peace by piece

There is a fantastic way to rid yourself of superfluous Twitter followers. Here's what I did:

I posted "Like health and mental health--they cannot be defined--peace will never exist. I'll go as far as calling peace inhumane." Followed up with "Peace activists didn't end the Holocaust and other nightmares. Soldiers did. War is awful indeed. However, peace can be worse."

That helped. It doesn't matter how open-minded individuals believe they are. When you tickle a holy nipple of a holy udder of somebody's holy cow, you are dog meat! The peace peeps won't hesitate for a second: they'll kill you instantly by unfollowing.

Nobody is open-minded! Being open-minded is a myth of the smug crowd and so is the belief in peace on Earth. John Lennon, for instance, lured us into this type of self-deception: "Imagine all the people living life in peace ... I hope some day you'll join us and the world will be as one."

Right. You know what that means, don't you? Fascism. When you join us and decide to think like me, someday, there'll be peace. No kidding. Other people are the problem in the world. It's not me, and once they're all like me we'll have heaven on Earth and peace forever. We, the peace-loving hypocrites, are better than everybody else.

"Lennon's jealousy could manifest itself in violent behavior towards [Cynthia Powell, John's first wife], as when he slapped her across the face (hitting her head against the wall) the day after he saw her dancing with Stuart Sutcliffe." During their divorce, Lennon refused to give his wife any more than £75,000, telling her on the phone, "That's like winning the pools, so what are you moaning about? You're not worth any more." Also, [John] reportedly donated money to the Trotskyist Workers Revolutionary Party. For entirely peaceful purposes, I am sure.

"Shortly afterwards, at McCartney's twenty-first birthday party on 18 June 1963, Lennon physically attacked Cavern Club MC Bob Wooler for saying "How was your honeymoon, John?". To Lennon, drunk, the matter was simple: "He called me a queer so I battered his bloody ribs in"."

I wholeheartedly agree: if the world population could just be like John Lennon, there would be peace. Not the kind of peace I'd imagine, though.

Don't get me wrong. I love peace. When I was eighteen the German army, die Bundeswehr, wanted me badly and, since I had no intention to learn how to kill people, I became a conscientious objector. My family was not proud of my decision and I lost friends over it. My love for peace caused war with some of those near me.

Jump with me to Afghanistan. During last week's election, the Taliban threatened Afghan voters to cut their inked voting fingers off. That's the kind of peace you will permit--and you'll have to live and sleep with--if you are opposed to the presence of U.S. and Nato troops in Afghanistan. And we are not even talking about the "peace" that women will have to endure under Taliban terror.

Malaysia: A Malaysian Muslim woman who had been sentenced to be caned for drinking beer in a hotel has been granted a reprieve until after Ramadan, religious official have said. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, will be beaten publicly after Ramadan. How merciful.

A clear sign that there is peace in Malaysia. John Lennon knew that already: if you slap a woman, there will be peace. Am I so utterly wrong with my statement that peace can be inhumane?

Was it wrong for U.S. soldiers to free the damn Germans from themselves? Had the allies remained in their countries, peacefully holding their dicks instead of evil guns, would that have meant peace for Jews and Germans, Russians, Poles, Scandinavia, and the French? Of course there was peace in concentration camps. Right? And order, too.

You, today, would you leave it alone because those dorks peacefully butchering each other means no immediate threat to you?

"Oh, I love people." Do you really? How much?

Had soldiers not ended the Nazi nightmare, my parents would not have married and I would not have been born. Third Reich type peace would have prevented my existence and you'd have been spared my diatribes.

Peace can be an attempt on people's lives. Peace murders and maims people. In 1994, U.N. peace troops withdrew from Rwanda to allow the Hutus to chop up approximately 800,000 Tutsis. Our cruel idea of peace is directly responsible for the most ghastly genocide in recent history.

Peace-no-matter-what may quickly turn into unspeakable horror, disregarding human life, freedom, and dignity. Refusing to blindly believe in peace as the be all and end all has nothing to do with warmongering.

Peace can take everything away from you that you may expect to gain from it--yep, including peace.

I promote happiness, happiness of the individual. But see: life is messy and if I am not too mistaken life will always be some sort of a mess, individually and collectively. We can't wait until everything is neatly sorted out before our "real life" may begin. Life has begun and happiness can only be had today, in the middle and the muddle of the mess.

I prefer today's murky happiness over tomorrow's seemingly ideal imagination. I hate war, but I cannot trust peace. Our childish dreams yearn for ideal circumstances. Sounds almost as boring as heaven, with all your hunchbacked toothless relatives sitting on a cloud barking one 'Hallelujah' after the other.

"Why are you so negative and cynical?"

I am? Wrong! Nothing is as adventurous and fun as reality. Add lust, risk, and freedom. Authentic individuality and freedom can't afford peace. Once again: no, war is not the alternative to peace, but war can't be excluded. War is a part of the human condition.

Forget war for now. Question is how well can you handle tension? Opposition? Disagreement? Forget peace. Enjoy tension! Explore it, exploit tension, and be ecstatic about your messy life just the way it presents itself today.

Egbert Sukop

P.S.: Buy my book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.'

Darden's Dorky Dean

On August 20th, the Wall Street Journal published an article about the dean of the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, Professor Robert Bruner, and lessons he thinks students can take away from financial crisis. But does he really? Think, I mean?

Commonplace drivel is rather atypical for the WSJ, but Professor Bruner seems to be a master of trite statements.

"Ethics are always No. 1," he says. Since when? He continues, "It appears that the system rose to tolerate borderline or obviously unethical or illegal behavior." The system--of governmental oversight, I assume--did not tolerate unethical behavior: it grossly proliferated the suspension of ethics. What has Mr. Bruner been reading for the last twelve months? Certainly not the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, Professor B. does not trust the markets--you and me--to shake out the shady nor does he have much faith in our judicial system.

How do I know that?

If a certain behavior is illegal now, it can be prosecuted immediately with or without Bruner's moral lectures. Except, in the case of our recent crisis we are eager to let the true culprits go. It's too dangerous for some seemingly innocent folks to open that can of worms, and we don't want to inconvenience individuals who live in clouds above and beyond ethics classes.

Are we so retarded that we need the dean to tell us that the comprehension of his ethics can keep us from committing crimes? How naive is this gentleman? Does he believe those who violate ethics and/or laws are unaware of their behavior and its consequences?

It is silly to raise the moral index finger, as if to say that better ethical training will prevent future ethics violations. There will always be crime, dear Professor Bruner, and teaching your unbelievable drivel to "the next generation" with "more critical care and reflection" would not have prevented an army of banksters from feeling tempted by the sugar high of credit default swaps.

"The aftermath is a much larger role for government" because the benefactors of past ethics violations don't care to miss out on the fruits of unethical behavior in the future, and if they can exploit crises to increase the sum of money that goes around--they undoubtedly will. A fine reason for government to push for its own procreation. Professor Bruner knows as well as I do that (deliberate) incompetence of government oversight won't be magically eliminated by more government oversight.

If it's not working now we should do more of the same? Really? We have slept through moral theory since Socrates and Aristotle, but suddenly dean Bruner discovered the recipe to solve the remaining problems during Darden's next class? I am so impressed ... by his arrogance!

"It's always in the panic that the world settles up with unethical behavior. If you look at the discoveries of Ponzi schemes, they coincide with economic troughs," says Mr. Bruner. If a crisis is a tool to end unethical behavior we should be looking forward to the next crisis, shouldn't we? Or does he believe that Bernie Madoff would have never ponzied around had he had the pleasure of sitting through dean Bruner's ethics training?

Apropos Ponzi: We have known for a century that Ponzi schemes cannot work. Further, we are aware that Ponzi schemes are illegal. However, governments--and the individuals who do the governments' holy work--don't interrupt their donut breakfast for "more critical reflection." Charles Ponzi's dubious accomplishments have inspired our government more than Professor Bruner's ethics lecture ever will: illegal or mathematically impossible--governments don't hesitate to engage in activities that are STRENG VERBOTEN for everybody else.

Enter social security, the most grandiose Ponzi operation under the sun. How do you teach business ethics without cynicism or a heaping portion of intellectual dishonesty?

Dean Bruner goes on to embarrass himself by sharing platitudes "Good leaders are present and engaged and alert," or "The best leaders do the opposite [of playing Bridge]." How do you do THAT?

But Darden's dorky dean's $64,000 lie rolls off his tongue thusly: "I believe in pay for performance ..." Damn. I wasn't sure if business schools (B.S.) are still deceiving their students with such reprehensible nonsense. Now I know: they do and shamelessly so.

Do you believe in performance related pay? I won't laugh if you do because it's just as sad as it is funny, but I suggest the following:

Make a list of everybody you know, from your hunchbacked relatives and friends to your dry cleaner at the corner. Don't forget to add the famous (Simon Cowell), the droll (Paris Hilton), and the infamous (Michael Vick).

Then write down how hard and how many hours they work. Put numbers next to their names--each person's annual salary or wage--before you ask yourself whether the belief in "pay for performance" continues to make any logical sense. Does Beyoncé Knowles work 2,200 times harder than your car mechanic?

Too much underpaid work to figure it out?

I thought so. As an alternative, you may purchase a copy of my book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' It will thoroughly answer this question for you. Not enough: my book rudely rips into numerous uncomfortable issues and I solemnly promise it would make Professor Bruner's head spin.

Egbert Sukop


P.S.: Uh, before I forget: have you bought my book yet?

circulus vitiosus

"The only happy people I know are people I don't know well." --Helen Telushkin (via Dennis Prager)

The more details we discover about another person's life, the clearer it becomes that other people have at least as much adversity to deal with as we do. Some individuals appear exceptionally lucky on first sight, before we learn about the heavy burdens they are carrying. Nobody's life is free of challenges and pain. Every single human being has plenty of reasons not to be happy.

There it is: if you are not as happy as you wish to be, it is because feeling awful makes more sense. Is being miserable logical? Is the absence of happiness a natural function of nasty, happiness-smothering circumstances?

A vicious circle of desire keeps us from enjoying life as intensely as we could. For instance, we wish to be happy and we want to make money, but instead we develop weird habits of exclusive thinking:

Large percentages of the population think that they cannot be happy while being at work. Hence making money excludes happiness, and being happy excludes making money. We want both, but we're making damn sure that it won't occur. We can't handle both simultaneously. Our ability to multi-task is rather limited.

Combining the two appears nearly impossible. Work is not supposed to be fun. If it's too enjoyable it can't be that hard and if our work lacks hardship, its perceived monetary value drops to levels of insignificance.

People are afraid of having too much fun at work. When that happens--and we're happy on the job despite our intentions to suffer for money--feelings of guilt can kick in swiftly.

Our belief in sweat equity is similar to blood sacrifices of ancient cultures. Of course we don't kill the annual virgin to persuade our gods that we deserve a decent crop. Nevertheless, we are a superstitious bunch. How else do you explain the unwillingness to abandon human sacrifices?

People trade their lives for a house. Individuality is easily surrendered in exchange for our brats' education and for comfort. Right, we pay for comfort with emotional and physical discomfort. Pain is a common currency for the purchase of luxury and highly questionable symbols. Cars are often seen as symbols of freedom and mobility, and we're willing to relinquish true freedom to do what we want in exchange for $1,000 rims and an iPhone.

Symbols of freedom and happiness can be more important than raw freedom and happiness. After all, we are sophisticated people and we prefer freedom secondhand.

The idea that fun and enjoyment may be valuable commodities or even capable of producing money seems absurd. Can't we work our behinds off WHILE we are happy? Can you?

Imaginary lists lurk around our heads, lists of potential happy makers, 'Happy Lists,' and lists of events with supposedly depressing character, 'Unhappy Lists.'

Money--preferably lots of it--appears in prominent positions on people's list of happiness causing events. Restored health, grandchildren, vacations, completion of education and other projects, world peace, a lower tax burden, raises, marriage, divorce, a day of sunshine, or a good deal--almost anything can serve at one time or another to sucker us into the belief that we'll be happier once X has happened.

The majority of lottery winners eventually experiences the undoing of their pre-jackpot lives, yet the unlikely occasion of winning the lottery remains on many people's Happy Lists.

Children are on plenty of Happy Lists, but will children “make" you happy by definition? Unloading responsibility for your happiness onto the small shoulders of your kids—born or unborn—would be an unspeakable cruelty. We may experience an abundance of happy times with children, but the inhumane expectation that your offspring owes you an increase of your personal happiness will be punished by the universe. Trust me.

Childless individuals often believe with children they would be happier. I know of parents who think without children they could have been happier. We are nuts.

Divorce is on the average Unhappy List. Wish lists and LOA treasure maps don't usually include divorces. “Oh, I want to meet a nice man and share a devastating and humiliating divorce with him.” Bizarre? Surprisingly, approximately half of those who get married will look forward to their divorce sooner or later. Indeed, divorces can make us happy or at least they may lead us back to the road toward happiness.

Birthdays appear on Happy Lists, cancer commonly on Unhappy Lists. Gout, death, repair bills, or a cleft lip: Unhappy List. Beer, tax hikes, celibacy? Depends on you.

"Those who seek happiness in pleasure, wealth, glory, power, and heroics are as naive as the child who tries to catch a rainbow and wear it as a coat." --Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche

No, that does not mean you should make do without pleasure, wealth, or power! Mr. Rinpoche doesn't say anything against having fun or the acquisition of cash per se. But he is correct: to seek ecstasy in the warm and fuzzy, in the cracks of the notoriously positive, is as limited as it is hopelessly immature. If the good is "making" you happy and the bad is "causing" unhappy feelings, negative experiences will cancel out happiness and on average your life will trickle away at an emotional level of plus/minus zero.

Being happy when life goes well and complaining when the going gets tough is not that creative, or is it? Happiness cannot expand without venturing out into hostile territory, the dark and the negative. Every 4-year old knows that fun is fun. Duh. The real challenge is to connect the dots between happiness and the common cold, between cancer and ecstasy, or to respond to an impertinent boss with boundless lust for work!

Forget the new age rubbish, the brain-phlegm coughed up by recycled dork religions: "there is a positive side to everything," or that smug "what is this pain teaching you?" No, no, no--that is not happiness. It's a miserable wretch grasping for that last straw of meaning to hold on to, a nanosecond before filing for intellectual bankruptcy.

I am not asking you to prospect for kernels of wisdom in negative experiences. The negative, the reprehensible, or the outright painful is indeed ugly and I don't suggest you cover it up with a mountain of fudge. The last thing on my mind is peddling positive thinking.

But: Even ugly experiences can be lived with style, excitement, and passion!

If you need help entering your form of ecstasy when you are facing one of life's less than desirable surprises, I am happy to teach you for a hefty fee. Yet I don't believe that's necessary. Why?

We are naturally born happy entities!

You don't need to teach 2-year olds how to be happy. They know how it works. From then on people learn how to not be happy. We have learned what we can gain with misery and what we forgo by being happy too often. And ecstasy is an absolut no-no. Makes you look crazy.

What am I talking about? When you are unhappy, you get attention. We knew how to milk that before we could speak. Being unhappy increases a person's perceived importance. Others latch on with there own problems or they are compelled to help. At the very least, individuals feel compassion with the unhappy. Unhappy fellows are considered deeper, more sophisticated, and thoughtful.

Being unhappy puts you in a control position! A superior angrily barking at his subjects gets immediate respect and more so than a boss who invites you to be merry and to join his ecstatic dance around his desk.

Happiness is suspect! We hate pain and misery, but we're not as scared of it as we are opposed to ecstasy. True happiness is associated with loss of control and must be avoided at all times. People don't even laugh uncontrollably because they are afraid how others may judge them.

Overtly happy people are an embarrassing sight. They are shallow freaks. They cause jealousy and resentment quickly. The happy person obviously doesn't control himself and neither do we expect that he can control others if necessary. You cannot trust a happy man. You want power? Forget being happy!

Everybody knows how to be happy at all times. If and when we aren't, we are scheming. Misery is artificial and those feigning it have ulterior motives. The unhappy person takes the feelings of the few happy freaks hostage. Unhappiness works by way of extortion.

When you are unhappy, you are intent to control your human environment by intimidation. And damned, it often works and we permit misery to bully our happiness into a tiny corner. Twice a month--maybe--at night, in bed, in the dark, when hardly anyone notices we are willing to be happy for 10 seconds.

Pathetic.

Never again trust unhappy people! And that includes an unhappy moody you.

Egbert Sukop

P.S.: That should not stop you from buying my damn book. So? What are you waiting for?!