On Leadership

This is a rapid but interesting article by stroller. Show him some love.

This is a left-field answer to the problem you’re highlighting, but I think it’s a higher-order issue because your examples are so particular, but generalizable on a scale that makes it a drop in the ocean even if you turned one of the examples to sense.

So to higher-order:

I wonder if it’s a case where one tribe in our culture more or less needs a king.

Take tribes like Catholics and Mormons. Both tribes have a strong culture, history, written-lit/canon backing the culture, as well as a moderately domineering hierarchy – these serve to overcome the lack of a common ethnicity while also raising Catholics and Mormons to a higher state of cultural cultivation than would be possible by ethnicity alone.

Or – take “ethnic” or “racial” tribes – they have ethnicity and race as a skin-deep / clan-deep unifier. The unifier is extremely potent, but also inherently self-limiting.

So – let’s look at the characteristics of the problem tribe.

– it lacks adequate culture, history, written-lit/canon that either would bond it or cultivate it

– or: actually – it may have such a written-lit, everything from Huck Finn to Blackstone and Smith – but somewhere along the way it got this anti-intellectual poison pill so that it won’t read it’s own lit – in fact, the act of reading it’s own lit typically results in one’s self-deportation from the tribe

– it lacks a hierarchy – really any hierarchy at all

– but it always seems to be looking for one – it is the most readily susceptible demographic to “strong man” quasi-fascist and fascist politics – this is manifest, in other words: everyone, in the tribe and outside it, for it and against it, now and ever in the past, everyone – recognizes this quality about this tribe

– that last quality is probably caused by vacuum of culture, history, written-lit/canon and hierarchy, as well as common national origin

– it chest-thumps a lot – but here’s something to it’s credit : it ** can ** be angered, but it is ** slow ** to anger – so we have seen cases of it rising up in anger, and sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, but thankfully it’s rare when it does so – … in this respect it’s something like European honey bees as opposed to Africanized honey bees – where the quality of the latter being so easily roused is actually anti-adaptive among high-tech niche-sharers like humans because it makes the latter more likely to be exterminated

– anyway – the chest thumping, together with the irrationality of the chest thumping – has a lot to do with all the previous attributes – there’s a human, hind-brain danger indicator going off the in tribe member, but he is unable to correctly identify it, lacking either a hierarchy or culture, history, etc., which would better inform him

In the past I’ve thought that the long-term solution for this tribe is education, a moderate degree of separation (i.e.: differ by time, age, place and range-of-effect), and through both: enculturation.

Short run though: long-run solutions may not come fast enough, and in the short-run a “good king” would help.

I’m doubting big T is the good king we need though.

I guess a thing to add:

For awhile strong labor unions were adequate for this tribe. They provided a sound means getting its legitimate political needs represented and gave the tribe the strength-through-unity that is necessary in lieu of history/culture/literature, hierarchy and common ethnicity.

But we killed the unions.

More accurately: we gave the unions a knife and begged and pleaded and threatened for them to self-emaciate, and they did.

Arguably: this was possible due to aforementioned anti-intellectual poison pill and the strange belief that everyone is going to agree that what’s good for you but not for me is going to go on forever, … where better education might have prevented that.

That, or unions were just corrupt. Could be both.

But bottom line is this tribe needs to unify, and if it wants to unify and thrive, instead of unify and be promptly destroyed, it needs to unify on the basis of something with humanistic value. Right now it seems prone to unifying on race and, see “promptly destroyed”.

The tribe can’t recognize things right. Like: it should recognize you Boxer. What should be happening over there is you should be getting followers. But it won’t do that. The tribe won’t recognize its friends, won’t recognize it’s leaders, won’t recognize it’s betters. It would rather argue, and argue about stupid bullshit.

Or: you can volunteer a leader. Volunteer Dalrock. Tell him that if he leads, you’ll follow, as long as he makes culture and humanity center, and eschews race, but that you’ll follow.

Anyone who self-identifies as a leader puts on a target. We have to give up our own desire to lead as a token to the privilege of having a leader.

I could be way off, it’s a blog comment, that’s all, but that’s what I’m sensing. We need a leader, and that will happen when people choose someone to follow. If you volunteered to follow Dalrock, he shouldn’t agree to lead. There should be 20, maybe a hundred more volunteers. Qua Plato, we need a reluctant king.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

4 thoughts on “On Leadership”

  1. If you’ve got a blog or a twitter account, I’d be glad to give you proper credit. In the interim, I’ll think about a follow-up.

  2. Wee – no longer. Working on other projects.
    You know that was a blog comment after following the (latest) dispute you had going on, on the Dalrock comments, so it was not thought through in thesis/report form, but now that I’ve had some time I think the title is:
    Leadership: Trading in Your Alpha Chips
    And the thesis is: everyone, or every man anyway, gets “alpha tokens” that let him compete in the cage for alpha status, so we all get a choice. We can either keep competing for alpha status, or at some point if we get tired of the interminable alpha posturing and go-nowhere arguing and infighting and we start to long for civilization, the cost of that is that you have to trade in your alpha chips.

    But you get something for what you pay: you get a say in who the leader is or leaders are.
    Pay your alpha chips – nominate leaders.

    Where do the leaders get their strength to lead?
    From their poser-game-knotch-count-PUA-bullshit?
    Leaders get their strength to lead from the men who traded in their alpha chips and threw their strength behind a leader, or a council of leaders.
    Those leaders – leaders who have the unity of men behind them – quash “alphas”. That’s where civilization comes from.

    I wonder why the ‘sphere is still composed of blogs.
    Why haven’t the more successful ‘sphere bloggers joined forces and created a bulletin? Or something complete with all the social media? Why haven’t the leaders used such a platform to feature some of the lesser known but higher capacity contributors who may grow audience? Somehow I think that’s not what’s going on at ReturnofKings.

    And for people who are offered the mantle of leadership by those of us ready to follow a decent leader or cadre thereof: trading in one’s alpha chips also entitles one to make some suggestions about how good leadership works.

    Promote your friends – last, and then only promote them for their trustworthiness, not for their friendship.

    First promote – to operational leadership – people who are good at operations.
    Recognize that if all you’ve known in your life is executive leadership – you may not be very good at recognizing good operational leaders. This is worth spending calories on. Executive leaders are often terrible about being guilty of “magical thinking” and believing that good motivation and any Lego-piece that fits yields good operations. There is no magic. Good operations come from installing good operational leaders.
    Good operational leaders tire quickly, by the way, of people with too much time to argue about bullshit.

    To motivational leadership – people who are good motivators.
    To intellectual leadership – people who are strong intellects.
    To media leadership, financial leadership, etc, etc.

    Don’t promote your friends – promote your trusted companions – and promote them in a way so that you can build a nerve center so that you can learn who else among oeprations, administration, etc … is also trustworthy.
    Work this way and create a virtuous cycle:
    Followers nominate and select leaders who elevate excellent *** do-ers *** who worth with trustworthy people generating more trust, more effective execution and so on.

  3. Outstanding. Simply Outstanding.

    How many years in the armed services and this all rings true. Leadership comes in different flavors and the best recognize and organize based on the differences.


Comments are closed.