Wicked Alliances vs. the State of Kindness

I recently had the opportunity to chat to a group of young women (University Students from across the Country to be precise) and thought to share what I see as a message fit for a broader audience. Whilst speaking almost entirely to women you will notice a strict disinclination to moderate my message specifically to a women audience. I believe there to be an immutability and universality to the specific topic that requires little discrimination on the basis of any gender difference. Further, to ascribe any differing standard or observance to women would be to imply and even concede some material difference to men and women proper. I find little merit to defining an alternate behavioural 'track' or orthodoxy - to do so would be to support a nebulous narrative. This one again within the context of the topic and within enterprise. The topic dealing with alliances and coalitions. My 'first cause' approach to life, namely that of a moral law and a moral law Giver imply inclusion immediately as opposed to any identity partisanship and bias.

A reminder that this 'word' was prepared purely as a 'speech':

1.    A Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go camping story is worth recounting:

 Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson decide to go on a camping trip. After dinner and a bottle of wine, they lay down for the night, and go to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his faithful friend (Dalais comment: an ally one might say). “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.” Watson replied. “I see millions of stars.” “What does that tell you?” Watson pondered for a minute. “Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.” “Astrologically, I observe Saturn is in Leo.” “Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three.” “Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant”. “Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.” “What does it tell you, Holmes?” Holmes was silent for a minute, then spoke: “Watson, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent!”

In life you can be very profound and miss the larger point. And we see a lot of this in the domain of modern politics. People looking for solutions where the problems have not fully been identified. GK Chesterton hit the mark when he said: “It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It’s that they can’t see the problem”. So, we (today) want to get to some essence, as opposed to cheap polemic.

We live in a society that flirts with the issues and that much prefers an ‘as the crow flies’ direct approach to life and living as opposed to appreciating the obliquity that is the reality of life – to go forwards you very often may have to go backwards; or sideways. An innate and unique skill (as it turns out) that differentiated Abraham Lincoln. John Lewis Gaddis in, On Grand Strategy, describes Lincoln’s ability to navigate around swamps as opposed to plunging in head first. Choosing lasting victory, in the end, as opposed to the reductionist alternative of immediate gratification and expedience. Success (and time) very often must be appreciated beyond a single lifetime but across the ‘course of time’ – centuries, generations and indeed with some regard and even deference, not to the future, but to eternity. Not simply by the deductive and narrative potential offered us by retrospect but in the conscious act of the now. I attempt to move beyond the palliative albeit that we are desperate for answers - including answers that present in the form of man.

Today is about you. About you, the individual – it is you who is very often the problem and you who is always the solution. You as a self-determining and autonomous but always responsible being. Today is about your individual choices and about your dignity - God could have given us no greater dignity than the dignity of choice and free will. So, for now, put in abeyance your ‘identity politic’ and tribe affiliation of whatever variant – except that of being a responsible member of the human race of course. By deduction today is about universality as opposed to locality and restriction.

Today is about the individual – the individual as a member and as an agent for the collective only and as such driving a collective conscious and consciousness however; about good citizenship and community and society; about moving all of humanity forward.

I will hopefully remind you of your intrinsic worth – your intrinsic agency; not a worth that is conferred upon you by others, neither by alliance nor coalition. As is my way I choose to deal with this ‘matter’ in a rather oblique way.

You are the change that the World requires – “I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life” (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) – which is to say that we are more than debris just floating on the tides.

2.    I am only nominally in charge and would appreciate your engagement ongoing. God forbid that I should in any way compare myself with Aristotle when he called himself only ‘the midwife of ideas’. This awakening itself speaks to the collectivism and cooperation that is vital to this alliance, namely the birthing of solutions and ideas. So, if you feel moved in the spirit i.e. that place beyond reason but of wisdom as opposed to crass intelligence and smarts, then please chip in - a place of character and truth as opposed to mere fact.

The most difficult road in the world to traverse? – that 18 inches between mind and heart. It is at the heart level that individuals and communities and countries and the world start to change. It is the heart that renders the soul. I address you as individuals and also as leaders – leaders not of things but of hearts and minds and attitudes. Amazing that some (and far too many) of the most brilliant minds in hallowed Silicon Valley are caught up with growing views and impressions, thereby increasing add revenue – what a waste of capacity and capability. I certainly speak to you as people with the potential to be heroes. Not everyone is called to be a leader but everyone is called upon to be a hero. We must accept this both as a challenge and as a responsibility. To rise above victimhood and deference.

We like simple answers. And we are looking increasingly for answers – neatly formulated and packaged. In looking for answers – the mnemonic; the rubric; the matrix; the schema; the stratagem – we eat away at our capacity and own agency. The smart people in the world – those that will change the world – are not those with the pre-existent answers but those with the questions – the ‘new’ questions. It is the ‘new’ question that precipitates the ‘new’ answer. Of such a kind are the valuable people. Those that embrace the complexity of the world and of mankind. Those that get ahead of 'the problem'. The old question has been answered – Google should help – check it out. And so, I have approached today with more questions than answers. Google and Harvard Business Review are available should you want functionally erudite answers. Too many institutions – the workplace, schools and even universities – are far too caught up with providing you with answers and vocational skill. This as opposed to logic - how to think and the power of argument. For even “Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them” (Matthew 13v34). Why – because answers are never cheap and do require some agonising.

3.    George Bernard Shaw said something remarkable and that speaks to the raison d’etre, the business case if you like, for alliances and even ‘teaming’: “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas”. And this is what we should be observing – the sacredness of an alliance and a coalition that leads to betterment at each end of the engagement. The reality often is quite different to that upside (to the collective) as seen by George Bernard Shaw – humans rather, diagrammatically opposed, chasing ‘connections’ and ‘leads’ with increasing fervour and seeking to ‘outsmart’, ‘outwit’ and ‘outplay’ fellow man. Alliances, in this obtuse iteration, rather, seek to ‘prize’ away the apple – any presumed benefit and upside or even joy that someone else enjoys – or even parts thereof, from the ‘other’, trying to gain optimal advantage – an approach that is dangerous to the extent that it creates an asymmetry. Economic, intellectual, emotional – it matters little which it is. We mobilise and organise rather well under group and political identities and then go away and collude and conspire, under the cloak of our dark depravity and wickedness. We too often break the ranks in self-interest. Which is both sad and limiting because when humans get together it turns out that the upside is exponential – in many instances defying the rules typical of mathematics and science. Mathematics and science (much of it at least) are of the earth and dictated to by logic, will and gravity: “Gravity has taken a hold of me. Gravity wants to bring me down”, said John Mayer. Blaise Pascal referred to man as “licking the earth” because we debase our own intrinsic value – neglecting the 'esprit de finesse' and emphasising only the 'esprit de geometrie'. Humans are in the first instance grand and magnanimous, alliances and coalitions aside. In the introduction to Pensees, T.S. Eliot, suggests an amazement at the ‘balance and justice of his (Pascal’s) observations’, considering that Pascal died at just thirty-nine years of age: “much greater maturity is required for these qualities, than for any mathematical or scientific greatness.” There is a magic to alliances and ‘getting together’ that defy simple reason, calculation or deduction and I have an equation (hugely adaptive of course) to depict the point – even beyond Mr. Shaw’s reckoning. In mathematics 1 + 1 = 2; In the magic of mutuality 1 + 1 = 3 or 4 or 5 or beyond (ref. Peter Thiel: Zero-to-One). An asymmetry in some ways if infinity is a bit of a stretch. If this is just about you however and your success metric then we make no advances forward and continue to ‘lick the earth’. Paying your taxes is a form of mutualism and coalition – a tie in with the lot of those less privileged.

4.    We must only seek out alliances to the extent to which we create surplus – not simply for the individual (and you are the individual) and not just for self-enrichment but for the benefit of the collective. Yes – a revision of motives in this a world defined by destitution and deficit – derelict and parched all at once. The playing of an altogether new state of play that takes us from deficit to surplus. A reminder and a warning to you simultaneously: “We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it, than to consume wealth without producing it” – George Bernard Shaw, once again. Life is not a ‘grab-and-run’, 'eat-as-much' as you can, 'stuff your pockets' giveaway i.e. we are jointly and severally liable for creating a surplus. We must be about creating value as opposed to simply extracting value - Adam Smith's reference to free markets was more about the freedom from rent seeking than it was from a limited government intervention/ interference. Value extraction is dangerous in that it invariably becomes about a power dynamic.

As new identities form so do rights and demands accrue separately. Accommodating and including (for rights) has unfortunately become code for dislodging and affirming a competition for resources – in so doing glorifying the ‘getting ahead’ and survival of the fittest maxims. War (or a variant of sorts) is invariably the shakeout and sorting that is needed to arrive at some new settlement. And so, I continue to challenge your motivations and your goals. Your stridency and your ambition. John Quincy Adams, a past American President, as the election of 1824 beckoned, started to self-examine - in referencing to Shakespeare, certain tragic characters came into frame: in the case of Macbeth his “unhallowed ambition” had won a king his crown but lost (him) his soul; in the case of Hamlet, death in dark moments was “a consummation devoutly to be wished.” We often will ally for ‘self-fulfilment’ and ‘actualisation’ – this is apparently the Shangri-La destination and the panacea - the cure-all - beyond mere happiness. A reminder that Hitler may have been fulfilled and so he killed + 5 million Jews in an act of racism – evil knows no bounds in the absence of a moral code and a virtue guardrail; Stalin may have been fulfilled in communist Russia, and he consigned + 25 million people to their deaths, (aristocrats and surfs alike), whether directly or as a consequence of his actions ; Hendrik Verwoerd may have been fulfilled – Church on Sunday and oppressor on Monday, doing what a good soldier should; a masterful tactician who was too good at his job (read too successful). Fulfilment is more than about individual self-realisation and being enslaved/ entranced in systems – we need a code that maintains a coherence and a symmetry and that does make you your ‘brother’s keeper’. We all remember the Cain and Abel story – only captured in a single verse but wholly complete in capturing the condition of man. “Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4v8 and 9). Yes, you are – Abel’s and Mary’s and Nthabiseng’s and Mlungisi’s. This is not just about someone keeping you and tending you – a boss; a boyfriend; a smarter friend; Sunday church services; a Tony Robbins or Deepak Chopra or Oprah Winfrey ‘wakeup’, etc. What we do need to chase is an ecological sensitivity – maintaining a balance between individual achievement and collective good. Nature is a great teacher in this regard. Alliances are about deep connections and compassion and empathy equally.

5.    There is a simple one-word answer to creating alliances – at least for alliances that matter in the confluence of relationship and friendship; sisterliness and neighbourliness. I did use the word simple, but suggest this to be a most difficult assignment; one that may not be reduced. In its pureness and richness, it is by definition universal i.e. inclusive and non-discriminatory. If it in anyway discriminates by an identity or gender then it is only a theatrical prop i.e. a shadow of the real thing. Love, it is called. Love is that self-reflecting mirror that tests your motives for aligning; your goals; your ambitions; that places a cost on society; a cost to friendships and alliances; sniffs out the nefarious, the lies and the insidious creep associated with political environments; kills politicking in its tracks; is open to all and says come in rich man and poor man alike. Love funnily enough is active and not dormant. “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself; is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails ……” (1 Corinthians 13v4-8). That is it – we can all go home now. And yet, we continue, building tools, machinations and aberrations to arrive at answers. Creating alliances does require the commitment that only love can give – if not love then a commitment to liking. To create alliances then, it is key that you both like and are likeable. But first to like. Even this is a tall order. Far too many people are too busy to like. By extension too busy to be kind. Finding time for people is an act of kindness. Alliances may be loosely held but should never ever be treated as a mere fling. To illustrate the point a little better (as it may seem that I am working too hard on the specificity, for what is a nebulous difference) I will call on a mother and daughter scene from the movie Lady Bird. In the fitting room scene the following conversation goes down between Lady Bird (a girl with a ‘performance streak’) and her mother outside of a fitting room during Lady Bird trying to find a prom dress; suffice to say that ladybird saw everything her mother said as undue criticism e.g. “too tight” (“you should not have had that extra piece of pie last night”) and “perhaps it’s just too pink”. And so the dialogue goes: “I just wish …. I wish that you liked me” Ladybird says sorrowfully, to which her mom responds, “Of course I love you”. Lady Bird responds, “But do you like me?” There is nothing that informs dignity more than charity – at its essence of course. And like, speaks to wanting to associate with someone, as opposed to a derivation of systematic design and posturing. This again in a constantly open expression – not looking to like (or feign liking) or creating an alliance with the person who can only guarantee upward mobility. But looking to bring someone up with you or meeting them where they are at – at least supporting them to the extent to which they can get some mobility forward. Love does not recognise the lies of multivariate personalities in multivariate domains. I have a work persona and therefore align with the norms of work – to drive and ambition and success and getting ahead; I have imagined personalities and alter egos within the Instagram and Facebook alternate realities, and buy into the sensational ‘life is beautiful’ narrative and that ignores the reality of the downtrodden etc. There is a singularity and a continuity of persona that is perceived as authenticity by others. Such authenticity defined as follows i.e. I do what I say; I say what I think; I think what I feel; and understanding how I feel is who I am (ref. Anthony Tjan). We often speak of empathy as if it is a standalone and conscious emotion/ thought/ expression – as if of reason. Empathy and pathos have as their source love. And the expression and subjective truth to love is very much the archetype of the human being.

Life is contained of only two hemispheres’ - and if you don’t live in the love hemisphere then you by deduction can live only in the ‘power’ hemisphere. Any alliance not created in love or mutual affection must by definition observe the rules of the power domain, promoted by self-seeking only. A local charity can very well exist in the power domain e.g. a drug lord donating soccer kit to marginalised kids; a corrupt politician hugging his daughter now and again. It remains only local, diluted and contaminated as opposed to universal and pure and as such only a demonstration from the fortress of power.

I too like Martin Luther King Jr. believe that “unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality”

6.    I don’t particularly like the word Coalition, nor the word alliances – they seem to belong in the haze of stratagem and gamesmanship and one-upmanship and bro-culture/ ‘bromanship’; highly tactical and transactional. Often inclusionary, often exclusionary depending on where you stand. I prefer good old-fashioned friendship or kinship; if that is asking too much of a disinclined, virtual reality world then perhaps simply (the less ‘engaged’) relationship. In years past I am quite sure that words such as brotherhood or neighbourliness would have characterised the lexicon of the day – with the jettisoning of religion and the advent of sectarianism and secularism and modern commerce came the need to describe men and activities in less ‘attached’ terms, paving the way for antipathy and malice as acceptable constructs and with little connection to morality – commercial man and vocational man as separate from the man himself; and certainly, then, less responsible for his own actions. These words (friendship, relationship, brotherliness etc.) immediately come with a very different meaning and conjure up emotion and connection. Remembering that “… You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” (ref. Matthew 22v39). The nuance in this statement is that you do not get to choose your neighbour - you nonetheless shall – which is to say ‘must’ - love your neighbour. GK Chesterton said that we “should be less worried that man is a slave than he is not a king.” In a world driven by success, rent seeking and microwave capitalism it is unlikely that my ethic will prevail. If nothing else I hope that you are adaptive on this front. Creating alliances and coalitions are on the face of it a worthy endeavour. They should be premised on the advancement of the individual as well as the collective. You can ally both for good as well as for bad vicariously – if bad sowing the fabric of deception. The cause and the ends certainly should not ignore the means – and the ends do not always justify the means. And our unbridled ambitions, goal orientations and ‘performance streak’ can get in the way of the ‘rightness’ of things i.e. both doing things right and doing the right things. History is replete with unholy alliances. The danger in alliances and coalitions is the extent to which they can sweep you up in the climate of the moment; the tone and mood; in chorus. The extent to which they can bind your persuasion - If corruption then even corruption; if abuse then abuse. Here is one example from Tolstoy’s War and Peace on one Napoleon:

“….. That led people all over France to start slaughtering and drowning each other. These people killed the king and many others. At the same time there was in France a man of genius – Napoleon. He defeated everybody everywhere – that is, he killed a lot of people – because he was a great genius. And he went off for some reason to kill Africans, and he killed them so well, and was so cunning and clever, that, on coming back to France, he ordered everybody to obey him. And everybody obeyed him. Having become emperor, he again went to kill people in Italy, Austria, and Prussia. And there he killed a lot. In Russia there was the emperor Alexander, who decided to restore order in Europe and therefore made war with Napoleon. But in the year seven, he suddenly made friends with him, then in the year eleven quarreled again, and again they started killing a lot of people. And Napoleon brought six hundred thousand men to Russia and captured Moscow; then he suddenly ran away from Moscow, and then the emperor Alexander … united Europe to take up arms against the disturber of its peace. All Napoleon’s allies suddenly became his enemies; and gathered new forces. The allies defeated Napoleon, entered Paris, made Napoleon abdicate, and exiled him to the island of Elba, not depriving him of the dignity of emperor and showing him every respect, though five years earlier and one year later everybody considered him a bandit and an outlaw. And so began the reign of Louis XVIII, whom until then both the French and the allies had only laughed at …. Then skilful diplomats talked in Vienna, and with these talks made people happy or unhappy. Suddenly the diplomats and monarchs nearly quarreled; they were already prepared to order their troops to kill each other again; but at that moment Napoleon arrived in France with a battalion, and the French who all hated him, submitted to him at once. But the allied monarchs were angered by that and again went to war with the French ….”. (ref. John Lewis Gaddis - On Grand Strategy)

Did you notice the extent to which alliances changed and were premised not in principle or in terms of a morality but in expediency and/ or maintenance of a some power structure (political or monarchical). Another example is the allied forces during the Second World War cutting a deal with the Russian order. In so doing choosing to ignore the human atrocities committed by Stalin and his Politbureau. The means justifying the ends. In the course of a life perpetuated by strife and self-interest you slowly start to define a new pathology. And this is the danger of alliances not formulated in truth – ongoing our behaviour and associations come to overwrite individual pathology leading to a psychopathy. This the condition of narcissists and serial killers, let it be said. A reminder that integrity and character are binary issues – there is no place for degradations or degrees. Trust is complete or zero – you cannot partially trust someone.

You don’t want to align with everyone. Morality must at some point adjudicate. With a focus on fulfilment and goals we become overly focused on the prize. We reach up only to people that can pull us up, whilst ignoring the richness of friendships or the lowly whom we think have little to offer – as if life was not a learning curve in itself. We sell our souls to the highest bidder – sometimes the Devil himself. After your continuing wilderness experience you are presented with an offer: “And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if you fall down and worship me”” (Matthew 4v9). The he (in your instance) will appear in the form of a rich man who will promise you the “kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matthew 4v8) if only you will xxxxx; a boss who will promise to ‘look after you’, in the strength of his might if you will only xxxxx; a colleague who offers you a ‘share’ of the takings if you will just ‘sign here’; ‘making nice’ and ‘politicking’ to get there; bending over backwards so that you don’t stand out as the ‘stuck-in-the-mud’. In the name of allying and creating coalitions many of you would have ‘voted’ and even supported Hitler – things only look ridiculous when seen in the rearview mirror of history. Systems are all powerful and only broken by acts of courage. Harvey Weinstein (the legendary Hollywood producer) should have been found out for his evil all of 20 years ago – many ladies for fear or for reprisal determined to go along with him (at least as it appears on the face of it). Many did not I must acknowledge.

What I am saying is that alliances and coalitions are only worth something where they lead to good. No amount of success is worth your denigration. Avoid being subsumed by systems and the men that have designed them; avoid servitude at all costs.

7.    Coalitions and Alliances should be seen as keystones in the arch of meaningful human connection and should not be an attempt at promotion or extension and self-enrichment only. Promotion and extension will happen matter of course in the confluence of doing the right things. You must believe this. You must believe that you will not be denied. You must believe in the power of your individual ‘light’.

It happens the world over, but South Africa is a Country suffering the fallout and even backlash of ‘unholy’ alliances and coalitions. According to The Peter Principle ‘people are often promoted into incompetence’. Promotion and largesse has become about alliances – people who think just like me and will cow tow to my directives, affiliating and being coopted simultaneously in vain glory. The reward for the individual is great – often temporal - but the cost to society and to communities and to the individual uniquely is first stupendous and then horrendous. A new form of corruption i.e. of incompetence and zero imagination has come to define the milieu - from executives in industry to administrators in government. And we dare call the Governmental verticals Ministries.

So, your reasons for seeking out coalition and alliance do matter – and the reasons should be about growing and learning. Like Abraham Lincoln who steadily rose (arguably) to become only the greatest president that the USA has ever had. Lincoln it is said ‘decided early on that he might as well be liked’ and he is described as ‘wisely, taking his time’ (ref. John Lewis Gaddis). I (personally) make it a point to ally with people that are infinitely smarter than me. Whether in person or by way of literature. People that even and often make me feel rather stupid. I am undeterred for I am not without some sense and perspective and some wisdom. It is only under stress and discomfort that you will grow. Your university experience and then your work experience and then your association experiences, your aggregate life experience, should only be about immersion and embodiment. Following the 3 (Trivium) way model from grammar, to logic, to rhetoric and argument. Your alliances should be about information indeed and staying in the know but eventually a window to that place of discernment and imagination - through rich conversation, sharing, argument and debate and challenge. Your coalitions should be premised on support – not in a needy fashion but rather in an environment of reciprocity. Your need to ally, should be made on the basis of a need to give. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20v35) and “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches” (Galatians 6v6). Stop seeing yourself as only the beneficiary of the good works and goodwill of others – start to rise as the benefactor, where you are at right now and not to some deferred future date once privilege is attained. The rich get too much credit for being philanthropists – that they have to ‘give back’ perhaps means that they took too much in the first instance – inequalities have by this time become entrenched over decades. Start to see yourself as a giant and not a minnow. As a participant and a contributor equally. But then you do receive. We’ve got to be aware of symmetries – if we don’t then life (ecology) goes out of balance. Pascal makes so much sense: “Nature has set us so well in the centre, that if we change one side of the balance, we change the other also. This makes me believe that the springs in our brain are so adjusted that he who touches one touches also its contrary.” The ‘touches’ and fallouts reflect in the haves and the have not’s; privilege and depravity; and the inequities of rich and poor and the ensuing wealth gap; strong and weak; male and female. Your aim is not to get ahead as soon as is possible – if you make this your ultimate ambition then you will not chase down meaningful relationships. Your aim is to realise love and to become wise.

8.    Success – 'don’t believe the lie that you will be fulfilled only to the extent to which you are successful in your job' (ref. Jordan B. Peterson - 'paraphrased'). This is my only message that is peculiar to women – more so than to men. If you are hardwired for success then that is all that will matter and that is all that you will chase down. You will become disingenuous and only apply yourselves in domains wherein you will get a reward. People will only become stepping stones in your pursuit of self-determination, leaving a trail of emotional deficit and injury and distrust along the way. Malcolm Muggeridge comes to mind once again: “So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilisations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, laboured with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.” The danger foremost and most severely is to one other than to self.

Alliances, under the the hammer of success and self-interest, will be one-sided and largely political in nature – genuine sometimes but mostly deceptive, evaluated only on the basis of the ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ principle. As a human first up and more so as a lady, you will reach the point where you start to question just about everything. And your everything is a lot more than the average man – in the average. As you get older in years you will find that what you will really start to decry are the alliances and associations right under your nose – with partners and parents and children; within the domain of friendships. So, before you start chasing what is out there, ‘be a friend’ first in all of what being a friend means – you will gain extension as more people will want to associate with you. The introductions and the invites to be seated at the table of connection, alliance and network will come. With this a sense of relevance. This is real social cache or currency and not that of the social media machine – the imagined/ superfluous hype. When you are the person that people are looking to connect with on the basis of your being. This is real influence; this is credibility; this is respect.

In the Meryl Streep: Anne Hathaway closing scene in the Devil wears Prada I am reminded about our insidious and innocuous preoccupation with success. Meryl Streep has just overlooked her long time ‘second in charge’ (let’s call him an alliance) in favour of someone else for a big promotion - a total left field move. This to guarantee her continuity as the high-powered Head of the most influential magazine in fashion. Minutes after this shocking public reveal the following conversation takes place: “I see a great deal of myself in you” says Meryl Streep. “I don’t think I’m like that”, retorts a still shocked Anne Hathaway. “I could never do what you just did to Nigel Miranda; I could never do something like that” she continues. “You already did” is Meryl’s response, “To Emily.” “No, no that was different I didn’t have a choice” is Anne’s appeal. “Oh no, you chose; you chose to get ahead; if you want this life, those choices are necessary” Meryl reminds her of the clandestine nature and the price attached to drive and ambition. She affirms the success imperative and achievement-at-all-costs to be natural in the course of business. “But what if this isn’t what I want; I mean what if I don’t want to live the way you live” Anne makes the breakthrough response (in a job wherein she was at her boss’s beck and call) as the all-consuming ‘beast’ that she has become comes into focus from the cloud of self-delusion. And arrogance responds the only way that arrogance knows to respond – with pomp and arrogance and so doing perpetuating the success narrative lie: “Oh don’t be ridiculous Andrea, everybody wants this; everybody wants to be us” as she slips on her designer shades, off of a leathered hand and the door of her limousine opens to the celebrity and clamour of the gathered paparazzi. Turning around, Mrs. editor-in-chief realises that Anne is not by her side. Anne has walked away from this version of success - realising that she has turned her back on everything and for what? For shoes and for belts, and, and, and. Anne did not realise the extent to which her stridency was in actual fact an onslaught on others. The extent to which her ambition marginalised others – anti team; anti coalition. Remember, “Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish that they are after”, said Henry David Thoreau. Don’t be consumed by the machine. The system is deft and beguiling – polished beyond our awareness.

You must not work too hard at alliances. Alliances will be created in an oblique, ‘unobvious’ fashion in the confluence of discourse and your simply being a good member of society – including at work. This is a tough one – because this is the age of branding, image and the ad-man. Look to foster relationships and to bond rather - in sincerity and honesty. Such bonds will sustain you in the long run – giving you leverage over the long game. You will find that life is longer than you think – a marathon and not a sprint. One wherein you need allies. Allies that eventually make you look good; even to the extent that you make achievement seem simple, where everyone else around you is in a collective bind, scampering to and fro in nervous angst.

9.    Knowing yourself cannot be underestimated in the act of coalition and alliance. Even in terms of an industry alliance. Personally, I need environments that are people rich. Touching and connecting with people is oxygen of sorts. It is important that you early on determine what it is you don’t like. Learning what it is that you don’t like should help you define what it is that you do like in the positive. I call it learning in the alternate. Not liking the colour ‘red’ should help you to get to some definition of what colour you do in fact like. Failing which you become a cynic and heterodox devoid of validation and reason. Many years ago, I thought that I wanted to become a Chartered Accountant but soon became disillusioned with the industry. I became disillusioned with not substantively creating ‘anything’/ not creating any value. I found the act of translating somebody else’s endeavour into a set of financial statements as somewhat crass. That we were (further) allowed to charge, what we charged, for simple validation and representation made little sense to me. That we got respect (as a fraternity) for this imagined and contrived professional execution still bothers me. That said I wanted to take ownership for building something. A carpenter builds a chair and you can stand back and objectively critique it; and so, a builder builds and a writer writes. I wanted to add real value to the world. I wanted to build something meaningful and relevant. I wanted to make the beans as opposed to simply counting them. PS: no offence to those of a different persuasion.

We should not be ambivalent when faced with discomforts – ‘ride it’ and ‘bite the bullet’ they say; ‘suck it up’ they say. We should not simply look for workarounds and the path of least resistance in those ‘fork-in-the-road’ moments - this in terms of matters of objective truth. Being a hero is not about your station but about courage. Courage to swim against the tide. “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the tide”, said the genius that was Malcolm Muggeridge.

In broad terms choosing a career and an industry is choosing a fraternity. If you fit in you will naturally be good at what you do, or at least give yourself the best shot at it; this in turn gives you a shot at becoming a good ally – a strong ally as opposed to a ‘read in the wind’. If you don’t you may become a pariah – an outcast. Being an ally, a friend, a confidant comes with an accountability and a responsibility. Trying to leap-frog the 'bases' to a home run is against the rules of collegiality – of cooperation and interaction and involvement. You have got to do the hard yards that are required of a ‘send-me (thuma mina)' (ref. President Cyril Ramaphosa) disposition. All key attributes of alliance.

You’ve got to have an awareness of self to speak into your life, in the situation. The truth of not knowing who you are is not so much that you will believe nothing but that you will believe anything.

Connecting with self and starting to create some identity is not about self-aggrandisement nor is self-centred, but is about centering. Sometimes orbiting but sometimes, like the sun, the centre of the galaxy. An identity is about understanding who you have become. Elements of your identity should be adaptive whilst other elements as relate to character and virtue should be immutable. I for example see myself as a missionary as opposed to a mercenary – more interested in creating meaning than making money. PS: I state this purely as a matter of fact and find no particular pride in my position. Clarity in terms of who you are will help to regulate for the people around you as you start to live your own character as opposed to being a flip flopper. Extending on my example, those who do have a preoccupation with making money, will more than likely not look to me in terms of a coalition. That’s cool.

Being clear in terms of who you are will give you the boldness to chase your dreams and to reach out to the right collaborative relationships in an environment of confidence in full awareness of your self-worth and ability to offer something of value and to reciprocate – such as to help you realise your ends. Not everyone will want to associate with you but they may at least admire you.

10. Do you believe in luck? Well I do. Well, not so much luck but a lucky attitude. A lucky attitude is defined as follows: a. Humility b. Intellectual Curiosity c. Positivity. This is a concept that I learned from Anthony Tjan and that I buy into totally. I guess what I am saying here is that it is your disposition and attitude that will attract people too you – a natural consequence of who you are.

On the intellectual curiosity front you should look to be the fountain from which others can draw. Tap into conversations; look to spread your diversity net as wide as possible; tap into the younger and the older; read the classics and not just social media news that is bereft of insight; chase beyond information to knowledge to insight to a place of discernment and imagination; immerse yourself in learning experiences and not simply accreditation and credentials; become and autodidact and a polymath; read more fiction and read less fiction; read wide and read deep – we don’t learn in a straight line but through synthesis and assimilation; seek to be a generalist - specialists are often dangerous in that they do their jobs too well; buy that book; watch documentaries; write more – this is the best way to learn as the forum to work through your thoughts; listen to more podcasts that challenge than to radio which merely seeks to click bait you with noise and sensationalism; remain focused on the mission – that North Star. Remember there is no new news per Malcolm Muggeridge: “All new news is old news happening to new people.” Admit that you know nothing (in the scheme of things); as much as you know there is still yet more to know; keep the 'anti-library' (ref. Nassim Nicholas Taleb) in focus i.e. how much is still to read as opposed to how much you have already read. You will find that you have just about gotten your running shoes on, let alone exited the starting blocks; “stay hungry and stay foolish” said Steve Jobs; remain an amateur and never graduate; never see things as complete; embrace ideology and philosophy above the practical; but be a ‘Roman’ (action oriented and of a 'build' mindset) as much as you are a ‘Greek’ (of a theoretical persuasion); be less certain – less assured but still confident; a light source and not a caster of shadows; hold the person above the programme. Tap into a coach and a mentor – someone you respect and look up to and that can add to you as opposed to merely affirming and endorsing you; someone who can call you on your errant ways and attitudes. Someone who will ‘stretch’ you up and down, this way and that. Then be (you that is) a coach and a mentee to someone else.

On the humility side don’t limit your opportunities by negativity; do not try and monopolise attention; don’t play up to your superficiality protein that demands – more friends; more followers; more likes; more connections. In terms of Dunbar’s Number humans can manage no more than 150 connections – to the extent that they are true and real connections that is. Chase quality and not quantity. Positivity versus any other alternate can best be explained by this story: “A man went out to fish. Every time he caught a big fish he threw it back into the water; every little fish he caught went into his bag. Another big one? Back into the water. A tiny little one? Into his bag. Finally, a man who had been watching him and was very perplexed by his unorthodox manner of fishing asked, “Can you explain to me why you are throwing the big ones away?”. The fisherman did not hesitate: “Because I only have an eight-inch frying pan and anything bigger than eight inches does not fit my pan!” (ref. Ravi Zacharias)

Such limitations can emanate from that place of pride as well as ego; they can emanate from narrow association i.e. only with a certain class and within certain circles or within a contained identity; they can associate from narrow interests.

Have a big net so that you can cast wide and have a big pan such that you can cook up a feast.

“Be interesting but more importantly interested” (ref. William C. Taylor)

11. Be a friend believing that the seeds you sow will return unto you and “Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches” (Galatians 5v6)

• Make time – ‘carve out the time’
• Communicate and converse – challenging in a safe ‘zone’ and not as a brute
• Pick up the phone
• Come through on your commitments – be reliable and credible
• Take up the challenge for the collective
• Take responsibility for the relationship
• Listen more
• Share more
• And when you compete do so fairly, not simply because you have gotten the inside track
• Perhaps give up the interest track as your purpose comes into view
• Be a nice person – someone that people want to connect with
• Ensure that your relationship is one of equals – irrespective of who owns the status, has the biggest bank account, or is ‘smarter’
• Enable someone else – “your role is to sometimes be the collaborative witness” and not to take the lead
• Endorse a friend in sincerity and honesty.
• Be generous
• Embrace diversity of culture and intellect
• Enhance the whole
• Make an intro
• Contribute more
• Get involved and go to that meeting/ association etc.