The Great King

The Great King

Samuel Bird

In our attempt to understand existence and act in and as it, we break down what properly basic elements make up the world. These properly basic facts that do not require other facts to be justified, which is not to say they are past doubt. We use them often to make sense of existence such as the mind and the world. We then look at the most bare and justifiable elements of either that we have most cause for knowing. The social world makes up a large portion of our lives and conversations, but it is one of the least properly basic phenomenon. We have to assume All facts of ourselves, all facts of the world, and all facts of other selves in this world. We then have to utilize game theory, value consensus, and linguistics to make sense of something nonsensical. For these reasons, my mind is particularly not designed to comprehend or act in the social world. This is in part what has led to my insufficient access to the socialization needed for a person, let alone the socialization needed to broadcast my ideas. However, it is not because I am inept. I can transact and communicate with people to a degree I am content with. What I do not possess is an understanding of other people. I simply do not get how and why they are the way they are and what they want from me. This has led me to be painfully weak at belonging. However, in my conciliatory compensation, I have developed a talent and interest in manufacturing belonging by leading the social world. This then puts me in a position where I can understand the social world who’s foundations I constructed. I currently do not have a means for this leadership, and for that reason I am lonely. As I hone in on my message and audience, I will belong in that world I create. The relationship between self and others fascinates me, and I seek to do a meditation on the means, methods, and wisdom of this leadership. To lead, there are three categories of activity to engage in: Understanding, judging, and motivating. We will explore each of these components of leadership, but let us first define them. To understand we need to intake information from our perception, the perception of others, the objective at hand, and any other category of variable we can identify. Once gathered, we can now judge that information. We judge the totality of the information, identify how our objective is manifest and applied in this circumstance, and abductively identify a response. Finally, the action we have decided on will not just be yours to live out, but you will need to motivate others to act on this. Each of these steps are done in perpetuity as long as you rule. Leadership done will recognize the longest time frame it can manage. It would then be wise to take the sustainability of a social system in mind. 

To intake information, start with your own experience. What do you have reason to believe? You will need to step far out of socially permissible means of thinking and existing avenues of thought. When we look at how to motivate people, we will see how we can provide them with lenses to structure their experience. You will have been on the receiving end of this and need to be able to step out of the narratives you were told. What does your immediate experience tell you about the world? Step back and attempt the least you can to stuff this information into your worldview. You will need to develop this crushing level of mental autonomy to see the world as you were never permitted to see it. Once you have understood the world from your experience, you will need to see the world through others experiences. For sake of awareness, you will be viewing their perception only through your own. Intaking data from others can cause cognitive dissonance and ego damage, but we can worry about how to fit this information into our worldview. For now we need to understand this information. We will look for this information from three categories of people: potential followers, our enemies, and peripheral viewers. Each will provide their experience to you at your request, but we will look at how we need to be skeptical. The follower seeks to help, but only as far as he understands and can act on that understanding. The peripheral viewers are normal people who don’t care for you to win or wail enough to get involved, but might have some interesting net-data if you can poll enough of them. Your enemy will be one of your biggest supporters as no one will remind you of all things you can forgo, better than them. Our foe’s battle hammer is the chiseling hammer that makes us. We will recall we had to step far outside of the social perception and our own historical experience to see the situation at hand, and this makes us a leader because the average person either can’t or won’t do such a process. They will struggle to see the world not just past their lenses, but they can’t see it through the haze of sociality. There may be a circumstance where they were not given the language or conceptual model to make sense of. You will need to not listen to the explicit message of what they are saying, but the implicit story that comes with why they are saying it. This can be denoted largely by how they say it. If there seems to be a great deal of internal conflict, for example, it is likely there is something they seek to report but don’t know how to. Once they have perceived something and have a conceptual map for that thing, they will also lose track of the “is” and “ought.” They will describe what they found in the shadow of how they want it to be. This is well-meaning, but you haven’t identified what that thing we desire to be is yet. For this reason, pay attention to what ideas they synthesize and which ideas they analyze. Synthesize would be the information they have intaken, even if it is constructed. This would be an alleged fact such as “The bomb exploded.” We can deeply listen and seek to understand, but we must still use it as an inference as to know one fact is at the exclusion of another. For example, what did the telling of those exclude them from telling you? Maybe that thing excluded was vital? For example, what if the foe detonated the bomb in order to distract your people while behind them was an effort to steal resources. You can treat synthesis as more trustworthy than the analyzed. Analyzing is when they use the synthesized data to make sense of via their conceptual model. For example, “the bomb must have belonged to X party because I don’t know of anyone else with that bomb style.” Think of how much harder to be this would have been if they didn’t give their reasoning for this analysis as you would have supposed it was a synthesis. For example, if they reported X parties bomb was detonated, you would likely treat it as a fact. In as far as you trust in their judgement and are desperate enough to do so, you can trust their analysis, but be careful as it adds another epistemic layer to work with. When people speak, they speak for what they think is best and true, if we are fortunate. Efficient incentive structures and tying the mission to a mythos can make this more effective. Finally, to understand the situation at hand deeper, we need to suppose our enemy’s understand and the consensus of information from the broader public. There is nothing properly basic about this effort of seeing through other’s eyes. However, this “transpositional consciousness” can be a real skill one can develop. To love someone we must have this skill. To defeat many persons, we need to develop this skill well. What is the seemingness of the other parties at play? What would their level of cognition allow them to understand? What would be the response that requires the least conceptual and material resources? What are their true objectives? Keep in mind that your awareness of their cognition will be reciprocated. They will think what you think about what they think, and many layers. It is a powerful mediation to see how many levels you can go down this pattern, but there is a way to break it. Prediction comes from recognition, which as a leader, you can control and alter. You will need to have a specific mythos that is based on truth about yourself and your mission, but it can’t be the whole truth. You will then act as this consistent character toward your enemy until you have a chance at sweeping defeat based on this hidden aspect of yourself. To win game theory, be predictable up until that dramatic moment you are not. You will need to have everything in place at such a point and be willing to sacrifice something your opponent can’t assume, such as a value. You can only do so once, as you will need to build up trust with your followers to get to this point, and heal it after. Be careful when asking people what is, and even what they want. There is a huge variance between our reported desires and what we would post value obtaining. To know this is to navigate intimate relationships well. This is the issue with democracy in part as people don’t know what is best for them. However, what is done needs to be done toward their bestness. 

Once you understand the circumstance at hand, we must next ask ourselves what it means. This meaning will be an internal creation in the leader based on their Esse Maxim. Consensus aside, how does the leading mind find the world? Lastly, before we judge, we must understand the objectives at hand. What manifest values will us as leader, our followers, and our foes posses? What would ground these values? How rational or otherwise are they? Now that we begin to judge all the facts and values as we can best access them, we need to ask how centralized we would like to do this endeavor. Do we want to risk less control by allowing others to judge with us with the hopes of accounting for more data in that judgment? If so, we will need to make sure these other judges are bought into the mission. This isn’t an either/or as we can control the degree to which we co-judge. As for our perception, so for our judgement. We will need to practice autonomy by asking how much we are thinking based on what our engagement with the world versus how much is us thinking with the thoughts already in the social sphere. You are the one that brings information into the conceptual habitus. To now ask again what the inputs mean, we must ask so in two veins of meaning. What are is the totality of the seemingness? This is to ask, when we take in all the data combined, what does it seem like to us? Next, what are the implications of the information? How does this information hit you and what does this information denote as a consequence of its nature? Now that we have digested the data, we need to do so in tandem with our ends that make us do this process. We will both need to never lose sight of our objective and also be able to set them aside just long enough to see the world’s “is” past our “ought.” Now we can ask, what is the core of our will? How is that manifest in our leadership? For example, what do we want as a leader generally. Now, how would this want me manifest in this circumstance? We don’t pick the best we can imagine, but the best we can access. In our desperate sacrifice of net-valuing, what is the best outcome we can reasonably ask for given the circumstance? Should we start with our different options of plans, or should we start with what we desire? We will likely do some back-and-forth that started with one and ends with the other. What is our desire as a leader? How does this desire coincide with the capacity that we hold? For example, we will have our wants and based on the title of our leadership, we are expected to want other things. We can not heed those desires at all, or we can live them out completely, but either way we have to be careful in betraying ourselves and the trust of those that we could lose. What institution do you act in, and does that come with additional expectations? Now we must go ex-nihilo into imagination. What choices that are not apparent given the facts bring about the maximization of the weighted values given the alleged facts at hand? All of the best of genius is so obvious ad hoc, but it is crushingly difficult to come by before hand. Your answer will likely be simple, cutting through all the chaos to be the action that your followers will exact in the world. Think of your favorite examples of genius, musical pieces, tactical plans, or inventions. Afterwards, they are so graspable and elegant, but to come up with them given nothing but a pile of information takes a level of cognition met with a level of awareness that will earn you the title of leader that you assume. We now have a plan in place for how to respond to what we find given what we desire. 

We can only now ask the question of motivating the parties at hand to follow through on the plan. In my day, many ready copious material to learn how to motivate others and themselves. However, if you focus on the motivation without asking what you motivate towards, you will lead toward disaster. You don’t come to the feet of God or philosophy to ask for what you want, but to ask about what you want. Is there a wanting in better order? Is our wanting well informed? If we choose the right message, motivation is inherent in the message and needs little additional motivation or manipulation. We need to ask how our plan would be received now if we gave people the plan as we have it. We then need to take our complex plan and simplify it into memorable portions like slogans. We will need to note we don’t need them to know the whole true plan, but to know their part of the plan. However, we will need to be careful to not tell them anything too contradictory from the end result that we lose them later on. For logic and the human psyche not to comprehend and risk cooperation with us, they need to largely find us as a force of nature acting in one consistent method, that is again, until that singular moment we need to break that for our foes. When it comes to motivation and manipulation, we will need to know the ontology of these we seek to be followers in order to know how to use those aspects. These aspects being their organism, mind, and consciousness/soul. Ideally, following what we believe would make their being fall into place, belong, and make sense. They will need at least a sense that their whole life is built on some resolution that you now offer and every good and evil they experience is correlated to it. A bad day or good fortune will fit into your story. We start by addressing them by addressing their organism. Their animalistic instincts are betrayed in every direction they turn in modernity. This is your chance to demonstrate to them that their instincts work for their good, or at least they can think so. If fear takes a role in your motivation, it turns the brain into a one-track machine that quickly processes much information toward the end of escaping or defeating the threat. Another instinct available for utilization is the tribal instinct. As I have said before, modernity hates that we are this way, but we are this way. You can curse it or bless it, but that is how we are. We seek our people to belong to and need a strong sense of what makes us a people. Let them know you have a tribe for them that welcomes them insofar as they choose to be in that tribe via their behavior in following through on your plan. If you want them to quickly refuse something as the negation of your plan, utilize disgust. Use imagery like waste and refuse to compare it to the behaviors you seek to rid your organization from. It is the instinct that takes the least processing to deny something. If you want them to rid themselves of something permanently, utilize contempt. They need to think the contemptible thing is to blame for some large portion of the ills of life. You will likely wonder what blend of going toward a value or going from the valueless is appropriate. This is in part what you figure out in your planning. Essentially, coercion is or manipulation is the effort to deny the valueless and convincing and motivation are the efforts to affirm a value. The first work for dramatic short term plans, but the second work for long term sustainable plans. However, in any plan you would need at least a small amount of the other. No religious leader would be shy to tell you about hell, if they had one to tell you about. However, they may choose the illustration of heaven as primary. The organism seeks to be an animal and to procure all the needs of that animal. The animal as material needs material resolution. To work with and train an animal, you have the general pattern of pressure and release. I pull my reins to one side, and the horse finds that I release that pressure when he turns toward the direction he is pulled in. The pressure of hunger for a treat is alleviated to the dog when he retrieves the desired game fowl. This sort of training sinks below the rational to the passionate and instinctive portion of our psyche that is hard to rebel against. If the perceived ills of one’s life or the lack of resources are consoled and addressed via acting in accordance with an authority, that authority is validated. As we will identify later, a leader must have some right to rule. At least part of that right must come from the obtaining and permitting of the resources of the led. 

Next we go to the needs of the mind, or conceptual needs. The first thing to note, is we will work with them as they are. This is to say as the sort of thing with the sort of experience they have. For example, perhaps to share some sense of societal redemption. We will later pay attention to narratives, but to start with have to allow people to be present in the dilemma we seek to absolve them from later. If we shelter them from the ramification of the current situation, selling any remedy will be fraught. Their psyche will be torn between their values and what they experience, but they still will not be able to identify what is transpiring. Pay attention to their behavior that manifests their conceptual illness. You will then need to step back and use the mental autonomy discussed to identify the concern at hand. You will not be given permission to think so, or event he language to communicate it. Once you have identified that concern and your means for sharing it, do so with precision. This alone makes many of the most powerful leaders. Tell them what their struggle is in a way that demonstrate you deeply see it, and they will follow even if you had not found a solution. However, as we worked for, we do have a solution. You will need to paint this picture of some horrible and not redemptive ill transpiring, and there being one sole means of addressing it. They should see it as the one rope to grasp in a stormy sea. You will need them to act on this, and do so by them playing out a role. Be careful if in being led you feel pressured to live a role given to you rather than giving out roles. In this role let your followers find a portion of their sense of self. When we make choices, we take inventory of the sort of thing we think we are and then act in accordance with that. Allow them to find this mythos and yours aesthetic. We are not enlightened beings but passionate beings that can use rationalism. What ratio of rewards and labor is the most efficient and persisting? For example, I am more likely to read three books that have two-hundred pages each than one book that has five-hundred pages. Why is that? Though the three books possess more pages, there are two more instances of me being satiated and rewarded by the completion. However, if our system provides too many rewards, such as hundreds of one page books, it devalues the extremity of that reward. There is no fact for all circumstances, but pay attention to what frequency for release allows for maximal motivation. This method of leadership is so effective that if someone did not want to be led or wanted to be led but otherwise couldn’t act on it, they would act in accordance now. This is because the patterns of cognition designed to motivate us toward resource acquisition are used. If those means are used to their advantage and the advantage of their posterity, they will not only accept this leadership, but bless it. I warn against the technological highjacking of these reward systems toward the shorter-term objectives. It desensitizes the person and removes the motivation toward the larger objectives that would make them more powerful. It also is not something available for blessing. Bright colors of advertisements for chemicals that bring warm feelings will never be as valued or as effective as the longer-term values of familial acquisition and care. How many alcoholics can give their all for their habit and then on their deathbeds value it? How many fathers could do the same? This is where modern leadership fails to be effective at its goals while also destroying the obtaining of the led. They deny there being a given sort of nature, let alone to identify what it is. You will be leading the led as what they are, and will only be able to work with them as that sort of thing. They are versatile and can manifest as many sorts of things, but must do so as that which they are. For example, the caring for the families should be a primary concern not an annoying thing to move past. We must work with their ontology. Our leadership will be most effective to us and most valued to them when they can collapse into being. In my age, the foods that my body enjoys are dangerous. The activities that feel good are numbing. The escapes from pain cause more of it. This requires us to never collapse into being but always fight our being to keep it safe. The ideal opposite of this is a system that allows people to collapse into it and find their belonging spot. If they navigate the system, invest into it, and labor in it, they should receive resources sufficient. The opposite of this is the economic structure I am living through. One can do all those activities that allege to obtain resources, only to not. One then sees that the real means of obtaining is to excerpt more energy than is reasonable to ask of one. I have to make more money than most of the population to not be able to afford any domicile. We need the opposite. If our led follow through on our commands, we must, or rather our system should. A small portion of this that is recognized in my day is incentive structures. However, these must be taken with a series of qualifiers such as diminishing marginal utility and a real meditation on what the objectives of the everyday man is. We need to address people as what they are. One challenge in doing so is over-assuming the degree to which people experience, comprehend, and reason like yourself. The average person can’t and won’t read something like this, for instance. This is why we need visuals, slogans, and the aforementioned narrative. This narrative you make is tricky. You will need to have all the factors needing for addressing such as themselves, the current leader, and all other parties. However, you will also need to have a forward looking view. The premise is the circumstances you identify, however you will need to write a reasonable conclusion for the story. In the facts you accentuate or mitigate you will also be lying to some degree, so do so honestly. The conceptual effort of taking what is and what is valued and coming up with a possible causal outcome more fit for valuation is extremely complex. However, this is again where you earn your right to rule. Your story will need to allow them to construct their experience. All their friends that abide by the ideology are friends indeed while the contrary are either lost and in need of convincing or else foes. Everything they do should be available to find themselves in your story. To think of an idea to be leveraged out to millions of ideas while not being self-contradictory and doesn’t defeat the desired value is near impossible. Armchair reason broadcast onto millions of lives needs both enough specificity to be clear and ambiguity to allow for people to act according to the narrative. You will never be able to write enough rules down, but you can paint a picture you earnestly want to try toward. You will then resign judgement to the led, but they will follow as they understand and make this narrative their own by writing their section. If you can commiserate and contextualize their plight, there is nearly no limit to what you can ask of them. If you do so and then also offer your rope in the waves, there is no limit to what you can ask. Morality is a powerful tool of controlling those you can’t immediately influence. In fact, most of what we see as morality is the elite’s system maintenance and not privileged divine imperatives or self-contained values. What social actions are considered immoral by your society? Would God care? Do you care? Often, no, and yet we do so. In painful weakness that will collapse, the society that has no grounding or locution for morality uses it more. When I watch the conceptual oppression via the news of the day, I see that everything is morally weighted. One is good or bad and so are their actions. This has lead to a dogmatism more extreme in my judgement than of old. St. Augustine was at least allowed to think about what it would be like if God did not exist. What are we not allowed to think about? That hints at what gives the elite power. This system will need to collapse as they shame us for not following a law they never had. In fact, if you want to see if they possess a law, see if they approximate acting in accordance. Trust the prophet that comes down from the mountain claiming to see God when He shivers and is fearful, not the prophet who says with glee God told you to give him your wealth. In the same age that courting relationships are deconstructed to the point of societal annihilation, our elites galavant their perversion. This moralism is overplayed, but it has a place. Perhaps we allow for the led to identify our opposition as evil. However, we at least can’t be caught up in this moralism at the expense of causalism. Moralism is the questioning of the value of what transpires. Causalism is the questioning of what transpires. We need to keep in mind what we value, but we need to set this idea aside as we act. How many choices I would have valued did I fail to make because I was worried that they would be called evil? When I was homeless, I could have stepped back and been angry at this injustice, or I could ask what I could do to stay alive. I did the second. A moralist both says bad is good and good is bad, at least to what would have been to its victims. It then permits something by not negating it to its strict rules. For example, if there were strict rules for how to act on everything but eating sand, I would be more likely to eat sand than I would be if there were no strict rules. In one state close by, picking a certain flower is illegal. In my state, it is legal but just as rare. If I followed social moralism as legislative morality, I would pick the flower in my state as the bare minimum of laws has been met. The overlap of divine and true subjective morality is limited with the moralism of society of legislation. A softer iteration of social moralism is normalcy. Rather than strong ostracization associated with not abiding by societal expectations, we have a sense that one would self-marginalize by not meeting those expectations. This is not without it’s merit. A society needs to have a degree of sharedness for exchanges, interactions, and expectations. Normalcy places soft bounds for what sort of person we can be to participate in the system. In my age, ostracizing, ridicule, and criticizing non-normalcy is seen as a moral failing. However, it enforces the character traits needed to keep a people alive. Shame is a powerful tool to keep people in the system, assuming the system is worth being in. As the leader, we can control the led’s sense of normalcy. When we make choices, we do so via a vision. We often ask the question of what the sort of thing we are would do, as well as what is reasonable to attempt to obtain. When we ask what is reasonable, we equate the average to be such as it is attainable on for the mean of the sort of thing we are. For example, what type of house should I expect to own? What does the average sort of person similar to myself own? We can control the components of normalcy to change the vision people have and what they consequently expect. For example, you could build a sense of normalcy around achieving a hearty amount of money. Then, when they find that they have failed in this manufactured expectation, they will be more volatile against your appointed foe. Their expectations are the currency of action. How does the world they access now allow them to expect their aspirations? Can you change the degree to which they can expect or what they can aspire to? You can tell faith is built when a portion of someone’s worldview is seen as a given. For example, if someone were to question your followers and find some conceptual item as, “that is just how it is,” they have built faith. People are notoriously incapable of managing our faith as it leads us with nowhere else to stand. What you can then do is leave these conceptual givens alone. If you don’t give a reason to start to question them, they won’t. Again, moral failings are more harsh and alleged social isolation while normalcy instead promises greater belonging. Whatever promise you make, you have to make sure it is consistent with their ontology, and more importantly, that you keep your promise. In manufacturing normalcy, their body, mind, and soul are a given thing and have limits to what sort of world is available for their valuing their existence in. However, the social world has no limit. You can lie to someone and tell them that their world is fit for them, and to a disparaging degree, they will concede. This is where you need to step out of the current manufactured normalcy. They will hold every sort of relationship on the other side of your abiding. Do not flinch, wince, or fret. In your transvaluation of values, those you love that can’t fathom something other than their current values will hate you. However, that is the cost to lead. Will you lose something for the gaining? You have to step before language and to the metaphilosophical void as the current social power system will not give you the language let alone the permission to replace it. What one takes as a given is where you look from, and for that reason we can’t see it. In the system you set up, you will have iteration of a law or at least causations and expectations. You will need to make clear roles with people’s behavior harvesting their ends for the ends of others and subsistence of the system. If they put in a ontologically reasonable degree of effort, we give them those resources to keep them alive. However, as the enemy is meaninglessness and not suffering, we don’t need to destroy our system to give everyone a mansion. If every man has a family, a farm, and a faith, he will have no need for rebellion in good faith. In the roles you set up, you will need to set some up for yourselves. They can’t be identical to what you expect and yet can’t be opposite. Likely, they will need to be largely similar with special responsibilities. Whatever you design your role to be, it is causally necessary that you abide by that role. Your right to rule comes from what you provide in exchange for what you require, as well as if you are an image to them. You’re being needs to be the lawbook manifest in a moment. To efficiently use conceptual energy, we find what person's actions are worthy of emulation, and then we emulate. I have used this to the ends of myself and others to the extent I have been told it was a spiritual gift. No series of lectures alone can denote all the concepts needed to act in the world one has developed. Each turning of the mouth, stepping of the pace, and tone of the voice is painting that has in it volumes. People are hungry for greatness. They search for it, and they wait. When they find it, they follow behind that thing. Both the great and the follower need each other. The great is a warrior not made for the peace of ease. He needs to fight fate uphill to not turn his blade against himself. He is then a blessing to the followers that trail behind him and needs the followers to fight that foe that he is not. I am not yet great, but I see a great person being needed and none stepping up. As far as I can be great, I am as blessed by your being blessed by what I do, as it costs me. Of course, it would even half to be more so for it to be a good deal. And, it is a good deal. Loving you, serving you, fighting for you is a great deal for me such that you will owe me nothing but taking what I can give you. To be this exemplar, one needs to act in a way that it is seen that one’s actions come from within their will and not from the social pressures around one. If you say a joke, do not look around to see if everyone laughed. If you say an idea, only look around to judge their expressions for real insights and not from a position of insecurity. When you speak, let them talk, ask questions, and hear their insights. However, you will need to be the structure of the conversation. No two persons are equal. However, rather than tearing down the great’s ability or expecting too much of the lesser, the great needs to know his greatness and the lesser his least, if they are to come together in adorable service. My age builds narcissism in the weak and shame in the strong. Those that think more on an idea are less likely to be brashly certain. Though it found itself randomly in this chapter, the most powerful tool I possess for leadership is the example that I set as a model of action. Let us then act in such a way worthy of universalizing. The next tool is to deeply see through someone’s eyes. With the violence I experienced at a young age, I am wary of people. I was discontent with my consequent ability to participate in the social world. I remember exactly where I was when I was talking to an aggressive man and my awareness shifted from my eyes to his. I was not scared of him, because I was seeing he was somewhat frightened of me. I felt concern for him and could now better foresee how he would act. When I write to you, I think of you sitting there and what it would be like to be you while you read this. I again feel concern for you for this reason, but I also think for this reason I am better suited to serve you. It is a unique skill our species possesses to simulate the conscious experience and subsequent qualia. This empathy or transpositional consciousness is often connected with moral concern, however a great general would do well to fight looking through his foes eyes. The degree to which you can step into your followers’ mind and deeply perceive their existence, is the degree to which they can be loyal. All the less betrayal when you can act in accordance with that perception. What would it be like to hear your message?  What do they get out of the invitation? What would they need? How do they feel about you? To deeply be in their psyche, find that shared part of your ontology and meditate on the seemingness. You are not them. You are you. However, you are the same sort of thing as them. By their proximity to you, we find similarities of cognition. What does your ontological similarity denote similar experiences? We will never know what a color is like through their eyes, but we can infer what seeing a certain color could make them feel. What values of theirs are at hand? As in, of what of their values would be manifest in the circumstance we find them in? There are some other qualifiers we can add to comprehending their experience. For example, you need to know your audience, their dialogue, what information they would have access to, and how well they can process that information. I don’t do this well in my writing. I go from one sentence I can barely understand to a series of sentences that offend the intelligent. However, this idea of understanding the degree of complexity will make sure you are understood while also still being stimulating. Our followers need to develop a sense of self from your beliefs and actions. A great example of this is allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions and read between the lines. It makes the reader or follower feel smarter as if it is their idea or that only they truly get you and for that reason are a true follower. Let those conclusions come from privileged data you conceptually permit them to see. Let it be their idea that they feel special about. There is one last tool that one can use for the convincing and coercion of another. However, this tool needs a mountain of wisdom for an ounce of application. As we have identified that we can affirm aspects of one’s experience to accentuate facts of the world, we can also deny others for the mitigation of seeing some facts. In the abuse of another, this method is a favorite. However, for one that loves someone enough to step outside of the norms of morality, this could be warranted in rarity. There are some facts that I have intentionally mitigated in my writing to the extent that I nearly deny them. Should I give advertisement to my conceptual foe? For this reason, am I being honest to you? No, but no mind can see past its values. However, I am the only mind of my sort that has you in that value I can’t see past. This tool is nearly never to be used, but it is often to be inflicted with. When someone comes to you and uses some series of coercive methods to get you to deny things, it takes a rebellious mind to stand strong. This is where my early years of philosophizing came from. In the ab-usage of my young person, I was told to deny my experience for someone in my experience. You will note that already doesn’t make any sense. This is why I began to philosophize. In the relativity of modernity, every man is available for oppression. What I searched for were non-arbitrary demarcations. Points in reality and being that would not allow me to be pushed past. As their leader, you will need to at least be talented at catching this and not falling for denying your soul for the lie of someone else’s. 

We have addressed the convincing and coercion of the body and mind. We now do so with the soul. We must again remember that coercion tends to be more effective in the short term and destroy the systems of trust for leadership later. Convincing is a positive feedback loop in as far as it is ontologically consistent. As we add the criteria of the perpetuity of a system, we find that we will need to convince over coerce. There is no means to do this more powerful, self-reinforcing, and fulfilling than the soul. You will then not only give people the food and beliefs needed to survive, but the meaning to make survival a blessing. This is where your leadership in its selfishness will do more for the lead than they could have thought to ask for. We are not rational and enlightened. We are also not just material as we carry our seemingness with us. We are then a soul caught between a mind and body. This soul in its pure experience sees the world as nothing more than what it is seen as. This is best demonstrated in religiosity as if the undergirding to being was the divine. Give permission for people to be what they are, all while inviting them to deny those portions that inhibit their highest ends. This is best manifest in allowing us to be this thing we are, which is the beast that kneels. Let their religiosity flow and somewhat intermingle with your leadership. Of all social systems, I am most impressed by theocracies on a philosophical level, as they allow our seemingness to intermingle with their right to rule. As we will then later discuss, this further makes us in need of being a good king as we will need to bow down before the same God we alledge to defend. Faith as the granted assumption below being, we need to allow others to have a proto-faith in us. Their trust will mount to a moment where they have no reason to trust, but that trust. When they do, you earn your place as a name blessed in the anals of history in as far as you cherish that trust. We as a kind were left down here alone, and they can have grace in you for not being all the things they need. However, they will revere the name that never left theirs too far from its lips. The beautiful is the value of being and as such, allow their aesthetic eye to look upon you. Let your life be a story, being be an image, and soul be a mythos for them to find beautiful. Let them come up with their art to show respect for someone that from above descended below. You will have multiple mythos to build across time and to different parties. Allow them this vision of a beautiful life on the other side of what you are defeating. You are the warrior become king to lead them against that which you never lost sight of fighting. Fight for them, they can tell even when they can’t. They seek for their lives to mean something, to be a part of something, and do something before death to prepare them for it. You can aid them as they aid you. In as far as you are a known leader, allow them to find you prophetic and be available to fill the role that they need you to Be a savior in return for their following. Be arrogant before man and nothing before God. Be whatever your people need, and know when you are done it is only God’s providence and will they have. Fight fate for them, and then love what fate gave them. Dissect hybris from your heart to think your mind can step to God’s without His sole stepping back. In becoming this mythos worthy of the seemingness of their religiosity, you can do what I call “reputation farming.” You can put deliberation toward the character that you present to others to believe in. You can then allow that reputation to do what you can’t. The meaning of something is only available in as far as we participate, engage, and invest in it. That which calls nothing from you has nothing for you. While not everything invested in is worthy of returns, no investment in the best of things is naught. Allow them to invest in their beliefs. Allow them to do for the belief that which you can’t. Allow them to build out the mythos around this group, nation, or land. Let them pour themselves into it, to find themselves held therein. At which point the ideas you purport move from concepts held in the mind to beliefs held in the soul. They now own what you taught. As they have it, you now fully have them. You now have essentially supported, provided parts, or even outright offered a shared Esse Maxim for them to have sharedness between persons. Your right to rule is reinforced in every interaction between persons. If there is something worth the existing for, it would have to be more than our existence and hence have the right to call us from such. This is my argument for aggression. This would also be true of the value we have for our opponents lives. Our lives and theirs are worth losing to that system that made our lives mean something. Let us both die as admirable enemies on the battlefield. Our blood seals up lives richer in the few years than centuries with no such consecration. As a leader, there will be events needing your aggression. Taking your turn in a game brings about navigable rules, and this is true of the leader. 

We have identified leadership as understanding, judgement, and motivation. We have then seen that we do so by addressing their body, mind, and soul. We do so by coercion of suggesting something will be foregone by not acting. This is whether or not it is us, someone else, or reality that would deny them. We then convince by giving conceptual models that demonstrate that a valued resource in a given system is obtained by acting in accordance with our judgment. Again, this value can be supplied by ourselves, another party, or reality. Again, coercion is more dramatic, but convincing is more sustainable. Let us now consider mental activity. We have looked at the knowledge of intaking data from the world. We then used intellect to process that data. We now need to ask about the wisdom of what ends we lead. Why do you want to lead? Are you simply so smart and wonderful that everyone needs to think like you? Abandon this thought before it abandons you in ruins. Is your perception so right that it can be enforced over everyone else’s? Even with better eyes you still only have one life worth of perception. As I love you, so I warn and convict you. You have others' minds in your hand to direct them, but you must ask to what end you labor. You need to know this answer. My sentiment for my kind puts me in towardness to them, and I now ask for a baseless favor as one who was willing to borrow from my ideas. Let me simply say that to act as I have taught, it would need the towardness of the led. I will not make a case for this. Take it as the given faith that lets these ideas really become something to me. I warn you against stealing half these concepts to not the ecosystem they are born in. You can’t have my manipulation without having my love. Let me rise from the grave in anger if you try. As we lead we must ask, what do we really desire to do, and what do we desire to do after realizing the exclusion of desperation? What is the best thing we can offer to those we lead? Then, what of those things can we empirically possibly access? We don’t do the best we can think of, but the best of what we can. How will we lead knowing there is so little we can do? We are then fortunate if we were to even be the ones to lead. I will warn you against the objective of saving humanity as rebelling against God to remove all the writhing and wrath He wills for them in His infinite wisdom. You will only betray the soul to fully save the body. Your objective is better stated as offering a system for the continuance of the human species, the enlivening of their soul, and preparation for death. You can’t save all children from death, but you can build a system where children are reared in beliefs that care for them as the conceptual paternal and believable maternal. In a book I have only received ridicule for,  my thesis was: “Just because there is a problem doesn’t mean you have to fix it.” It is an impossible obligation for you to bring about utopia, and instead need a navigable system for the perpetuance and meaning of a people. If you shoot for some target too high, perhaps your bullet comes back down on your head. For example, there will need to be a difference between what you value and what you permit. We can’t use political means to respond to existential problems. This is the failing of humanism. However, we can make social means that allow people to care for them. Our kingdom is not of this world and we therefore don’t need to exact on value from it. This happens to leave more value for those we leave behind. You can’t penalize all the things that you or even the consensus value. If you do, you make a list of laws so long, no one can act on it. Let them work out the details with God, but help them not to kill each other so they are alive to do it. When you try to exact behavior around values, you fail to keep account of the multiplicity of variables and the possibly decentralized nature of wisdom. It is only fraught to centralize thinking in you as the leader. It is further foolishness to centralize your power to do so. We do centralize power in the leader to have exactness as precision in action. A choice chosen is better than the best idea undecided. However, you can’t centralize knowledge as you just can’t possibly know a tiny portion of what your followers do. Because we can’t know all variables, we carry wisdom as that remembrance. Centralizing is fraught enough that you will need a liberally legitimate right to rule to excuse it. This right is not simply moral, but casual. If they don’t think we work for them, don’t trust what we purport, and have evidence, they will have excused rebelling against us and we will have no basis for denying it. It is not your religiosity but theirs that gives the effective right to rule. We can technologically remove their power to act in the world to maintain power, but they will hate us enough that they will have the last rebellion of not having offspring, assassinating us, and killing themselves. Let us stay far from this misery. In my non-necessity of an instance is not non-necessity of a universal, there is nothing that we must use for our right to rule, but we must have something as our right to rule. We must not ask what we can say to them, but what we truly believe. Do we really believe we labor toward their ends? Again, they can tell. How do we honor their trust? They are delegating their thinking. Are we doing it with their values? Do we deserve the perpetuance of their trust? To be the good king, you make a “good” possible for consensus. Then, you obey the rules of the structure you put in place. This is that right to rule. Manipulating is about exerting power over someone to get it to act. We have learned colloquial manipulation and social power here today. You were given tools unfair for you to wield inconsistently. I warn and yet dare anyone to live half the thoughts here today and hope to find someone else the victim and not you. I am content with manipulation and power if it is toward the ends I can empathize one and possessing, at least at some point. For example, in that privileged point in time of their deathbed, I can excuse keeping them from ending their lives when they value it. I wanted to explain how to lead and not moralize, but I ask you to carry my values at least a portion as far as you carry my ideas. As value is only in subjects, we make values. However, while we don’t know his privileged answer, we do so before God and are subject to his evaluation. Let us build as Nietzsche anticipated, but let us do it under the heaven he thought destroyed. Why do we lead? What do we want for those led? What for our ideas? What for ourselves What sort of leadership methods would be most effective in bringing this about? We will also eventually be lead to some degree, even if that is just enough to their language. Let us follow those good kings that earn our deference. In as far as we can intersection value, let us universalize effectively. We understand, judge, and motivate. We do this as what we are, body, mind, and soul. When we make a choice we both have to step back from the reasons we made that choice and yet never forget it. Let us see through their eyes as far as it doesn’t blind ours. 

I now call you to a land. This is a land I think of not as the garden of eden, but the wilderness of earth. It is a land where we are nothing more than what we are. We are part of the world and intermingled with its aspects. The rivers, plants, and beasts that make it up, make up a part of what we are. This is a land where the human soul is all that can be seen, to the human soul. The world is an anthropomorphizing extension of what we are. Let us find angels in clouds and lost loves in stars. Let the wind be the whisper of a God outside of being. Let the sun’s rays be His touch. Let us live toward death, with our people. Coming from great heritage, let us find ourselves between such as we leave a wondrous prodigy. This is not a land I can see outside of my visions. In this my friend, I commission you. Help me. Aid me in bringing about the perpetuity of humanity, prepare others for death, enliven their soul, and engage them with their existence. Prostrate often before God in tears, I ask him to send someone to do these things my people need. I ask him to send a great one, as I can’t fathom that I can be so. I will step up to be an aristotle if He will send my Alexander to do in the world what I am not courageous enough to do. Will you be my Alexander? I am only Samuel, after all. I am not the greatest of the two millennia to save man from modernity, however, I think I prepare his way, your way. I think I will help him who will help us in the last way before God. It is a good king that finds the laws and keeps them. It is a great king who builds the laws and becomes them. If I be the philosopher, would you be our great king?