Monday, March 17, 2014

Does Money Equal Success? The story of Franz Kafka


The word "successful" has become a synonym for "making" a lot of money. The sports stars making tons of cash are presented as "successful". The famous singers are presented as "successful". Arnold Schwarzenegger himself has adopted this definition. If it makes money, the modern society considers it "successful"'. How sweet....

If a young boy tells his mother than he wants to be a philosopher (not that this will ever happen) she would look at him and say: "Hey, get real. When was the last time you saw a philosopher on the cover of Forbes magazine?" On the other hand if you want to become a footballer it's perfectly fine because footballers make tons of money and everybody is willing to suck their dicks.



Activities that don't make money are not only discouraged but they are also not respected. If your bank account does not have a big dick, you are not successful. In fact, you are labeled as a loser and hater. If you are not making a lot of money from what you are doing, your self-worth is considered to be low. 

In reality, however, money does not equal true success. There are many people with money who are successful only in satisfying their own narcissism. This brings me to the story of Franz Kafka.

Franz Kafka is one of those writers nobody heard of when he was alive. He became famous after his death. He actually wanted his works to be burned after he is gone. However, luckily his will was not respected and pretty fast his writings spread over the entire globe. His style is a little crazy to say the least. He uses a lot of metaphors which have dual, if not triple meaning. What's interesting about him is that he didn't do it for the money. He did it simply because he wanted to. If he was alive today, most people were probably going to label him as a loser because he was not making money by selling his books. He was unknown. 

That only reveals that success today (and in the past actually) has become a cheap word used by businessman who like to screw over clients. A few months ago the famous rapper 50 Cent started posting online comments saying how successful he was for selling millions of Reebok sneakers. It's all about money. 50 Cent seems to completely ignore the fact that all Reebok shoes are made in sweatshops and the workers get paid USD 1 dollar a day. There are kids working over-time in factories while 50 Cent is bitching about how much money he's made by working for the same company. Is exploitation success? The same stays true for fags like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates...etc.

Some celebrities actually realize all of this. Many wonder why famous and rich people kill themselves. It's simple - some of them are not so stupid and see through the fakeness and the shallowness and simply cannot live with themselves. As a results they commit a crime against their soul and kill themselves. 

Money is not bad. We make it bad. There is enough money for everybody, but we have been conditioned to accept exploitation as normal and to label poor people as losers. I am not anti-working hard for your money. Not at all. It's needed. What I am against is making money the ONLY measure for success. It's part of the picture but will never be the essence. 

67 comments:

  1. Unfortunately the amount of money a person has, even if obtained in illegal or questionable ways, determines their status in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you're still a beginner and doesn't have lots of muscle. Can you take lower amount of protein?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know. I think you are overthinking.

      Delete
    2. How anout you? Are you eating a certain amount of protein?

      Delete
    3. I used to eat about 150 grams of protein a day. Now I eat very little and look the same BUT I don't have a good physique anyway so don't take what I say as dogma.

      However, protein is definitely overrated after a certain point. I think for a regular guy anything above 100 grams a day is too much.

      Delete
  3. Have you reaced your genetic potential?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. But I don't think I am genetically gifted in this area. I just happened to accumulate some knowledge in the sector.

      Delete
  4. How do you explain why its not possible to gain muscle while cutting body fat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same way it's not possible to save and spend money at the same time.

      Delete
    2. Does gaining muscle always come with getting fat?

      Delete
    3. I mean fat as in body fat

      Delete
    4. Then why it gaining muscle not possible while cutting? If you are getting enough protein for muscle building

      Delete
    5. Well muscle gain & body fat kinda goes hand in hand in most cases. The reason why you eat alot is that you are going to have those as elements for you repair. And at the same time an increase on eating will also increase in testosterone. And w/ increase eating comes insulin spikes, which is the most anabolic hormone out there. But insulin spikes come also w/ fat gain. So fat gain and muscle gain come hand in hand. What happens when you cut is that your testosterone drops along w/ the fat loss due to caloric deficits. What remains as muscle is base on genetics, diet can help but I really doubt it can do alot more than it should. This is why some bodybuilders who can't afford steroids end up using steroids as a "Finish touch" supplement.cause it help them maintain their muscle while losing fat because when you cut you really don't know what's going to be left out.

      Delete
  5. How long do you rest in between sets?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In your post getting lean in 3 months. How do you compute for maintainance calories? For example im 150 so i start with 1350 cal

    ReplyDelete
  7. Been reading your blog for a couple of months. I really like your approach. Glad to see variety in your post topics. I wish there were more meaningful comments from readers other than "How much protein do I need if [insert]?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah because the posts he makes are only for know-it-all like you

      Delete
    2. Any comments are better than no comments.

      Delete
    3. Amen to that

      Delete
  8. Do you think Connor Lavallie is natural? http://goo.gl/vV7bQy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Size wise definitely could be achieved naturally. But that photoshop deep cuts are a little suspicious.

      Delete
    2. Now that I've read a little bit about that guy I can say he is not natty 100%.

      Delete
    3. This is eye opening for me. I would never take steroids. What kind of substances do you suspect? Thanks for penning a great thinking man's blog.

      Delete
    4. The physique he presented at 21 - 188 lbs at 6'3 was what I first saw. It's attainable naturally although STILL hard to get because his level of leanness is insane. But you can get there, in general. Being that muscular at 21 was the first sign. If he was 25+ it would have made more sense.

      Second. He is 228lbs now and still conditioned as hell. He seem like another layne norton to be honest. More on him can be found here: http://nattyornot.com/connor-lavallie-natty/

      Delete
    5. Yes, Layne is his coach. Thanks very much.

      Delete
    6. Really appreciate your input and perspective. I am actually on a team with these guys and being drug free and so close to this stuff my perspective is sometimes clouded.

      Delete
  9. In your post getting lean in 3 months. How do you compute for maintainance calories? For example im 150 so i start with 1350 cal

    ReplyDelete
  10. Same question about these self-proclaimed natty bbers, Nunez and Doris? : http://goo.gl/WYwmSl http://goo.gl/3Nxes7

    Would like to learn to spot these things and develop a clearer, more honest and realistic perspective. Thanks very much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan Doris - no way in the fucking world - no natural at all. 185lbs shredded at 5'7 ?

      FRANK ZANE WON MR.OLYMPIA at 185 lbs, 5'9 THREE TIMES....

      Nunez - uses drugs to get shredded and preserve muscle mass during preps....no way that guy is natural.

      You can have his mass but his conditioning,,,no way.

      Delete
    2. Why in your post on Eugen Sandow on rookiejournal it states that he is 180lbs i thought he is natural?

      Delete
    3. His measurements are usually exaggerated. Sandow was never that big, at all. Also his real measurements are hard to get.

      There is a difference between 180lbs steroid free and 180 lbs loaded with steroids. The latter is harder and much more impressive.

      The photos of Sandow use oldschool "photoshop".

      He was genetically gifted and did not develop his physique when he was 20.

      It's not just about weight, it's about quality. The 3D look cannot be obtained naturally. It's that simple.

      Rookiejournal was written 3 years ago. Some things needed to be updated.

      Delete
    4. But he was so faroff the max genetic potential in your other post here in your blog. Sorry just curious

      Delete
    5. I mean the weight

      Delete
    6. Eugen Sandow

      Delete
    7. The max potential at shredded 5% water depleted (contest condition) at 5'7 is not more than 150lbs. And that's if you are very gifted.

      Which means than in the off season when you are not water depleted and 10-15% Bf you can be 180lbs.

      Delete
  11. Oh now i get it. How about abs? Do they really already show up at lower body fat or do you need to do ab exercises? Im seeing contradicting posts from others about it

    ReplyDelete
  12. Abs = bodyfat but if you really want develop abs you have train them. However, it's mostly diet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How about In your post getting lean in 3 months. How do you compute for maintainance calories? For example im 150 so i start with 1350 cal

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes. But be careful and listen to your body. YOU HAVE TO ADJUST all programs to your needs. There are just guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean the maintenance. By the time im at the last weeks of your program ill be at 350 calories. How will i compute for my maintenance calories after your program? :D

      Delete
    2. At 150 I don't recommend that you diet at all.

      Delete
    3. But im 5'7 with a big belly. Im hoping to remove it

      Delete
    4. I recommend that you begin with simpler approach. Cut all junk food. You have to first build some habits before you experiment.

      Delete
    5. At 5'7 and currently 150lbs. What body type do you think i am? I have 6'' wrists.

      Delete
    6. Skinny fat. Like most people. But you are just normal.

      Delete
    7. So i am an endomorph?

      Delete
    8. Ectonorph i mean

      Delete
    9. Man this is not personal chat. This is so off-topic, it's not even funny.

      Delete
    10. Sorry. Thats the last question i promise

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    12. Why not comment under the right post at least or e-mail me? The post I wrote has nothing to do with body types and all other stuff. You want to ask me a question - fine - I always answer. But please do it in an e-mail, or under relevant post. Don't just spam my newest posts with your questions.

      Delete
    13. Do you check older posts? Like really old

      Delete
    14. Doesn't matter. When somebody posts a comment I receive a message. It does not matter which posts it was made to. I will get it.

      To answer your original question - all people are a mix of the three body types. You can be just one.

      The body types can be misleading.

      Delete
    15. I thought you just check your latest post. Sorry. Alright ill do that

      Delete
  15. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=160403891
    Natty or not?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why in the post at rookiejournal yiu said that 10x3 is great for hypertrophy?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Irongangsta, do you think Adam Raw is natural?
    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here you go: http://nattyornot.com/adam-raw-natty/

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. Money is not the problem. Ignorance is.

      Delete
  19. Like this site even better now as those pesky popups are gone.

    On money... once the basic material needs are covered, there is a big drop off in further benefit. Time becomes the limiting factor, because nothing fulfilling one can do can be done without focus. You could afford or have all the movies, cars, clothes, travel, or whatever gadget from the commercials in the world, but never the time to appreciate them. And money is the problem when it is like today the 'automatic subject', that is its multiplication is the highest end in itself and so demotes all other human needs to their affordability.

    julius b.

    ReplyDelete