Comments on: If you have nothing to lose, you can only win

By: Karel Donk’s Blog » Blog Archive » New Year, Same Approach

Karel Donk’s Blog » Blog Archive » New Year, Same Approach — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:17:37 +0000

[...] Have absolutely nothing to lose in life. If you have nothing to lose, you can only win. Stand for what you believe, have principles in life, value your integrity, make your own choices, be free and have some backbone. Make sure you have nothing to lose, because that’s the only way you’ll be able to really have all of those things. Read the details. [...]

By: JDawg

JDawg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:45:20 +0000

This is a very good point. That is why I am extremely opposed to Socializing Healthcare. This is exactly what you are talking about. Getting people dependent on Government to the point where the Government can dictate every aspect of their lives. This is why I am against having a minimum wage and requiring businesses to pay double for overtime. What happens in the end is that the market becomes to difficult to enter that only those in powerful corporations can enter the market and the little guy can’t start a business and thereby become independent. He in turn has to go to the corporation and work for a CEO and work long hours etc. Good point.

By: Karel Donk

Karel Donk — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:54:16 +0000

I recently became a parent, and everything I said still stands.
Explain why you think the world would be worse.

By: J Consolati

J Consolati — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:41:56 +0000

Obviously you are not a parent. If everyone thought this way the world would be worse, not better! Your philosophy is all hooey. It’s not all about you.

By: Karel Donk

Karel Donk — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:59:51 +0000

Vladimir,

Yes I have no son at the moment. But what about a girlfriend? My parents? I do have those, and I can assure you I would think about those the same as I wrote above. While I admit I don’t have a son and can’t speak from experience there, I do think I would be able to react as explained.

By: Vladimir

Vladimir — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:25:12 +0000

Karel Donk writes:

It would be the same thing if people would kidnap my son (which I don?t have by the way) in order for me to agree with something they wanted. The moment they kidnap my son, he would be their responsibility, not mine. If he died, it would not be my fault.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

While I agree with the spirit of your article, I must say that it does not stand up to being taken to the extreme quoted above.

As you state yourself, you have no son, so you are not really qualified to make the statement in the quote. Yes, it is true theoretically, but as a father of to sons, I can tell you that once you have children, you have a MAJOR vulnerability. Perhaps it is best that you refrain from having children as your principals will be tested if you do. This is one of life’s challenges, having children. Anyone who has not (successfully) raised a child can not and should not talk about anything having to do with the subject.

As I said, I agree with your thesis completely and follow it to the best of my abilities. I also agree with the theory of “control by design”. That is evident in pretty much every aspect of life (at least in USA). From medical to political to social aspects of life, people are made to be dependent on something. Usually, that something is a product of BIG BUSINESS of some sort and that big business DEPENDS on people DEPENDING on its product. In that same way, that entity that makes people dependent on their product is actually very vulnerable to people getting off the dependency.

As an experiment, try not buying gas from a single brand, say Exxon/Mobile (I am still sore at those bastards for Alaska, so I will take them as an example) and get many people within your sphere of influence to do the same. See how quickly price of gas will go down if people do this en mass. Big oil is highly vulnerable.

Thanks for the article, though. It is very good save for the extremist aspect of it.

By: Karel Donk » Archive » Dealing with being Wrong

Karel Donk » Archive » Dealing with being Wrong — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:16:13 +0000

[...] Just think about it, the sooner you can find out that you were wrong and the sooner you admit to it, the sooner you can start to learn from your mistakes and improve yourself and your situation. This is one of the most important reasons why I love finding out when I’m wrong and even prefer to know this as soon as possible. It’s why I keep myself open to any information, suggestions, remarks etc. from anyone and anywhere, so that I can challenge myself with it as soon as possible. When you’re able to do this the right way (you have to be able to be very objective and have nothing to lose), you improve and grow much faster as a person compared to people who can’t. Those who can’t, stick with bad ideas and assumptions much longer with all the disadvantages that come with that, often not only for themselves but sadly also for people around them. [...]

By: Jeremy Kirk

Jeremy Kirk — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:43:17 +0000

This advice is very important, and very under-rated! I am more persistent with practicing these ideas after reading it. I have two main dependencies which I need to work away from. That is a very nicely written article. Thanks!

By: Mario Miyojim

Mario Miyojim — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:15:32 +0000

I liked this opinion. In the last few years I underwent several vivential problems, after having had a lucky professional life. This contrasting set of events made me significantly wiser. Throughtout my life, I have relied mostly on my own efforts, because I did not fear losing, since I started with very little. But once, in the seventies, I lost a good chance of curbing the IBM monopoly but failed take it due to lack of perception, or inexperience. In 1995 I joined the Linux community because I saw an opportunity to redeem myself from the earlier failure; besides, Windows 95 was not as compelling as Unix was to me. So, the imperfections of RedHat 2.0 were just temporary inconveniences, and I did not become dependent on Microsoft. In the past decade, I did everything within my reach to promote Linux and open source and since 2002 I have been mostly independent from Windows, only occasionally and reluctantly because of family and business. When I understood what Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds to the history of technology prompted me to do all these things, due to the independence GNU and Linux provided. So today, I really have nothing to lose. I hope Karel Donk makes good on this reflection and migrates to open source. It will be complete.

By: Irene

Irene — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:58:10 +0000

How uplifting and true! I just lost my camera bag that contained my camera and IPOD within at the Beijing AIrport….and I’ve been sad…

By: Karel Donk » Archive » Bad Influence of the US Embassy in Suriname

Karel Donk » Archive » Bad Influence of the US Embassy in Suriname — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:12:16 +0000

[...] Another thing we can see is that people still allow themselves to be intimidated by the US Embassy in Suriname. Last year, I had a similar issue when “Residence Inn,” the hotel where I would first organize the 9/11 event, cancelled on me because “they did not want to hurt their relationship with the US Embassy in Suriname.” Why do these people allow themselves to be intimidated or to fear for consequences? Because they fear having something to lose. It seems that it’s all about protecting their interests, even at the cost of the greater good. If RTV has to basically agree with censorship to keep the US Embassy happy, they’re going to do it as they have demonstrated. And it seems this happens all the time. It’s one of the reasons the world is in such a mess today. People are being kept in de dark about many many things, and as a result make the wrong decisions, while those keeping them in the dark pretend to value journalistic ethics and free speech. [...]

By: nichie

nichie — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:46:26 +0000

Djoek

By: Karel Donk

Karel Donk — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:29:39 +0000

evilbatman: I know what you mean. With regards to relationships, I’m going to post about that soon.

By: evilbatman

evilbatman — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:51:34 +0000

Interesting – a similar insight I had concerning personal relationships is that any romantic attachment that you genuinely, deeply care about must, by necessity, end in either heartbreak or death. Sounds pessimistic at first, until you realize that it completely obviates the risk most people feel when getting involved with another person. If you know from the outset that the end of the relationship will hurt in one way or another, you’re far more willing to put more of yourself out on the line.

By: Karel Donk

Karel Donk — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:22:12 +0000

Hi Ali, Dan, thanks for your comments. Dan, if you want to get a head start, you might want to look at the following: Download movies: Jordan Maxwell - Basic Slide Presentation David Icke - Secrets Of The Matrix David Icke - From Prison To Paradise Books: Matrix of Power - Jordan Maxwell I am me, I am free - David Icke That should be enough to get you started.

By: !=

!= — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:42:21 +0000

This is the very basis of the sto?cist school of philosophy. The people who defined it were at each end of the spectrum: from emperor to slave (Epictetus).

To quote epictetus’ manual: (see for example: http://www.ptypes.com/enchiridion.html)

By: Dependence at fulminate // Architectures of Control

Dependence at fulminate // Architectures of Control — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:11:43 +0000

[...] Karel Donk has some intriguing thoughts on ‘maximising the upside’ of life, by reducing dependence on other people, status and possessions, so that there is less to lose: So one of the important things in life is to be as independent as possible and rely on very few things. After all, when it comes down to it, the only thing you can really and always depend on in life is yourself. This doesn?t mean that you shouldn?t want a lot of things in life. Want and have as much as you like, but require as little as possible. This is the simple rule you can use to guide you in making decisions about what you want to depend on in life. [...]

By: Dan Lockton

Dan Lockton — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:59:07 +0000

Very wise words indeed, a fascinating way of looking at things. I'm especially interested in this bit, Karel:

Today?s world, and indeed for a very very long time now, is structured in such a way where people are directed, if not forced, to become dependent. Dependent on the system, or dependent on others. When you do enough research, you will find that this is all by design. I won?t go into details in this post, but certainly will in the future. For now it?s enough to note that this is by design.

I've been researching the area of 'design for control' for a couple of years now, looking at everything from architecture to software, including quite a few products and systems designed to make the users more dependent, so I'll be very interested to read your thoughts on this.

By: Ali Burns

Ali Burns — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:28:34 +0000

Very wise words. Although I haven’t thought about it so lucidly this is exactly what I am trying to do with my own life. Great article.