There are two types of people in this world: those who compete to win and those who compete not to lose. Competition isn’t going anywhere. But like any athlete will tell you, winning in 90% mental. And a part of that game is psyching someone out, and not getting psyched out. Specifically, getting them to back down, thus reducing the field of competitors.
Right now we have a massive campaign to psyche out the masses. Convincing others not to compete is how the elites maintain their stranglehold: Eliminating potential competitive threats to their current power, and to the power of their lineage. In all honesty, it's not a bad strategy.
Of the 7 billion people on this planet, at least 1-million will come up with a competitive idea. That’s 1.4 people per 10,000 people on this planet I have to compete with. If one can psyche-out 900,000 people of that 1m, then to find that same 1.4 competitor, one would have to search through a billion.
So elites can compete against 1.4/10,000 or 1.4/1,000,000,000.
See what I’m saying?
No matter what system we go into - capitalism, communism, socialism - the game remains the same.
Play the Game well or lose.
Choosing not to play is choosing to lose.
Choosing not to play well, is choosing to lose.-Dante Nero
Compete to Win or to Avoid Losing
People who play not to lose tend to be collectivists. They believe they are below average, and use strength in numbers to level the playing field. Their primary strategy will be to follow the rules at all costs, avoiding the pain of failure. They believe there are no other solutions because they have an answer already.
Winners tend to be individualists, looking for ways to win. They believe that the playing field is already level, that the field is the floor for success and failure, and that following rules will keep them there. As a result, tend to look outside of the rules for better solutions.
Keep in mind that in competition, there is 1 winner, so the odds are automatically stacked against any and everyone. That is a fact.
Winners tend to look outside of the facts for ways to increase their odds of beating the odds. A loser’s logic sees this avoidance of facts as a point of weakness. What they see is a guy doing things that will place him amongst the 9/10 losers. Thus increasing their own chance to not lose. With the winner’s logic is, if those other 9 stay back, then the winner is the 1-of-1/10, thus a 100% chance to win.
As a result, losers tend to look at a winner’s success as luck, rather than the solution-making it is. Deep down, being a winner is a delayed gratification game in the search for that solution. And as long as competition is low, you have a 100% chance of success, as long as you don’t quit.
Elite athletes don’t believe in this whole PC-culture-collectivist nonsense. I don't care what they say to the media. To get to that level, you have to believe that you are that 1/10. And you get there by first outworking the first 9/10 losers. Then, learning to compete and overtake the next 1/10 champion as they show up with their other 9/10 tribe.
Now you’re starting to get it. When you beat the champion of another groups 1/10, you didn’t beat 1 person, you beat 10. From there, you realize that your real competition is an extremely limited pool of people - the other 1/10 people from other groups. That is why people who play to win, usually win, and win big.
In which scenario does the individual have a higher chance of success?
- 90/100 athletes not competing against each other?
- 10/100 athletes competing against each other?
This is where strength in numbers actually has true meaning. It's also where you begin to see the game played. If the 10/100 winners decide to team up against the 90/100 losers, who is going to win big? Who is going to convince the others not to try because only 10/100 made it to the top, and those spots are filled? If you know your history, the US Government used this exact tactic on Native American tribes....prolly even use it today....
This is why elite athletes often find themselves in depression and other mental issues post-retirement. They spend a lifetime of being around the other 9/100 people, and having verifiable proof of excellence. Then they get into real life, and everyone-and thing-is programing them to be one of the 90/100. That has to send the mind of a winner into a psychological tail spin.
Depression is your subconscious response telling you, “I DON’T LIKE THIS!!! PLEASE CHANGE!!!”. But in todays age, they are trying to make psychological problems normal. Pop some pills, pay a therapist to duck tape you together, and retire at 55. And as the elites continue to win this psychological warfare, this will become par for the course, if it isn't already.
Buck Breaking Simone Biles
Since the “mental health” excuse, they have said she had "gymnastics-vertigo,” and now: no focus pills due to Japan’s drug policy. To me, that sounds like they were fishing for something socially acceptable, but we will run with “mental health”.
Consequences have actions. And Simone is correct to put herself first.
However, as a former elite level athlete, “mental health” sounds like the pressure of expectations and performance. Now if that’s something you can't handle, fine. Do you. But there are valid criticisms that come with that. Words have definitions.
My Issue with all of this is glorifying of the personality traits as heroic and desirable for cultivation.
There is nothing admirable about what she did. Like I said before: have no problem with her choice. I would be an absolute terror to the power and institutional leverage of IOC if I made it. And with that, the consequences would be mine to bear—selfish, narcissist, ungrateful, etc.
But her actions are not defined as definitions worthy praise - not even close.
If you had to pick between the two which would you pick:
- Check out of competition for mental health and be ridiculed as weak.
- Compete stressed, do what you can, and lose.
But hey, if someone like that can quit, its ok for you too!!
Victory has Defeated You!
The good part of this: from 2021 onward it will be easier than ever to compete and win. The elites are definitely doing their damnedest to thicken the barriers to winning, while making it more comfortable to be a loser. And as the comfort level grows, fewer and fewer people will show up to the field of competition.
The media’s attempt to brand cowardice as virtuous is as obvious a programming as saying, "the sky is blue."
The final thought I will leave you with is this: how do true champions compete?
True champions want to take on the best. Without overtaking the king, there will always be dispute over the claim to the crown. Champions welcome challengers. They are not afraid to compete. Both in the arena, and in the battle field of ideas and information. So if the champions welcome competition, and elites are trying to eliminate it....
Are the winning elites, actually winners? Or are they losers afraid to compete?
Like I said:
It will always be easy to be a winner, because no one shows up to the winners race.
Click below to become winner: