat, as turned to be a huge advantage for Russia in her competition against the AngloZionist Empire.

Chechens in Novorussia

There are, by the way, also Chechens fighting on the other side in this conflict: the very same Takfiris who were crushed and expelled from Chechnia by the joint efforts of the Chechen people and the Russian armed forces. So, again, we have Muslims on both sides, the Takfiris now happily united with the Nazis and the traditionalist Muslims of Kadyrov protecting the people of Novorussia.

That is one, amongst many more, nuances which the Islamophobic propaganda always carefully chooses to ignore.

Should you?

The Saker

#Religion

0 notes

airoasis · 5 years

Text

The Untold Truth Of TED Talks

New Post has been published on https://hititem.kr/the-untold-truth-of-ted-talks/

The Untold Truth Of TED Talks

If you happen to’ve used the web quite a bit, you are more often than not quite familiar with TED. Now not Ted Danson, but TED Talks, the trendy talking series that appears to go viral every third weekend. However the place did TED Talks come from, and what’s happened due to the fact? Here’s the untold reality of TED Talks. We’ll get this out of the way in which right now: TED Talks was once created by means of an exclusive man named Richard Saul Wurman. Rapid corporation once when put next Wurman to "probably the most exciting Man on the planet" from these Dos Equis classified ads, and it’s a reasonable fit. "keep thirsty, my buddies." Now in his eighties, Wurman has mapped out the old ruins in Guatemala, released ninety books, and received a lifetime success award from the Smithsonian. "i am very disciplined and that i don’t need whatever to intervene with the discipline of looking to make anything clear." again in 1984, Wurman fairly had his finger on the heartbeat of adjusting cultural developments. He effectively estimated that science and general media have been catching up to each other rapid, and he joined forces with Harry Marks, a CGI pioneer hailed as the the godfather of broadcast design, according to LinkedIn. Collectively, they determined to make a new form of convention, for a brand new generation.As he informed The Smithsonian: "What can i create that is not boring? Considering the fact that i’m bored out of my head after I go to conferences." incidentally, TED stands for science, entertainment, and Design. So now you realize. The first TED in 1984 was once much more D.I.Y. Than the glamorous showpieces you know at present, however a lot of huge names took part. For instance, the Sony enterprise gave a giant TED speak displaying off a funky new circular gadget referred to as a "compact disc digital audio," or else known as a CD-ROM. "The signal to noise ratio strategies 96db." M.I.T. Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte gave a speech predicting future applied sciences like ebooks, voice realization application, and touchscreens. "we will be able to be making use of the tv monitors or their equivalent for digital books of the future." a further attendee was a young entrepreneur named Steve Jobs. Though he did not need to go on stage, he did convey alongside three company new Macintosh desktops, and let people play around with them. "I don’t want individuals to suppose unhealthy for me. I don’t suppose about these barriers at all times." As that you may tell from this lecture by means of Sam Berns, a person who suffers from a rare disease that quickly ages you, the TED of in these days has significantly broadened its scope on account that the early days.Even though Richard Wurman is better than lifestyles, his conferences truly remained hidden from most people. In 2001, Wurman bought TED to a British writer and philosophy fundamental named Chris Anderson. The sale used to be controversial and resulted in a drop in ticket sales. Now, specific folks’s worldviews will also be dramatically distinctive." to turn the ship around, Chris Anderson went on stage himself, pulled up a chair, and unfolded about his life prior to getting worried with TED Talks: "I was going round with this tremendous signal on my forehead: "LOSER." In that speech, he dove into his historical past as an entrepreneur and the many corporations he’d watched implode in the course of the dot-com bust of 2000.He used to be sincere about his failures and open about the fact that TED Talks used to be the notion that stored him going. An hour later, 200 humans registered for the subsequent TED. In its present incarnation, TED is meant to be all in regards to the free circulation of recommendations so as to spark new conversations and new options. In modern harsh world, how is this sort of utopian concept funded? TED is owned through the Sapling groundwork, a nonprofit foundation. The entire money they make through their luxurious tickets, conference costs, sponsorships, licensing, and many others is funneled correct back into the organization to fund stuff like video modifying, advertising, and free TED Fellowships.In actual fact, TED expenditures cash to maintain TED afloat they usually proceed offering their videos at no cost. That suggests the speakers aren’t paid. Nonetheless, lodging and transportation are accommodated for, and you you get a gigantic platform to share your suggestions. Vrrrt! There are surely no results on this microphone whatsoever." TED Talks don’t seem to be reserved for names like bill Clinton, director Taika Waititi, and J.J.Abrams. The platform is open for any one to apply, whether you’re reputable rock climber Alex Honnold or Neon Indian’s Alan Palomo. "Nothing is fashioned. The whole thing comes from anything. And to me, creativity is both aware or unconscious collaboration." TED is always searching for best speakers, whether or not you will have put collectively some crazy-cool inventive tech startup, or learned an wonderful new answer for an age-historic predicament, all you need to do is contact TED by means of their internet site and see if they’re . Then again, there are possibly enormous quantities of people competing to offer TED Talks, so you can be up against some pretty strict instructional materials. TED evaluates whether or not someone’s speech is a good fit for them with three common questions. Does it give viewers a recent standpoint on the arena, difficult their prior assumptions? Does the speech offer either a particular answer for the hindrance, or hope of growth? Does it end on an inspiring be aware, compelling folks to take motion and enhance the arena? TED Talks are about optimism, hope, and change-making. They may be by no means dreary. "The distortion is less that 000.5 percentage, and now not simply at one frequency however throughout the complete audible range." well.They are not dreary anymore. .

0 notes

batterymonster2021 · 5 years

Text

The Untold Truth Of TED Talks

New Post has been published on https://hititem.kr/the-untold-truth-of-ted-talks/

The Untold Truth Of TED Talks

0 notes

foursprout-blog · 6 years

Text

What’s your why? How to write a personal mission statement

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/whats-your-why-how-to-write-a-personal-mission-statement/

What’s your why? How to write a personal mission statement

What do you want out of life?

Maybe that seems like a strange question. What do goals have to do with getting rich slowly? Everything! Having a personal mission is key to running your life like a business. Your goals help you decide how to spend your time and money.

When I think about the difference between people with purpose and people without, I always think of my friend Paul.

Twenty years ago, as I was swimming in self-induced debt, Paul was living a bare-bones lifestyle that seemed ridiculous to me. He didn’t own a television. He had few books and little furniture. His only indulgence seemed to be a collection of bootleg U2 albums.

“How can you live like this?” I asked him during one visit. “Where’s all of your Stuff?”

He shrugged. “I don’t need a lot of Stuff, J.D. Stuff isn’t important. It gets in the way of the things I really want.”

I didn’t know what he meant. To me, life was all about the Stuff. I had hundreds of CDs and thousands of books. I had a TV, a stereo, a house, and a car. I wanted more.

Paul didn’t have any of these, but he had things I didn’t have. He had happiness. He had freedom. He had money. He had goals.

A Man with a Plan

At the time, I earned at least twice Paul’s income, but he had money in the bank while I had none. I couldn’t see the connection between Paul’s choices and his financial success, and I couldn’t see the connection between my spending and my mounting debt. I was blind.

One day, Paul and I went for a hike. As we walked, he told me what he’d been up to. He was living in a small town in northern Washington, working two full-time jobs and a part-time job. He got free rent in exchange for housesitting with an elderly homeowner. “I’ve only had five or six days off in the past eight months,” Paul told me.

“That’s insane!” I said. “Why would you do that to yourself?”

Paul smiled. “I have a plan,” he said. “I want see the world. I’m going to buy a one-way ticket to Thailand. I’m just going to go. I’ll travel for as long as my money holds out. The more I work, the longer I’ll be able to stay on the road.”

I heard what he was saying, but I didn’t really understand.

“Do you want to come with me?” Paul asked. Of course I did, but I couldn’t. I was in debt. I had no savings. I couldn’t afford to leave work for a few days, let alone a few months. How would I pay for all of my Stuff?

Paul went on his trip. He backpacked across Europe and Asia, and he loved it. He sent me postcards from Thailand and India, from Nepal and Israel and Jordan. He was gone for five months. Then, because he’d built his life around this goal, he returned to a financial position similar to the one he’d left.

Back in Oregon, Paul settled down to a more “normal” way of life. He got a real job. He even bought a house. Still he pinched his pennies, spending only on the things that mattered most to him. In time, I began to see the connection between his lifestyle and his quiet wealth.

Here’s what Paul taught me: Have a plan so amazing, so glowing, that you’re willing to walk blurry-eyed to work every day to make the money necessary to achieve it.

What’s Your Why?

What do you want out of life?

Too many people never take the time to answer this question. And of those who do answer it, a large number have only nebulous dreams and goals. I want you to do more. Today, I want you to create a personal mission statement.

To complete this exercise — which is based on the work of Alan Lakein — you’ll need about an hour of uninterrupted time. You’ll also need a pen, some paper, and some sort of stopwatch. When you’re ready, I want you to do the following.

Note: To make things easier, I’ve created a free PDF version of this project for you to download and print: Your Personal Mission Statement. It’s still branded for Money Boss, but we’ll change that once we have an official logo for Get Rich Slowly.

At the top of a blank page, write this question: What are my lifetime goals? For five minutes, list whatever comes to mind. Imagine you don’t have to worry about money, now or in the future. What would you do with the rest of your life? Don’t filter yourself. Fill the entire page, if you can. When you’re finished, spend an additional five minutes reviewing these goals. Make any changes or additions you see fit. Before moving on, note the three goals that seem most important to you.

On a new piece of paper, write: How would I like to spend the next five years? Spend five minutes answering this question. Be honest. Don’t list what you will do or should do, but what you’d like to do. Suspend judgment. When your time is up, again spend five minutes reviewing and editing your answers. As before, highlight the three goals that most appeal to you.

Start a page with the question: How would I live if I knew I’d be dead in six months? Imagine that your doctor says you’ve contracted a new disease that won’t compromise your health now, but which will suddenly strike you dead in exactly six months. There is no cure. How would you spend the time you have left? What would you regret not having done? You know the drill: Take five minutes to brainstorm as many answers as possible, then five minutes to go back through and consider your responses. When you’re ready, indicate the three things that matter most to you.

At the top of a fourth piece of paper, write: My Most Important Goals. Below that, copy over the goals you marked as most important from answering each of the three questions. (If any answers are similar, combine them into one. For instance, if “write a novel” was one of your top answers to the first question and “writing fiction” was a top answer to the second, you’d merge these into a single goal.)

The final step requires a bit of creativity. Label a fifth piece of paper My Mission. Look through your list of most important goals. Does one stand out from the others? Can you see a common thread that connects some (or all) of the goals? Using your list as a starting point, draft a Mission Statement. Your Mission Statement should be short — but not too short. It might be anywhere from a few words to a few sentences. Take as much time as you need to make this the best, most compelling paragraph you can write.

When you’ve finished, I want you to set aside your Mission Statement and walk away. Go about the rest of your life for a few days. Don’t forget about your mission, but keep it in the back of your mind.

Your Personal Mission Statement

After you’ve had time to stew on things, sit down and review what you’ve written. How does your Mission Statement make you feel? Can you improve upon it? You want a vision to give you a sense of purpose that drives you day-in and day-out, through good times and bad. Ideally, your mission will do for you what my friend Paul’s did for him. It’ll be so amazing, so glowing that you’re willing to walk blurry-eyed to work each morning to make the money necessary to reach your goal.

Note: Your Mission Statement isn’t permanent. As your priorities and tastes change, and as new opportunities present themselves, your mission will adapt and grow.

What does an actual Mission Statement look like? Good question! Here are personal mission statements from five famous CEOs. And here’s mine:

I want to be the best person I can be, both mentally and physically. I want to sample all that the world has to offer by fostering new relationships, exploring new ideas, and daring to try new things. I want to use my skills and experience to improve the lives of others while also improving my own.

Sound boring? Not to me! I wrote this mission statement more than five years ago, and it still guides me today. When I set personal goals, I base them on this mission statement. When I make decisions about where to live and what to do with my life, I use this mission statement to guide me. Bottom line: This mission statement shapes the way I manage my money and my life.

After you’ve created a Mission Statement, the next step — if you’re ready to take it — is to brainstorm a list of Next Actions to support your Mission Statement. What kinds of things can you do to help you achieve this goal or pursue this mission? Write down anything that comes to mind.

When you have your list of Next Actions, pick the three you can do most quickly (these should become your short-term goals) and the three that would have the biggest impact on your life (these should become your long-term goals). Focus on these six goals!

What if you’re still having trouble coming up with a mission? Don’t give up. Try a different approach. Head to your public library and borrow one of the following books, each of which has great info about figuring out what to do with your life:

How to Get Control of Your Time and Life by Alan Lakein (this is the book from which I drew the exercise)

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey

Wishcraft: How to Get What You Really Want by Barbara Sher

The Magic of Thinking Big by David Schwartz

If, after all this, you still need more help creating your Mission Statement, take a few minutes to walk through the Mission Statement Builder from FranklinCovey. It’s a free online tool that translates your goals and values into a statement of purpose.

Note: During the month of March, I’m migrating old Money Boss material to Get Rich Slowly — including the articles that describe the “Money Boss method”. This is the third of those articles.

Part one answered the question, “What is financial independence?”

Part two looked at Why you should run your life like a business

Look for further installments in the “Money Boss method” series twice a week until they’ve all been transferred from the old site.

The post What’s your why? How to write a personal mission statement appeared first on Get Rich Slowly.

#Wealth

0 notes