“I cannot be otherwise, no matter what you do…”

 

 

This was a series of tweets of mine that has been requested as a post.

The wisdom below was hard won on my part and been proven True by my experiences.

 

Rule of Leadership #1: A king without subjects is nothing more than a landowner. Forever remember this.

Rule of Leadership #2: There are no men beneath you. There are only men that share and fight for your [mutual] cause. Ranking is for effective, efficacious organization. Nothing less; nothing more.

Rule of Leadership #3: Expecting another man to do what you will not is foolish, misguided and the beginning of the end.

Rule of Leadership #4: It is best to be both loved and feared. Like any good father.

Rule of Leadership #5: Men love their lives, regardless of hardships. Do not ask them to sacrifice them lightly. [See Rule #3]

Rule of Leadership #6: Justice and fairness may not be found in nature. But it is the leader’s job to create it and make it known.

Rule of Leadership #7: Most men serve one. The leader serves all.

Rule of Leadership #8: If the crown seems made of gold, then you’re not yet fit to wear it.

Rule of Leadership #9: Apportion credit and blame with equal alacrity and intensity.

Rule of Leadership #10: The leader has the final say but that gives him no right to deny the voice of his men.

Rule of Leadership #11: Excluding only the most egregious offenses, praise publicly; chastise privately.

Rule of Leadership #12 [One of the most difficult]: In most victories, credit your men. In most failures, take the blame.

Rule of Leadership #13 [The Ominous]: The weapons you give your men can easily be used on you. Forever remember that.

 

 

 

 

Ω

“In a bar that’s always closing; in a world where people shout…”

 

 

To begin:

I write this for the simple reason that I despise acrimony in our corner.

Not disagreement.

 

Thus, I say:

[ http://the3bromigos.com/2013/12/22/manosphere-unmasking/ ]

The 3 bromigos have fair point, in that there are many posers, frauds, charlatans and other unworthy personages in our ‘sphere.

[My concurrence/non-concurrence with their choices as to whom they may be is irrelevant.]

They’ve also conceded the fact that not all men need be taught the same lessons.

 

 

Now, I’ll put my spin on it all.

The very fact we have these disagreements is a testament to our strength:

True, healthy diversity.

This grants us means to give to each according to his need.

(So long as the recipient knows what he needs and who is best to give such.)

Were we to make ourselves monolithic, we’d become the equivalent of McDonalds.

Cheap, fast and nothing but the very basics.

Far beneath the level of nourishment we now offer, in the larger sense.

 

 

To make it personal, I’m [by all appearances] the very last person anyone should heed.

I’ve made my flaws and failings public.

Many times.

Yet, throughout history, the preponderance of True prophets have been the lunatics, dregs, flotsam and jetsam of society.

And, although few in number, there are men that value – very highly – what I have to say.

 

 

Just remember:

The ‘sphere is fertile ground [and we should give thanks for its bounty]-

But it’s not the soil’s responsibility to weed the garden.

It’s yours.

 

 

Ω

“…our thoughts compressed, which makes us blessed, and makes for stormy weather…”

 

 

 

 

If there is one thing that keeps the genders constantly misunderstanding one another, it is this:

When one is at rest—

The other is at war.

[This is also why their respective senses of humor are at odds, but that’s for another day.]

 

 

See, all of the situations [historically speaking] in which men and women found themselves caused the timing of conflicts to be diametrically opposed to each other.

Men would feel the pressures of danger while in combat or out hunting.

While women would feel the pressures of danger when the men returned [to compete for the best available/remaining mate].

 

 

Thus, encounters would only occur when at least one of the two would be in a state of agitation.

[Open warfare or working at the same place being examples of both parties being in such a state.]

This is a reason why women are [on the whole] overwhelmingly unhappy, these days.

 

 

They are stuck in a state of perpetual agitation.

They compete for men/status at work.

They compete for men/status at home.

They are driven to test the countless men they unavoidably encounter throughout the day.

Ironically, the attention that now flows more easily and frequently than ever is a tremendous contributer to the strain.

She must have more numerous, more adoring, social media admirers than her “friends”.

[The alarmingly common need/desire for “calming” drugs among females attests to it.]

No rest for the weary, as they say.

 

 

Equally interesting is the proliferation of BDSM experimentation, as of late.

This has seen an increase for the simple reason:

In defeat/submission there is peace.

 

 

See, deep in the darkest recesses of a woman resides:

The desire to be claimed.

To be owned.

Because, then – in complete, unconditional surrender – there can be no more war.

And nowadays, especially for women, peace is in short supply.

 

 

 

Ω

“Promise me nothing, live ’til we die…”

 

 

I want to put to rest a terrible, pervasive and damaging lie.

That lie is:

The existence of, and desire for, unconditional love.

Permit me to demonstrate:

I’ve murdered your best friend.

Would you want me hanged/imprisoned for life?

 

 

Now, suppose your child does the same.

Would you wish your child the same fate?

There will be, no doubt, those that respond:

“No, of course I wouldn’t want my child hanged! I love them no matter what; unconditionally!”

 

 

However, you haven’t proven your point.

You’ve proven mine.

You’ve shown that your love has a condition:

The condition being he or she is your child.

Granted, it is an unalterable one.

But it remains a condition.

 

 

Unconditional love is an illusion.

All love, from eros to fraternitas has qualifiers and conditions.

This is good.

This is healthy.

 

 

When love is correctly applied, it promotes growth, improvement, positivity and advancement (emotionally, spiritually, physically).

When love is incorrectly applied, it is a breeding ground for abuse, disenfranchisement, negativity and enervation.

 

 

Even if unconditional love were to exist:

It would be a worthless prize.

Nothing was done to merit it nor to retain it.

 

 

Thus, if you’re pursuing unconditional love:

Sit in the middle of the Sahara and fill your pockets with sand.

Then proclaim loudly how much you treasure every grain of it.

The benefits will be the same.

 

 

 

Ω

 

“…’I see ruins’, said he…”

 

 

Men chasing stable family lives before they, themselves, are even on firm ground.

Women delaying marriage and family creation for careers, “fun” and “self-discovery”.

 

 

Men becoming more feminine.

Women becoming more masculine.

 

 

Spoiled children leading their parents.

Parents letting children raise themselves.

 

 

Women forsaking male approval.

Men begging for female approval.

 

 

Hatred and censorship constructed in the name of tolerance.

True tolerance viewed as “siding with the enemy”.

 

 

It seems to me that everything is backwards, these days.

But then:

I suppose it’s all in how one perceives it.

 

 

 

 

 

Ω

 

“Oh, they say that it’s over; that it just had to be…”

 

 

The ‘sphere often discusses how women believe they are special simply because they possess a vagina.

Although it’s sad to say, the ‘sphere is correct in pointing out this fact.

However, the ‘sphere is incorrect when they say women are not special because of their biology.

 

 

Women, yes – women, have simply focused on the wrong part of the body.

It is, in fact, the uterus that makes them special.

To say the uterus makes them special because it enables them to gestate life is, however, wrong.

The uterus is special because it enables a man’s [read: family’s] mission to continue.

To desire children for the purpose of “living on” is foolish and misguided.

They, too, will die.

And, all too often these days, care little for their predecessors/ancestors long before their end.

 

 

Certainly, one can point out that women choose mates on the basis of survivability.

But to leave it at that is to do a tremendous disservice to humanity, on the whole.

No doubt, countless women choose mates on the basis of rank brutishness, savagery and tenacity.

Yet, the wisest among them choose mates with those traits [to a point] along with greater ambition, goals and callings.

 

 

One can, short-sightedly, attribute the female adoration of celebrity to a desire for mere resource accumulation.

Indeed, this is not incorrect.

Though it is, as stated, myopic.

But, Truly, this is done because those celebrities embody a “brand”.

Something larger than the individual.

An idea.

[This is also why women are notorious trend-followers.]

 

 

See, most folks have it [consciously, at least] backwards.

A royal family is not admired because they are royal.

They are admired because they are a family with a mission.

 

 

Rothschild, Ferrari, Beam, Tudor, et al, have succeeded due to a critically important paradox [the “red pill” is nothing, if not paradoxical]:

The components of the family are meaningless.

The family, as a whole, is everything.

 

 

In fact, a woman’s natural submissiveness is crucial to the success of such an endeavor.

She must sacrifice her “self” for the good of all her family.

Whereas, a man must sacrifice his “self” by dedicating it to a grander purpose.

There is no room on the high road for ego, believe it or not.

All base masculine facets being equal:

Most women will choose the artist over the playboy.

The inventor over the mogul.

The craftsman over the cubicle drone.

 

 

In the choice of lovers:

Men long for the standard and stable.

Women long for the exception.

And, at heart, both seek the mission.

One to forge it.

The other to perpetuate it.

 

 

 

 

Ω

“You are someone else; I am still right here.”

 

 

As daunting a task as it is, reading the comments in ‘sphere blogs is rewarding.

Tonight, for me, that’s quite an understatement.

 

 

You’ve no idea how much this comment resounded within me:

http://tempesttcup.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/a-rebuttal-to-alpha-vs-thug/#comment-1890

Long time readers of my work (here and elsewhere) know, beyond doubt, how much this particular portion of her words spoke to me:

 

“Consider St. Lawrence. Ordered to bring forth the church’s riches, he brings forth the city’s poor. He quipped with his enemies ‘Turn me over, I’m done on this side.’ That man died like a Roman. He had serious cajones.
 
But what if a man with principle Lawrence lived in our times. He wouldn’t get the dignity of an honorable death. He’d have to choose between wordly success (at the expense of his principles, essentially acting out of fear of authority: not Alpha) or actively choosing the route of poverty and obscurity. In following his principles, he bows to no man but himself. But he’s not a conventional ‘winner’.”

 

See, everyone wants to talk about “being Alpha”.

This is “alpha”; that is “alpha”.

I’m here to tell you:

Sometimes being “alpha” is shitty.

 

 

Sure, it’s nice to command a room.

To have women giggle and gossip favorably concerning you.

To have men respect you.

To have them seek your council and leadership.

But that’s only the half of it.

 

 

No one talks about the pressure.

The constant battle to stay True to one’s mission.

To ignore the derision.

To go through job after job because everyone in management thinks you’re gunning for their middle-management position.

To tell your bosses they’re [literally] crooks.

It’s exhausting telling people when they are being foolish, deluded or simply an asshole.

It’s painful to look in the faces of loved ones and call them out.

 

 

Sure, I don’t really give a rat’s ass about the opinions of others.

But it’s wearisome speaking out (in real life) when no one else will.
 
Knowing everyone is taking a step back so that it appears you’re the one stepping forward to take the challenge.

[Anyone spoiling for a fight obviously hasn’t been in many real ones.

Or has a death wish.]

 

 

See, if you’re a natural:

You can’t choose.

You don’t get to “shut it off”.

You don’t get to simply “ride along”.

You lead.

Or you feel like you’re dying.

Even though you know leading will likely kill you.

Metaphorically or literally.

 

 

Even with all of that, the hardest part is this:

The knowledge that people trust you.

They have faith in you to not lead them astray.

They place themselves in your hands.

They give you the opportunity to carry them.

Or to crush them.

 

 

Every man wants to be the fastest gun in the West.

But they forget that, if they get to be such:

Every other man still wants to be the fastest gun in the West.

Every man wants the hearts of pretty women.

But they’ll have to break a few, at some point.

Thus, I learned a long time ago:

To an honorable man, a crown is just as much a fetter as leg-irons.

 

 

Sure, everyone likes honorable men.

So long as they’re dead.

Living is another story, entirely.

 

 

Would I choose a different path, if I could?

I can’t say.

It’s not an option.

So I don’t think on it.

I just keep riding ahead of the posse.

Sometimes they’re following me.

Sometimes they’re chasing me to lynch me.

But I ride on, regardless.

It’s all I know.

It’s all I have.

 

 

Ω