I really liked what is said below and wanted to share it with you.

The following is the reply to a liberal kid who whines about his right-wing dad

“The world isn’t being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist — the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love…

Love your dad because he’s your father, because he made you, because he thinks for himself, and most of all because he is a person. Have the strength to doubt and question what you believe as easily as you’re so quick to doubt his beliefs. Live with a truly open mind — the kind of open mind that even questions the idea of an open mind. Don’t feel the need to always pick a side. And if you do pick a side, pick the side of love…”

This was written by advice columnist Andrew W.K. in the Village Voice.

Income Inequality – good, bad or other

Poverty @F-L-O-W

How taking a different perspective can make all the difference

Poverty, Upgraded a Bit, Continues Despite the War

Mr. Rector fails to take into consideration that the goalposts have been moved.

The above is a recent headline from the Wall Street Journal [read HERE].  It is a collection of responses from readers in regards to the original article.  It is well worth reading because it gives a good overview of people’s beliefs on poverty.

Mike shared this with his Inner Circle and tossed out this challenge:

“When you read this… it seems OK, but then you realize how deeply rooted this is @BS [Blank Slate].

The war on poverty is a set of symptoms that emerge @BS, but would disappear @F-L-O-W.

If anyone is ever interested on talking about this with me on tape, contact Gary and I’ll walk you through the real war and that is the war of values, which poverty emerges from.


The question:

“Why does the war on poverty as a set of symptoms which emerge @Blank Slate suddenly disappear @F-L-O-W?”

The New York Times posted an article titled “The Inequality Problem“.  The author must have read Mike’s book, @F-L-O-W: because he points out that we need to look at inequality differently.  It is a very good view point and well worth the read.

When you look at the world through a different lens you see things you never saw before and you gain insights into life and living that you may never have imagined.

Poverty Question answered | Audio


Another Perspective:

The following is an excert from  another Wall Street Journal article on the income inequality and is titled:

“How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married”

“The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less.

One of the differences between the haves and the have-nots is that the haves tend to marry and give birth, in that order. The have-nots tend to have babies and remain unmarried. Marriage makes a difference. Heritage reports that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was just 3.2%; for white non-married families, the rate was 22%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.”

To read the full article visit HERE

What are your thoughts on this two-caste system?  Does it really exist?  What solutions would you offer?  Are you aware that all previous world dominating societies crashed partly due to this inequality?  Isn’t it time we begin to look at the situation differently?


Poverty Question answered | Audio

Join our Inner Circle @F-L-O-W and receive daily insights into looking at living differently, both from our guide, Mike R. Jay and the other Inner Circle members.  To learn more, visit: HERE

© Generati

More Info



If you hear it enough, it must be true…

“Try this experiment.

Ring up your credit card company at the end of this month. Tell them that you and your spouse can’t seem to reach an agreement about how to allocate your monthly budget.

So in the meantime, you have been forced to shutdown your household… but you hope to be back on track in a few weeks.

Chances are, they won’t take you seriously. Yet for some reason, this has been dismissed as commonplace and benign in the Land of the Free.

Here’s a list of quotes we’ve heard from the telescreen talking heads over the last 24-hours:

“We’re still the richest most powerful nation in the world.” 

“It doesn’t matter, the bond market is going up.”

“The United States will never default.”

The hubris and arrogance here is amazing. And it just goes to show that if you just repeat something over and over again, people will believe it… no matter how absurd. [the bold is my addition]

This is the basic premise behind propaganda. Start with an idea. Inundate the population through constant repetition. And soon it becomes the unquestionable truth.” – taken from The Sovereign Man

“… if you just repeat something over and over again, people will believe it… no matter how absurd.

For many of us since we were little, we have heard that if we work hard, learn all we can and apply what we have learned that we will be successful which will bring us happiness.  In fact, I receive emails daily from marketers saying that they just made a gazillion dollars and if I just follow their proven success model, I will have a gazillion dollars as well.

Many of the top gurus on the guru circuit tell us to just believe in ourselves and anything is possible.  It was John Locke in the 1600’s who was first credited with this notion [although perhaps over the centuries his meaning took on a life of its own to become other than what he may have intended] when he stated that  the mind was a blank slate [BS].  In 1926 Edward Bernays wrote the book “Propaganda” which added to the notion that we can have [perhaps must have] whatever we desire if we just “do it”.

So, by hearing it over and over since birth that I can and do deserve to have anything and everything that I want, it must be true, right?

Then in 2012 Mike R. Jay released his newest book @F-L-O-W: Find, Design, Use TALENT to Emerge Happiness & Success in a Postmodern World which presented another lens at which to view one’s world and suggested that what Locke and Bernays believed was not necessarily true for everyone.

To look at some comparisons between @BS and @F-L-O-W, visit

Mass Murders and Fear

Below is part of a post by Robert Ringer His last sentence is what I want to talk about today which is:

“As Nietzsche put it, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’  Random mass slayings aside, pain builds character and lays the groundwork for success.”

When we apply the 15 primes @F-L-O-W, we may realize that this is just another generalization that sounds great on the surface [perhaps because we have been told to believe it so] yet may not apply to everyone.  And does “pain build character” in everyone?

My point is that it may be best to reconsider generalizations and determine if they apply to you or not and if not then don’t punish your self because you aren’t like that.

Let me know what you think by your comments below.

Mass Murders and Fear

Posted on September 25, 2013 by Robert Ringer

“Thirteen people, including a three-year-old boy, shot in a South Side park in Chicago … thirteen more people killed just a few days earlier in the Washington Navy Yard … Newtown … Aurora … Tucson … Virginia Tech … everyone knows the locations by heart.

About the only thing everyone agrees on is that these mass slayings — whether you blame them on too many firearms or too few firearms — are going to continue, and probably get worse.  After all, there’s no other way for a mentally ill or angry person to get so famous so fast as to mow down a bunch of innocent people.  Welcome to the United States of Violence!

Every time these mass murders occur, it reminds me of two kinds of people:

First is the person whose philosophy is, “It’s amazing how many things won’t kill you.

Second is the person whose philosophy is, “It’s amazing how many things will kill you.”

So, who’s right? ”

You may read the rest of Ringer’s article at

Anti-discrimination policies

People ask what are some of the differences between Living at FLOW and how people currently live/view their world.  From time to time we will give some examples of those differences.  Below is one such example.

A city council updated their anti-discrimination policies by adding the following:

“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability,”.

A politician who helped pass the ordinance stated “It’s a common-sense ordinance that’s going to treat everyone equally… Nobody will be a second-class citizen, there will be basic fairness and common decency for everybody.”

Someone opposed to the ordinance stated: “The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias — without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised — that you cannot get a city contract… Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

What this law did was not provide “fairness” for everybody… it ensured that certain people will be made into a lower class of citizen.

This is what Living at FLOW is working to do – help people realize that we can not categorize everyone into the same box that only 1-5% of the people will fit into.  One way to ensure this is by being aware of the words we use.  In the above example the word “bias” can be used differently by different people depending on what they want the outcome to be, which was pointed out by the person opposed to the ordinance.

Another “trick phrase” is “treat everyone equally” which sounds great yet does not work @F-L-O-W.  Treating everyone equally can mean different things to different people and who is defining what “equal” is plus we are not all equal.  @F-L-O-W we are all different and perfect.

Visit and scroll down the page to near the bottom to read the differences between living at Blank Slate [@BS] and Living at FLOW [@F-L-O-W = Flawless Living Operating Worldview].


Assessments and MBTI

The following is from a post Mike put out to his Inner Circle:

These articles are pushed out every so often as each person who pushes them out has their own model to promote and invariably find it difficult to assess why they would come out opposite on an MBTI, which for me is often easy to explain @F-L-O-W… especially if one is moving through stages of want and need.  Often I find people answer the self-report during various stages of their own confusion about who they are and what they want.

The MBTI deserves a lot of criticism, but what a marvelous model to help us understand things that no other assessment can provide.

I like using a portfolio as each model has something to offer and something lost. And piecing together the puzzle of who we are is important part of the process @F-L-O-W.

Thanks for sharing the article, and POV, Pat and Russ!

I’ve written some about Pink’s Pop Psychology as has Reiss, and of course generalization @BS across any model has diminishing returns.

If anyone thinks having a call to discuss this article in light of the contentions brought forward by the author, I can explain a number of the issues including his opposite rating (especially for INTJ, by the way, one of the most “imaginative” types, hehe).

At this point, I’ve never really been able to discover who INTJs are anyway, as we have a number of this rarest type (Jung was INTJ) on this list, and they are “special”. <g>



The article can be found at


One more idea:

I have found in my almost 2 decades of using assessments, that people who criticize the assessments most, don’t understand them.

I have found in my experience, that ONLY a few people can actually identify the dominant function in their MBTI Type Dynamics, which goes to show that in a lot of cases, people who criticize something don’t really understand it fully enough to make the criticism.

This doesn’t mean the MBTI doesn’t have issues, especially as used by MOST (literal) practitioners.  For those of us who value the input provided by the MBTI, most of which can DIRECTLY predict the Big 5 results — and vice a versa — meaning that the MBTI is as valid as the Big 5 (one can predict the results of the other — something which the author failed to mention!), we find the MBTI useful.

If you search MBTI and Big 5, you will see a LOT of criticism for the MBTI, and it’s justified if people think the MBTI is used for prediction. It is not… anymore than most other assessments.

If used for self-knowledge, the MBTI can provide extremely valuable insights into the perspectives that we take and how we take them, as well as a myriad other ideas that come from the information.

I will say this, that the standard 100 question survey is not as valuable to us as the Step II, which has a lot more questions and a lot more specific information, which is very useable in helping us understand how our views of things are formed and manipulated for filters and bias — specifically.

I’m convinced we have more to gain than lose if we include the MBTI data in our self-knowledge journey.  So I’ll keep recommending it, as well as the free Big 5 that is available online!


NOTE: In our course called Living at FLOW, we give you access to 8 different assessments and when you take them and send the results to Mike, he will give you feedback on the meaning derived from those assessments.  This alone is worth many times more that what you will pay for the course.


Team @F-L-O-W


Motivational saying?


Before being introduced to Mike R. Jay and Living @F-L-O-W [Flawless Living Operating Worldview], I would have said, “Yes, if I am to succeed, I must always get up and keep trying.”

Yet is that my nature?  Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on what it is that knocked me down.

Perhaps, sometimes, for some people, staying down will lead to greater happiness and therefore more success.  It all depends on how each of us define happiness and success for us.

If you would like to learn more about Living at FLOW,  you may want to listen to 5 recorded audios which introduce Living at FLOW as well as our TPOVs [Teachable Points Of View].  To access the FREE recordings visit


I recently received an email with the following subject line and content:

Success is your Birthright

Hey Gary…

We’re firm believers that everyone should taste
true success at least once in their lives.

Success is the birthright of every single individual,
and not just for the privileged few.

Today I’m willing to take you by the hand and coach
you in achieving your dreams.

Make today a miracle,
Chris Xxxx

The following is how a person Living at FLOW would respond:

Is success REALLY your birthright? 

I have searched far and wide and could not find anywhere that it says success is our birthright.  I can find many places that suggest “Happiness” is our birthright.

Recall @F-L-O-W we are all created perfect and that despite the variety of circumstances surrounding how we are born, babies are naturally happy.

It is only when after a time and we are exposed to our environment we start believing that success is our birthright.  Actually, happiness  is independent of success and that success is defined by each of us individually–many times the emergence of our life in our surround is not successful — as determined by modern day criteria!

Right now, 1 billion people don’t get enough to eat everyday to ward off immune-related diseases!

When you dig into what is proposed in our Model @F-L-O-W, you will begin to look at your life differently, often resulting in greater Happiness.  “Happiness”  is defined by each of us, because what is happiness to me may be misery to others and not success by any definition!

Once we begin to accept that we are all perfect and couldn’t be anything other than what we are, we begin to treat each other as perfect beings and not think we are better or worse than anyone else, we can begin to focus on our real success.

As contrary to Blank Slate thinking where we are imperfect–as compared to standards of success — and must spend our lives perfecting our imperfections — @F-L-O-W we experience happiness which believe it or not can stand without post-modern success as we know It.

While it’s not easy, it can be as simple as rediscovering your inborn purpose and living at flow — the world of success may not be there with open arms, but in most cases, success will find you!  For those that it doesn’t, we need to redefine success in our postmodern world!


Playing Small

“There is no passion to be found in playing
small — settling for a life that is less than
the one you are capable of living.”

—Nelson Mandela: South African anti-apartheid revolutionary who served as President of South Africa

Gary’s thoughts to Mike:

The part that I have trouble with is the last 3 words, “…capable of living.”  Would that be @F-L-O-W if “capable” was defined by the person saying/thinking the phrase?  I know in most cases when someone reads that, they may think based on what society says/thinks one should be capable of doing.

Mike’s response:

The whole quote is BS [Blank Slate] because it defines or assumes a common standard.  All of us need to play smaller.  We have somehow gotten brainwashed about more!!

Some will emerge bigger.  If someone has to cajole you as Mandela does, then maybe you should consider what that really means to the cajoled as well as the cajoler!!

Gary’s follow-up:

The more and more I work at understand how to Live at FLOW the more I realize [I hope] that Living at FLWO means accepting each of us as we are.  We are all born perfect, yet with our own ways of seeing the world.

Looking at the quote again and considering Mike’s response, when Mandela said  “There is no passion to be found in playing small…” he can only reference what that means for him, as another person may be very passionate about “playing small”  and even the phrase “playing small” can be defined differently by different people based on their own point of reference.

So the quote may work great for Nelson Mandela and not work so well for anyone else.

There is no “one size fits all” and when we each stop trying to project our values and philosophy onto others, we may find our world a much better place to live.

Please comment and give your perspective as that is how we may each grow in our own individual journey through life.

For me, “Living @F-L-O-W” is helpi9ng me to see my world in a whole new way.

The New Internet Sales Tax

The Internet Sales Tax, named “The Marketplace Fairness Act”, may soon become a reality in the USA and the United Nations is also pushing for it worldwide. For some, it seems like a good idea because money can now be collected for people who buy a lot on the Internet and therefore give the states more revenue to keep their states operational.

To me, as in most cases when governments try to confiscate more funds to spend on their special projects, they end up causing more negative after shocks than they imagined. The following is, to me, a very good summary of the situation.

Sovereign Man

April 23, 2013

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Surprise, surprise… the completely insolvent US government has yet another idea to raise revenue in the Land of the Free: a new tax!

The Marketplace Fairness Act was introduced some time ago, and we’ve discussed it before. But it’s now being rushed through Congress as quickly as possible.

It’s aim? To collect sales tax for online transactions. And in addition to being financially debilitating, the bill is also a bureaucratic nightmare.

Just imagine– if passed, online retailers will have to collect a different tax for every customer based on his/her location, keep track of it all, pay the correct amount to dozens of state governments, AND file periodic reports to each of them.

It borders on the absurd. Naturally, though, the Obama administration “strongly supports” the bill because it will “level the playing field” for mom and pop shops on Main Street.

Total nonsense. This is just another money grab masquerading as good intentions for the benefit of the people.

What they haven’t managed to figure out in all this time is that raising or creating taxes doesn’t actually increase tax revenue.

In the post-war history of the United States, taxes and tax rates have been all over the board.

And yet, as a percentage of GDP, the US government consistently takes in about 17.7% of GDP in tax revenue, i.e. their ‘slice of the pie’ remains the same.

But while raising or creating taxes doesn’t actually increase total tax revenue, they can affect GDP– ‘the size of the pie.’

When taxes are high, people have a disincentive to spend, invest, or start businesses.

In this case, the bill sticks it to consumers and Internet retailers. Businesses will go under, and individuals will reduce their consumption due to higher prices.

Net result: a decline in economic activity. For the government, this means taking the same 17.7% slice of a smaller pie. It’s genius!

You’d think the government was intentionally trying to push productive people out of the US.

Think about it– the banks are insolvent, the stock market is rigged, nearly every aspect of people’s existence is criminalized and overseen… from what we can put in our bodies to whether we can collect rainwater.

And anyone wanting to start a business has a myriad of taxes and regulations to navigate, such as Obamacare or this new Internet sales tax. Why bother?

There are places in the world, like right here in Cambodia, that are teeming with opportunity, minimal regulation, and almost no competition.

This will be the other major effect of this legislation (and all the other tactics that the government is embarking upon in the Land of the Free)– people will simply leave, either physically or virtually.

From this bill, any rational Internet entrepreneur will merely restructure the company overseas where the law cannot be applied.

This is the ‘multiple flags’ approach that we have been discussing for years in this letter, and detailing exclusively in our premium service Sovereign Man: Confidential.

With a few carefully managed steps– incorporating the business in one location, processing payments from another, warehousing in another, managing from another, it’s possible (and completely legal) for online companies to escape this burden.

And I suspect a great many will do so. At least, while the window to take action is still open.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black

Senior Editor,


If this makes sense to you, please let others know, especially your senators, if you live in the USA.

Thanks for reading,