What you talk about the most,
what you talk about in the most animated fashion,
and what you can talk about for hours on end

A quick Google search reveals that this is actually a common theme in hundreds and thousands of “finding your true passion” web sites (many of which will then sell you a “how to find your true passion” e-course…

a very worrying fact

It bothers me that this is the case, because the thing that ticks everything on the above list is politics. Why should that bother me?

It boils down to the simple fact that I detest politicians, I loathe, despise, detest and deplore the:

• way they serve themselves,
• lack of any real service to their country, region or the globe,
• way they back-stab, ride the gravy train and value personal power over real social justice,
• ridiculous and out-dated ceremonies and sideshows they wrap everything up in (e.g. Question Time),
• lack of straight talking and answering questions with questions,
• bipartisan approach to practically everything,
• apparent need to choose the party of business owners OR the party of business employees

I can TALK about this for hours on end, with passion and fire. Many people have said “you should run for office” on the back of that. I always laugh at the suggestion. It’s ridiculous!

or is it?

What if this IS my passion though? What if this is the area I was born to have the most significant impact in? What shape or form would that take?

Well, despite certain sympathies, sabre-rattling and chest-beating to the contrary, I’m not really the sort of person to start an armed struggle. Besides which, if you’re living in a first world country you really don’t have the necessary circumstances, motivation or underlying social pressures for a truly successful revolution.

So it’s ballot box rather than bomb. Fair enough. How to avoid becoming one of them though?

unlikely inspiration

Due to many of his political views, Senator Ron Paul is a most unlikley source of inspiration for someone like myself. However… what I do find inspiring is his persistence, independence, determination to be true to himself and his willingness to be ridiculed for sticking by his own true beliefs.

I also happen to agree with SOME of his political viewpoints, particularly in relation to phoney, unjust wars, the need for government to keep its beak out of matters like same sex marriage and drugs and the potential for the private sector to have a positive impact on society.

Where we disagree most is that I still believe in a welfare state, where hospitals, doctors and education services are essential. I still believe in a basic level of service for all, and I believe in the need for people to be protected from the large corporates (who would undoubtedly step in as a de facto government in the absence of real government).

core beliefs

On a Facebook discussion recently I actually pumped out, in the space of just a few minutes, a list of issues. These came out so fast that they are clearly the views and beliefs that mean the most to me. This list included:

• withdrawing from all US-led conflicts
• spending money on having national DEFENCE force that defends the country and also gets involved in
• humanitarian relief (e.g. after Tsunamis in the region etc.)
• Decriminalisation of drugs and ending the expensive and failed “war on drugs”
• Higher taxes to fund 21st century national health and education systems
• Stronger regulation of banks and mega corporations
• Deregulation and tax breaks for home-based and micro business (cottage industry)
• Legalisation of marriage between any two humans of the age of consent
• Separation of religion and state
• Housing refugees in the North West instead of in detention camps. Allowing them to contribute to their new home by helping build infrastrucutre and national wealth working in the area for a couple of years. After which they would be full citizens free to gain employment anywhere.
• Possibly replacing income tax with a larger Goods tax (with certain exemptions on basic items) – the more you spend (and are able to spend) the more you contribute to society. Freeing everyone from the burden of annual personal tax returns, and removing the potential for people to rort the system.
• Actively pursue an Australian Republic with a democratically elected President
• Reduce the role of State Government to that of municipal councils. Most European councils have a larger population than the states anyway!
• A single set of rules, regulations and laws across Australia as a single nation. One set of standards for all departments. State Government employees would transition to federal roles in each state.
• Modernisation of the way government runs (including departments). Retain public ownership of services but introduce leaner management structures, discourage frameworks, committees, endless talks and junkets… Pour more money into front end delivery of service and less on pen-pushing waffle merchants
• Blow apart the stupidity of “us versus them”. Government and corporates versus employees and unions. Have government exemplify things by discussing openly and transparently with employee organisations – none of the cloak and dagger bullshit that goes on with every round of pay negotiations currently (and the Unions are often just as bad as the other side of the table)
• Ban genetically modified crap (it’s just a way of maximising profits)
• Ban uranium mining and nuclear power (there are other ways, uranium mining is the lazy way out)

a new party?

One thing that is for sure, the policy platforms of any of the existing parties fall short of this. Furthermore, existing parties are hampered by the silliness of things like factions, dogma, the perceived need to ahere to an “ism” of some sort.

Political parties wind up playing the GAME of politics instead of doing the BUSINESS of improving the country they are in charge of (and improving the relationships and fortunes of other players on the global stage).

The current political systems in first world countries are dead ducks. The parties that play their games in those systems are soulless, directionless and pointless. All you have to do is look at the bickering between Rudd and Gillard, the UK’s “liberal” Clegg becoming a Tory’s bitch so he can have some personal power, Technocrats being imposed on bankrupt governments across Europe, the lack of any real choice in the US elections…

It all tells the same story – politics is almost as corrupt as FIFA (allegedly!) and as dead as a frigging dodo.

Worse still, we don’t ever get to vote for “no-one at all” in an election; it’s always a choice between red tosser and blue wanker, each with their own personal agendas to fulfill.

occupy your own mind

The rise of movements such as the “Tea Party” and “Occupy” prove that the status quo is not really wanted anymore, that there IS desire for something better and more effective.

Camping out in Central Park is not the way though. The 21st century offers little or no motivation to first world citizens to have a real revolution, non-violent or otherwise. These movements are perhaps best regarded as “signals” that the world needs change.

For change to happen, people everywhere have to start using their minds to full effect, they need to start imagining what is possible instead of reminding themselves of what is “impossible”.

The world needs to wake up: I really want to know how that might happen…

i’m not joking

I set out recently to first read all the lessons relatively quickly, and then to write a series of posts here, looking at the concepts from each chapter in more detail.

This is still happening, however I have been temporarily sidetracked by some things that grew very quickly from nowhere, and were sparked into life by the thinking that followed on from reading through the first time.

an exercise in proving “the law”

As a lifelong professional couch potato, I’ve started working with a personal trainer (a web client of mine) with the explicit aim of becoming fit and healthy enough to complete a marathon. The project itself is largely an attempt to prove that “Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.”

For more details, to keep track of progress, and to maybe pick up some ideas for your own “moment of madness”, head over to No More Mr Fat Guy

normal service will be resumed shortly

With the above project now up and running, I’m now starting to rearrange my schedule to fit, and also to use my time more intelligently. This should lead to more organised blogging and reading time, which is exactly what I need to complete the work on THIS blog in relation to the book.

In the interim, I’ll be continuing to prove that it all works over on No More Mr Fat Guy

See you there!

As discussed recently, through the (eventual) reading of “Think and Grow Rich” I found myself led to the somewhat larger body of work “The Law of Success”.

At the time of writing I have completed an initial read through each of the chapters and gained an overview of the the complete course. Over the coming weeks I will be revisiting each chapter in turn, and posting here my thoughts, interpretations and reactions to the contents.

It is appropriate at this stage to detail why I am doing this, and offer some initial thoughts following that initial reading…

the “why?”

To be perfectly blunt, writing about this book/course is for selfish reasons first and foremost; any benefit that may be had by others is incidental, though most welcome.

By taking the time to read, digest, process and then WRITE about it all I hope to come to a better undertsanding of the contents and for some fundamental truths to take root inside my own mind. It is very much a continuation of the path taken for some years now; one of personal development in all aspects and interpretations of that term.

My ultimate hope is that this will prove to be a significant period of personal evolution.

some “issues” with the course

It is worth bearing in mind, should you read the book yourself, that Napoleon Hill is very much a product of his times; the language he uses, the religious devotion and his views on appropriate morals and behaviour all have a slightly “dated” feel. That said, the fundamentals remain very much the same, and with a suitably open mind it is easy (or at least I have found it easy) to interpret the more “religious” terminology in a broader, more universal light.

As a deeply NON-religious man, I’m sure if I can get past that stuff most other people can!

While the contents have a definite feel of coming from a bygone age, there’s also a very contemporary feel to much of the course. Many of the issues that Napoleon raises can be seen in the world today, proof that humans really don’t tend to learn from history. These topics include financial crisis, warfare and the need for people to act less aggresively and more co-operatively (sound familiar?)

Going further still, some of the material is “out there” even today. In 1928 it must have seemed like witchcraft to some; I’m surprised the guy wasn’t burned at the stake!

the law of success is a practical guide

Some of the “out there” material has been making an impact in recent times under the guise of “The Secret” and concepts like “NLP”. It seems to me that pretty much all of the personal development stuff being, quite literally, spewed out at the moment, can be traced back to Napoleon Hills’ work. The problem is most of the modern stuff “cherry picks” the original material and creates an aura of semi-mysticism around it.

Napoleon Hill’s work requires suspension of belief in some parts, yet it is always firmly planted in reality and practical form. Along the way I will no doubt highlight differences in the way I personally interpret how certain things work; this is a matter of personal perspectives, belief systems and mental models of how the universe operates.

That’s largely immaterial I think – everyone will have their own personal take on things, the key point is that it all works. How it works will simply vary from person to person.

and so it begins…

There you have it, the very first step on a road to better understanding a book written almost 100 years ago that still retains massive relevancy today. The first step as well to what I anticipate will be a bumpy and tumultuous ride for me personally, with life perhaps never quite being the same ever again.

Big words perhaps – time will be the judge. In any case I invite you to enjoy the ride with me…

The book was first published in 1937; when you realise that point you wonder why the author wasn’t burned at the stake or something. His ideas and thinking would be considered advanced today, let alone in 1937!

something’s missing

I’ve read the book a number of times now, and while there’s loads of information that can be taken and put to good use, I always wind up thinking I have somehow missed the key point. This isn’t helped by the fact that Napoleon Hill says right up front that the book contains the secret to success and that you might find it in the very first chapter,  in the very last chapter, or somewhere in between. He gets all pseudo-mystical about it, stating that Andrew Carnegie “quietly tossed” the idea into his mind and that it seems to work best if it’s not stated directly, merely left for someone to discover for themself.

I always wind up thinking “won’t you just bloody well tell me what Carnegie said to you???”

I’ve come up with several theories as to what this elusive secret might be, the title of the book implies that it’s to do with thinking, thoughts, your mind… I know other people who have come up with different theories. I have not heard a single one that seems to be wholly satisfactory. The semi-mystical aspect makes things worse – it can easily lead to the book being dismissed.

the missing piece discovered

I had not realised that Think and Got Rich was NOT Napoleon Hill’s first work on the subject, nor had I realised it was NOT the main product of his work analysing 500 successful individuals. It seems that THIS particular honour goes to a larger volume of work called “The Law of Success In 16 Lessons”.

This “reading course” was published in 1928 – Think and Grow Rich appears to be a summary of certain key points, yet somehow (for me at least) that summary loses some of the clarity and specifics of the original work.

For one thing, “The Law of Success” contains exactly the response Andrew Carnegie gave when asked what the secret of his success was. Furthermore, while retaining all the incredibly advanced theories and ideas, “The Law of Success” comes across as a far more practical solution without any apparent “mystical” feel. There ARE still areas that require suspension of belief (particularly when he touches on Telepathy), however the overall tone helps you realise that it’s mostly about putting thoughts into real world action.

The individual topics are also covered in far greater depth than in “Think and Grow Rich”, leading to a broader understanding of the “recipe” for success that Napoleon Hill is trying to get across.

working with “the law”

There is no doubt that “Think and Grow Rich” has had a positive effect on me, in particular in helping me stick to my goal of building up Avallach Technology as a successful business. It’s also hit a lot of the same ground as my more “spiritual” development work, leading me to the conclusion that what seemed to be two aspects are actually different views of the same issues.

The results (if you can call them that) have been limited, mostly I believe because of the nagging feeling that something was missing.

The lightbulb went on after the first 2 “lessons” in “The Law of Success” – the extra detail, the additional information, the more practical nature of the thing all combined to make me realise that Think and Grow Rich was the “appetiser”; what I really need is to work through and understand his longer, more in-depth  initial work.

So to that end I have decided to track those efforts on this blog, which is after all about my personal development “journey”, and in particular to post up my 2012 interpretations of what Hill was saying back in 1928.

Before I even get started on that though – I thoroughly recommend getting hold of “The Law of Success” to anyone vaguely interested in making a better life for themselves. It contains some very practical advice that should be obvious yet isn’t until someone else makes you face up to facts, or circumstances do the same.

One thing is for sure, blogging about it is going to help cement things in my mind – it will also probably cause a few raised eyebrows

That first season was characterised by tensions in the squad, apparent lack of spending by the owner Nick Tana (who subsequently walked away the following season) and a mixture of nepotism, favourtism and poor coaching style from Steve McMahon. When Tana handed back his licence to the FFA, the club was a pale shadow of its former self and the fans were already starting to feel it was no longer their club.

FFA Control

The FFA era was one of minimal life support; they did just enough to keep the club (barely) alive. Lack of spending, lack of vision and an inept leadership allowed the rot to continue to spread. The low point of the FFA era waa the infamous rebranding of Perth Glory’s 10th anniversary as a “celebration of football in WA”. Political correctness had struck again and the fans knew that the A-League Glory was not the club they had loved so completely; this was Perth Glory in name alone.

The Three Wise Monkeys

The FFA eventually offloaded the club to 3 local businessmen, Tony Sage, Brett McKeon and John Spence. Fans were understandably excited, they believed that their “white knights” had arrived and a new era was about to commence. The thin veneer started to wear thin very quickly, Spence and McKeon abandoned ship, and the club continued to lurch from coach to coach. The apparent lack of football culture continued to permeate the club from the very top, permeating the entire club; one can only surmise as to the effect on player and coach morale. As for the fans – well they were slowly slipping away, faced with increased costs of membership/tickets and a growing feeling that their club was gone.

Attacks on the fans by admin staff AND the owner did further damage – it became an expected part of the football calendar for Tony Sage to threaten to walk away if the fans didn’t turn out. He started to look a lot like the boy who cried wolf, and his lack of football credentials become increasingly obvious, even to those diehards who were convinced that a new coach would fix the problems.

Sage Finally Going?

Sage has now been quoted in the West Australian (Dec 19th 2011) as planning to hand back his licence. Not only that, he has taken the opportunity to put the boot into supporters of the game in WA. He claims that an A-League team in Perth is not viable, and appears to be laying the blame solely with the fans for not turning up.

The reality is that the fans are still there and most of them desperately want their club back. They long for the days where they can go and watch a Glory game and feel they are with their family once more. The problem is that these fans are football-savvy and have had a gutful of owner ego, corporate mentality, foot-stamping and lack of club culture. They are also fed up with endless meetings with club staff where countless great ideas and suggestions have fallen on the ears of arrogant individuals with a “we know best” mentality.

I for one hope that Sage finally holds true to his word and leaves the club while there is the faintest glimmer of hope for a revival.

The Way Forward

The FFA have already said that they aren’t prepared to prop up any more clubs financially, and that’s fine with me because a second era of FFA  control will only make things worse. The FFA have also said previously that they are committed to having an A-League club in Perth, so that gives me hope that they will at least attempt to find a post-Sage solution.

So what form might that solution take?

I refuse to believe that Perth has a complete lack of genuine, football-loving millionaires. It is statistically unlikely. Furthermore, anyone stepping up to “save” this club will inherit the BEST Glory squad that has existed in the A-League era, perhaps of all time. The initial results this season showed what they are capable of – the subsequent rapid decline into the old habit of losing is, I believe, a product of the toxic environment that exists at the club.

My personal preference would be for the FFA to seek out a consortium of football-loving millionaires – people with a little bit of cash to burn, are not looking to use ownership as a personal PR vehicle and understand that football is about passion NOT commerce (i.e. no more CEOs talking about “cost neutrality”)

There still remains the issue of “re-engagement” however; disenfranchised and disillusioned fans that need to be convinced to come back. I believe partial fan ownership could be a catalyst here.

The consortium of cashed-up individuals mentioned above would presumably form a company (a not-for-profit would be ideal) and that organisation would become the licence holder. I suggest that a portion of that company could be subject to a limited share offer, allowing fans to become “owners” of the club. Most fans I know, and it’s not just with Perth Glory that this holds true, would treasure even just 1 solitary share; to them they would own a piece of the club. It would simply be THEIR club at a fundamental level.

To ignore the potential for this level of connection and involvement would surely be a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of fan-based passion.

There ARE other issues to consider – for one things, ticket and membership prices need to be at more realistic levels. Drop them back to 2005 prices for now. Through the fan ownership model, many fans will be supporting the club financially anyway, with the added benefit of “re-engagement”.

Supporter Involvement

Another area that a new ownership can look for improvements is the potential to tap into active supporter involvement. While the FFA do exert a high degree of control over web sites, matchday programs etc. the club need to find creative ways to involve fans, particularly those with media experience.

Fan groups and individual fans have produced fanzines, painted banners, organised radio talk shows, held pre-match functions at local pubs and even held a highly successful end of season function when ordinary fans got priced out of the official “ball”.

The potential is there – it just needs a bit of lateral thinking by the club to tap into it!

Perth Glory, Rebooted and Reinvigorated

By following a radically different path, engaging fans in various ways (and at the most fundamental levels) Perth Glory can, I believe, experience something of a renaissance. Football culture needs to flow from the top down, it needs to permeate the entire club. The fans are ready for this, it is the club that needs to be healed.

Footballers respond to that type of environment, it is a game of intense passion. Players need to have a club they believe in, a player who plays for the love of their club is a force to be reckoned with. Once the fans see that their team are once more playing “for the shirt” they WILL respond.

Over to you FFA – this is your chance to cure the rot at the heart of Perth Glory.

Andrew Aballa, Live by the Sword Die By It

If a lot of “experts” are to be believed, the world is edging towards Global Financial Crisis part deux. Given that governments are looking at ways of tinkering and meddling once more, and the fact that their previous interventions didn’t actually fix things, I’d say there’s a good chance it will happen. This time I hope they get things right, this time they need to let the banks crash and burn.

what about people’s savings & mortgages?

I’m pretty sure there are plans to bail out the banks yet again – instead of pumping billions more in to prop up these organisations, use any bail out cash to compensate savings account holders. Assuming there are very few surviving financial institutes capable of picking up the consumer credit, wipe it all clean and let them keep the houses, cars or whatever else people bought with the credit.

so people get off scott free?

You can look at it that way, or you could look at it as a massive reset and rebalance of the system, which has become increasingly biased towards large, multinational banking organisations. It’s actually a chance to start afresh without the toxic burden of massive consumer debt, which is spiralling out of control.

Let the banks die, wipe out consumer debt and try again. A massive financial reboot.

Followers of the pseudo-science of economics will no doubt have a gazillion reasons to refute this – ultimately though the only real losers are the bankers currently making personal fortunes at the expense of everyone else.

So no real loss at all and it might just teach them a much-needed lesson.

I’ve recently noticed a disturbing tendency within myself; actually liking someone who, theoretically, is “right-of-centre” in political terms. I am of course talking about the American Republican, Ron Paul.

When I first heard his name, it was in the context of being the so-called “godfather” of the Tea Party, a movement that always seemed to me, to be populated with those who worship at the altar of disturbing characters like Sarah Palin.

Yet with his recent time in the spotlight I found myself reading more and more about the guy, and finding that I can find very little to fault. While I do not necessarily agree with ALL his ideas, I have no issue on the main points relating to foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the fact that government should keep its nose out of most things!

left? right? what?

Reading about Ron Paul led me inevitably to take a closer look at the notion of “Libertarianism” – an apparent oxymoron that I have come to associate with ultra-conservative “blue rinse” types. I’ll admit that I hadn’t previously delved into this topic at all, so I was quite surprised to find lots of linkages and cross-references to anarchism. Now it all started to fall into place a little – while many (myself included) will use the “easy” label of “lefty” to describe me, my opinions and beliefs actually tend to fall more into the realm of true “anarchy”. Even here we need to be careful because the word “anarchy” has become incredibly loaded, misused and abused.

anarchy in the uk, usa, australia…

My personal interpretation of anarchy is quite simple really; it is anti-”nanny state”, anti-”police state” and based on a belief that we ought to be able to live our lives pretty much as we want to (without sacrificing compassion and without adopting a dog-eat-dog attitude).

To many others, the word conjures up images of chaos, violence, revolutionary acts and, for those who have moved into the realms of middle age, the punk movement in the late 70′s.

Now I do like punk music – in the latter half of the 80s I was in a (terrible) punk band. However the punk movement does not accurately represent “anarchy” as a political idea.

actually, forget the labels

One of the difficulties I have had over the years is to accurately describe myself in terms of established labels. I’m not a fan of labels personally, however they can be useful if you’re trying to get a point across to another person.

What I have found interesting about my liking of Ron Paul is the “journey” (don’t you just hate that word?) it has taken me on – just to give you a quick idea, check out this Wikipedia page on Libertarianism, or this one on Anarchism. These simple words (and seemingly simple concepts) are divided, sub-divided and then divided even further!

The number of “splinter groups”, spin-offs and so on is mind-boggling. The same situation exists for ANY political branch or ideology. THAT is what is completely screwed about politics and economics in general. We’ve complicated things, we’ve wound up with a “neat” label for everyone by creating one label for every individual!

So forget the labels, forget the -isms, the -ologies. Forget the factions, and whether a particular grouping has identical views to your own (they won’t, it’s impossible). Instead we should all look to doing, voting for, being and acting out what is within ourselves.

If that means voting for a “Tory” because he’s pro-equality, pro-cannabis-legalisation, anti-bullshit-war and pro-liberty, then so be it!

Of course for me it doesn’t matter much – in Australia (as in the UK) we’re still stuck with the clowns to the left and jokers to the right.

Where is OUR Ron Paul?

I can hardly expect anyone to understand how these things can co-exist; it is only relatively recently that I started to make sense of them myself. However, in finding the balance between these apparently opposing forces, I like to think that I may have something to offer others caught in a similar personal tug-of-war.

personal and social conscience

Being able to consider the wider picture, being unwilling to accept social injustice, and wanting a better, more equitable world is no bad thing. In fact I would say that such a view is wholly consistent with the concept of “civilisation” – it ought to be the distinguishing feature of the human species in the 21st century. Collectively we show encouraging signs of this from time to time, especially in the darker moments when natural or man-made disasters strike. Millions of dollars are raised very quickly, from the pockets of ordinary men and women, to address the needs of those who suffer due to flood, bushfire, earthquake and war.

At other times though, we humans show a remarkable ability to sink back to primal instincts, territorial behaviours, distrust or even hatred of anything “different”. It is at those times that we see that humankind still has a good deal of growing up to do, that we are not yet fully “evolved”.

For those who embrace the ideals of social justice, and a belief that we should create a better world, there are dangers. It is all too easy to become ensnared by Utopian idealism – to construct “solutions” that may be fantastic on paper, and completely impractical with no realistic hope of coming to fruition.

I too have been guilty at times of dreaming a little too much, yet in dreams there IS hope. So don’t let the so-called “realists” kill ALL those dreams, just ensure they are balanced and tempered with a healthy dose of realism.

ambition, self-improvement and personal wealth

There is nothing wrong with wanting to acquire greater personal wealth. At a more fundamental level there is clearly nothing wrong with wanting to have enough money/food/resources to live (as opposed to just about suriving – or even not surviving). In the so-called “first world”, each and every one of us has the potential to improve our own situation, and should not feel guilty about making an effort to do so.

The more people who rise to their personal aspirations, the more people there are who can potentially contribute to a more vibrant and prosperous world. With more people having wealth at their disposal, it is perhaps obvious that there is potential for “knock-on” benefits for the economies and fortunes of nations and the world at large.

However, these ideas also have their own dangers. When the “self improvement” ideology is taken to extremes it starts to look very much like a “survival of the fittest” situation. When people start to view personal responsibility as the ONLY tool in the box, they start to head down the path of selfishness. This pathway leads to a world where we write others off as “lazy”, where misfortune is seen as a symptom of someone not having taken enough responsibility for their life.

It leads to the type of world where billionaires are lauded, especially if they “started with nothing”, and those struggling to survive are driven into the dirt.

balancing the equation

They say that money makes the world go around, and in many ways I believe there are some fundamental truths to that idea. Money appears to provide motivation, oil the wheels of industry, and fuel innovation and development. A world without money could theoretically work, yet somehow I can’t see that happening in our current state of development as a species. Factories could wind up empty, sewage systems unmanaged, shops devoid of shop assistants and checkout staff…

At the same time, why should those in “lowly” jobs wind up struggling through life, not able to fully embrace the joy of living? Why should those who make vast fortunes, largely off the back of efforts made by their employees, be the only ones who can enjoy life to its full potential?

I believe that with great wealth comes greater moral and social responsibility; what, even, is the point of wealth accumulated by a relatively small number of people? There surely is a level of wealth beyond which it all becomes rather meaningless – I think Bill Gates has come to realise this, giving away large chunks of his fortune.

So yes, allow and encourage people to improve their lot, allow and encourage people to accumulate personal wealth – however we should not accept that huge chunks of our global society have existences where merely surviving another day is somehow a triumph.

In the “first world” economies education and health care should by now be free – yet the trend is to move away from this model, while increasingly vast sums of money are spent on conducting war. There should also have been significant improvements in the third world countries, yet we still see famine appeals, “sponsor a child” charity initiatives and so on.

“occupy” every street

So this is how I am able to have personal ambition AND support the OWS movement. We need to see the end of the cult of pure greed and replace it with a more socially just, better balanced approach whereby wealth is not viewed as a “bad thing” and yet it is not also seen as the ONLY thing that matters.

It is a world where bankers, factory workers, politicians, millionaires, media moguls and everyone in stops hating one another, stops despising, sneering, being jealous and all that other nonsense. A world, in fact, where we start pulling in the same direction, making sure that EVERYONE benefits from the advancements made and not just a few.

The description given will relate to the GMail-based process I use at home; the same underlying principles and processes lie at the heart of my work-based process.

Capture System

Inputs to the system arrive in the form of emails, letters, phone calls etc. The majority of the items will come in via email, and it is the GMail inbox that is treated as the main collection point. Items that stem from other sources are added to the GMail inbox by emailing myself a brief note. Any supporting documents can be scanned/attached or simply referenced and filed so they are available when needed.

A little bit of persistence is needed, especially forming the habit of writing self-emails in relation to items received via letter, phone call etc. Once the habit is formed though, you only have one inbox to process!

Processing the Inbox

As discussed previously, the items in the inbox are dealt with in one of three ways; actioned, noted or deleted. I try not to check email every 30 seconds, and I also like to keep the inbox empty. So each time I visit the inbox, I simply work through the items received, read them, assess them and then do 1 of 3 things:

1. Anything that can be done now, quickly and easily, is actioned and the item archived. This might include emails that need a quick reply, and then no further action until a further response is received back.
2. Anything that is disposable (e.g. jokes, spam, information) are either archived (if they contain anything of value) or deleted (e.g. junk or jokes)
3. Items needing further action are flagged for follow-up by adding a star. The item is then archived.

Tackling the TO-DO List

Using the simple processing rules above, everything that may (or may not) need my attention can now be found by clicking the “Starred” option on the GMail menu. This is effectively my master to-do list, and all my home-based todos are therefore present in one long list. This now starts to resemble the core list at the heart of the Autofocus Productivity System. This system uses tasks written down in a notebook, spanning multiple pages where necessary. To kind of simulate this, I have my mail set up to only show 15 items per page, effectively chopping my long list into a series of smaller ones.

I then follow the Autofocus method almost exactly, scanning the items in my list, and stopping and working on anything that takes my fancy! When I am done, if the task is completed then the item is archived, otherwise I perform the “cross out and re-add” steps simultaneously by removing the star and forwarding the email to myself. The next time I process the inbox, the new emails will get “Starred” and will appear at the top of page 1 of the Starred items list.

That last point is worth noting – the newest items appear at the top of page 1 – in the manual Autofocus system, items get added to the end of the latest page (or a new page). The logical way to scan and process items then is to work backwards from the last page in GMail to the first. This reverses the process used in the manual, paper-based system.

That’s It!

That really is the sum total of my personal “productivity” system and amazingly it has been a few years in the making! It is a perfect balance (for me), combining simplicity, intuitive processes and computer-based solutions. Oh and its completely free as well.

The simple solutions really are the best!

The trouble I have with the system is that it’s actually quite complicated – so I was delighted when I stumbled on a simplified version on ZenHabits.net (“Zen To Done”).

It may sound strange to some people, however I still found this system hard to maintain on an ongoing basis – even the simplified minimal version of Zen-to-Done!

Hi-Tech, Low-Tech or Something Else?

One common element of these different flavours of system is the use of lists. The basic idea is to get things out of your head and write them down, and to store supporting material somewhere you can retrieve it easily when needed.

This led me on a journey, trying to find the perfect solution or software that would get me organised in a heartbeat. Of course, no such system or software exists.

I’ve tried Google (Tasks, Calendar and Notes). I’ve tried 37 Signals’ Highrise, Backpack and Basecamp.

I’ve gone down the path of “low tech” – to cut a very long story short, the net result was an abandoned pile of half-completed notebooks and scribble pads.

In between all this, I’ve played with using mobile devices such as Netbooks, Smart Phones and tablet devices, convinced that modern mobile computing plus some web app or other would be the key.

Nothing worked the way I hoped – there was always something that didn’t fit automatically into my usual workflows. I rapidly came to the realisation that I am very good at filtering out things that present pretty much any type of barrier or obstacle. Something has to require zero effort in order for it to get through.

So What DOES Work?

The answer to that question obviously varies from person to person, and in my case the simpler the system the better. Also, it really needs to be a system that requires almost no additional effort on my part. A tall order for sure.

Then it dawned on me; while my organisation in a home office context leaves a lot to be desired, it is a very different story in my day job. So what has happened there that I rarely need to write notes, never need to stop and figure out what needs my attention, and never forget a thing?

The answer is email.

Everything I need to work on, every request, every project, every report topic – comes in via email. Of course I also receive plenty of other emails (jokes, feedback, information, announcements etc.) and my Inbox gets processed a little like this:

1. Each email is examined to see if it is actionable (e.g. a quick one line reply), disposable (it can be read then deleted) or requires follow-up action.

2. Emails are then either deleted, moved to an archive folder or flagged for follow-up and then moved to the archive folder.

The bulk of my working day is then filled by processing the flagged items, working on them as I am able to, and focusing on just the item being worked on to the exclusion of everything else.

Essentially it keeps my projects moving forward without needing me to devote much time to a fancy productivity system.

Can This Work in the Home Office?

In a word, “yes”. For my own purposes I have found that the office routine can be easily adapted to deliver similar benefits at home. The only tool required is an email system, into which all relevant messages and requests arrive. In my case this is GMail.

So the home-based office equivalent goes something like this:

1. Each email in the inbox is checked to see if it is actionable, disposable or requires follow-up action

2. Actionable items are done (e.g. replied to)  and then archived

3. Disposable items are either archived (if it contains anything of value) or deleted (e.g. junk or jokes)

4. Items needing follow-up get labelled as “Follow-Up” and archived.

As with the office system, the main loop then involves processing the labelled items, working on them as I am able to, and focusing on one item at as time.

One small complication (and this does occur very occasionally in the office) is that not all items arrive as email. It might be instigated by a phone call for example.

The simplest solution I have found so far is to send an email to myself!

Conclusion

With the way I work, the nature of my work, and my personal Internet usage patterns, email is an ever-present technology that is already embedded into my routines.

By making a tiny amount of effort to label (flag) items needing follow-up, and keeping the inbox itself empty, I wind up with a single “todo” list that is easily scanned and easily accessed when determining what to work on next.

This process removes the need for paid application/service subscriptions, does not require the purchase of fancy notebooks, applies a minimal “hack” to my existing habits (creating an almost-zero resistance solution) and is ultra-portable.

It’s taken a while, however I have finally found the solution that really does work for me, and it was staring me in the face all along!

Which really is the core message here – find what works for you, don’t get hung up on “tools” and keep things as simple as you can!