Name: Anonymous 2013-03-03 18:56
and the tragedy of rejection of leadership that stems from a confusion
between these two concepts.
it's quite clear, /pol/, that there's an undercurrent of (what i'll refer to
as) "anarchism" in the counter-cultural sphere. i'm speaking of people who've
come together, tired of protesting against the old system and wanting to
contribute to the new. so, there all here, think of the stereotypical occupy
protester, they don't really accomplish anything. basic communal
self-sufficiency has been reached by humans across the globe for millennia, but
even this most fundamental state of coherence seems beyond the grasp of us
raving lunatics, us angry madmen. nevertheless, we must move forward. and we
want live free of submission
so, begone all authority is the battly cry, and any one of us who steps up as a
leader is struck down by his peers immediatly. "who are you to say what we all
stand for", and any small decision is debated endlessly until a consensus is
reached. nothing ever gets done and there's no way forward. in the end the entire
operation is bikeshed into oblivion.
i propose that we take a moment to observe the difference between a leader and
a master. in my opinion; a group works best if there is a leader, an individual
works best if there is no master.
* the leader stands in front of the group, commands respect and the people
follow him. the master stands above the group, and commands worship and the
people submit to him.
* in a group of people; a leader is like a cook. the cook does the cooking, the
leader does the leading.
* a good leader is like an orchestrator, who makes the different instruments
resonate so they play in harmony. an orchestrator can only do his work when
everyone agrees on the tune that they will play.
it seems the current system is not really good at making leaders well-known and
giving them influence. /pol/, what are some examples of great modern leaders and
how would they have used the internet to gain power?
between these two concepts.
it's quite clear, /pol/, that there's an undercurrent of (what i'll refer to
as) "anarchism" in the counter-cultural sphere. i'm speaking of people who've
come together, tired of protesting against the old system and wanting to
contribute to the new. so, there all here, think of the stereotypical occupy
protester, they don't really accomplish anything. basic communal
self-sufficiency has been reached by humans across the globe for millennia, but
even this most fundamental state of coherence seems beyond the grasp of us
raving lunatics, us angry madmen. nevertheless, we must move forward. and we
want live free of submission
so, begone all authority is the battly cry, and any one of us who steps up as a
leader is struck down by his peers immediatly. "who are you to say what we all
stand for", and any small decision is debated endlessly until a consensus is
reached. nothing ever gets done and there's no way forward. in the end the entire
operation is bikeshed into oblivion.
i propose that we take a moment to observe the difference between a leader and
a master. in my opinion; a group works best if there is a leader, an individual
works best if there is no master.
* the leader stands in front of the group, commands respect and the people
follow him. the master stands above the group, and commands worship and the
people submit to him.
* in a group of people; a leader is like a cook. the cook does the cooking, the
leader does the leading.
* a good leader is like an orchestrator, who makes the different instruments
resonate so they play in harmony. an orchestrator can only do his work when
everyone agrees on the tune that they will play.
it seems the current system is not really good at making leaders well-known and
giving them influence. /pol/, what are some examples of great modern leaders and
how would they have used the internet to gain power?