Are Duty and Skepticism Contrary Constructs?

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently there was an article that appeared dealing with the problem of duty and skepticism.  One commenter stated:

Duty and skepticism are contrary constructs. Duty eschews choice in favor of obedience. Skepticism may be present, but questioning is not allowed in spite of misgivings. Skepticism without questioning and the freedom to follow logic is of no value. Duty is a commandment; skepticism is a suggestion. A free people embraces skepticism and eschews duty. A free people chooses, a duty-bound people obeys.

I thought that was a truly interesting statement, because both duty and skepticism are admirable qualities, yet presented as being in opposition to each other, and to a large extent that's true, on the surface.  I saw this as a issue of  oversimplification, and of definition!  My view was, in spite of the seemingly contradictory juxtaposition they represent, they can harmonize.  

 

One of my personal heroes was Col. John Boyd, and he once said (and there have been variations of this) "Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty."

He believed in duty so strongly he challenged the generals unendingly. His duty wasn't to chair bound self serving generals, it was to the nation.    So, let me tell you about Col. John Boyd!  He believed it was his duty to be skeptical as being true to the oath he took,  but it was based on a foundation of facts.  Facts the generals attempted to thwart with court martials.   They failed, but he never wore stars on his shoulders.  

The stars fell on those who where part of what was called Boyd's Acolytes.  Those officers who were part of his circle, and believed in his views, only I must believe they were more political in expressing them.  But it always takes one person who's willing to be the rock in the current, to stand and say, "you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why", and then willingly suffer the slings and arrows of adversity, and ultimately be the one sacrificed in order for others to carry the torch. 

The motto of science is supposedly "de omnibus dubitandum" (everything is to be questioned), but since they've abandoned it in favor of "grant money is my holy grail!"  I've claimed it as my own personal motto.  A philosophy of skepticism, and duty, which in combination is at the heart of truth and justice.

Which Way Will You Go? Let me tell you about Col. John Boyd!

By Rich Kozlovich

Through the course of my life I discovered that being a good leader means standing up and saying:

 Hold it! This is all wrong and we’re going to change!

Never confuse real leaders with those with titles or rank.  Whether it is in academia, the military, government, or in business, being a real leader means being the rock in the current, a character quality that had to have been there for most of their life.   Let’s face it, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart, and for the most part is a personal trait, which means this quality was part and parcel of who and what they are, making it easy to be seen for what they are, often disliked, often ridiculed, and often rejected.  However it can be learned and practiced, if one has vision and courage.

As for the go along to get along guys who are perceived as 'good leaders':  They may in reality only be ‘good managers’ who were chosen to merely organize the direction everyone decided to go! They’re easy to deal with, easy to get along with, and would never in a million years stir up the manure.

Take for example two arenas where this is so obvious I shouldn’t have to explain it, but most don’t get it because people believe they represent the highest standards for leadership. Military career officers and PhD’s, both of which got to the top by going along to get along.  So, let me tell you about Col. John Boyd. (Editor's Note: What appears below is from a site that no longer exists. RK.)

"Forty-Second" Boyd, the man remembered for defeating every opponent in aerial combat at the Air Force's premier dog-fighting academy in two-thirds of a minute, helped found the Fort Myer get-togethers at the end of his Air Force career”…..however this doesn’t demonstrate the “long and often painful saga of a man who, as a full colonel, went toe to toe, time after time, with a phalanx of two-and three-star generals for the good of the country, winning most of his battles and surviving long enough to help provide secretary of defense Richard Cheney the ideas needed for swift and decisive victory in the Persian Gulf War. 

("Keep it simple — so that the generals will understand it,") Boyd frequently told his small band of fellow guerrillas, known collectively as "The Acolytes." Boyd was…..a Pentagon "Whiz Kid"— one of the rare few who were "defined by the courts-martial and investigations they faced." He was also "the most important unknown man of his time and the most remarkable unsung hero in American military history."….. Loud and profane, Boyd's intellectual achievements were matched by his relentless guerrilla warfare against hidebound "careerists" then running the Air Force…… The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference."

He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

The people of the world are at a cross roads. One path leads to Marxism and tyranny, and the other path leads to capitalism and freedom.  Which way will you go?
 

In Life There's Often A Role Call

By Rich Kozlovich

One of my personal heroes is Col. John Boyd:

Known as "Forty-Second" Boyd......defeating every opponent in aerial combat at the Air Force's premier dog-fighting academy in two-thirds of a minute.........however this doesn’t demonstrate the “long and often painful saga of a man who, as a full colonel, went toe to toe, time after time, with a phalanx of two-and three-star generals for the good of the country, winning most of his battles and surviving long enough to help provide secretary of defense Richard Cheney the ideas needed for swift and decisive victory in the Persian Gulf War....... "defined by the courts-martial and investigations".......... Boyd's intellectual achievements were matched by his relentless guerrilla warfare against hidebound "careerists" then running the Air Force……

We'll come back to Col. Boyd as this article is predicated on his vision of real leadership, courage, and the commitment to doing what's right. Let's start with some of the things I've observed over the course of my life.  

• Patterns of life keep repeating over and over again.
• People will always be people.
• People really aren't as complicated as they think they are.
• You have to see the patterns but if we never read a history book we don't even know there are patterns. . 
• People will act in their own best interests, unless they don't because they're clueless, and then act in the best interests of those who wish to take advantage of them.
  

I think the speech Abraham Lincoln gave in 1838, in what's known as the Lyceum Address, which was delivered to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, is an example of historical patterns repeating.  Not exactly, but in principle.

This address was intended to make Americans aware the real threat to Americanism isn't from without, but from within.  In modern times, that's more true than ever, only the threat from without is now very real also, and it's insidious, it's mendacious, and that threat uses our own values against us with more than enough American fools supporting the effort to destroy America.  Lincoln says:

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.  

While in Lincoln's era the bands of violent rabble involved slavery issues, that doesn't change the value of his warning about radicals and the violence they perpetrate to gain their goals. He goes on 

..........whenever the vicious portion of [our] population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing-presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and with impunity, depend upon it, this government cannot last. 

He notes these bands become alienated from society by the actions, but never in his life did Lincoln think violent thugs such as these, like Antifa, BLM, and the OWS crowd would be supported by government, funded by government, promoted by government and protected by government, and never could he have dreamt the government would be working in harmony with them to destroy the government.  But none the less, the warning as to what this does to a society is valid. 

Whether it's reparations, or any of the other outrageous issues they're promoting, there will be no harmony, and there will be no end to the voracious demands they'll make until America no longer exists. With the left, there can be no peace, it's war, and it's a war they intend to win because of their corrupt and contentious desire for uncontrolled power.  Power so overwhelming their evil can no longer be contested.  Then there will be no contentions, because they will do what all leftists do.  Imprison or execute any who dare to call what they do criminal. 

These violent destructive leftists are following a secular, neo-pagan religion that tells them they are the best and the brightest, they don't have to follow the laws of the land and in fact, it's their duty to ignore and destroy those laws, along with the culture that created them.  Lincoln goes on to explain that when such ones spring up amongst us it's imperative for:

...........the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate [their] designs.........[and to] cultivate a "political religion" that emphasizes "reverence for the laws" and puts reliance on "reason—cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason."

If  American society cannot recognize that "Truth, Justice and the American Way", is now and has been for all our warts and scars, the finest example of what man is capable of accomplishing, then all is lost.   

We're at that proverbial fork in the road.  Col. John Boyd gave a speech to the graduating class  saying:

One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go.......... If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." 

Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country........ If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference.

"He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

We're now in that fork in the road, and we have two options. 

Option One:  America never offered perfection. America offers the most acceptable imperfection, and history shows that imperfect state delivered more people out of poverty, misery, and suffering than any system in world history. Believing humanity has God given rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to defend their families and the nation, none of which can be taken away by the government as these rights were not bestowed on America by the government, but was an endowment from God. 

Option Two: The left is a secular neo-pagan religion that demands perfection, and claims to be able to deliver perfection, but history shows that's a blatant falsehood.  They wish to fully destroy freedom of speech, Christianity, the Constitution, and a citizenry that's armed and prepared to defend their freedoms, because the state is God.  Since the French Revolution 230 years ago the left has never done anything except deliver misery, squalor, disease, tyranny, and early death.  Mass imperfection to the nth degree.

Whether it is in the government, military, academia or business this is something we need to learn, repeat, retain and practice:

"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?" - Col. John Boyd

Which way will you go?  As for me, I like the "Most Acceptable Imperfection" option. 

 

Commentary: The American Right Can Learn from Orbán’s Big Win

April 6, 2022 by Jeremy Carl

Viktor Orbán has crushed the Left, again.

The Hungarian leader won his fourth consecutive term in office on Sunday, defying pollsters who had predicted a competitive race and delivering a crushing blow to the “united” Hungarian opposition, a dog’s breakfast coalition of six parties ranging from the Greens to a former far-right party with neo-Nazi associations, which he defeated by a 53-35 percent margin. In total, right-wing parties captured approximately 60 percent of the vote compared to about 36 percent for left-wing parties.............

While much of the GOP establishment (and establishment think tanks) talk airily of our high principles, the Left has run roughshod over us, subjecting traditionalist Americans to indignities that could never even have been imagined by our forefathers. If we are being brutally honest, we could not have imagined these indignities ourselves just 10 or 20 years ago.............

Even more infuriating for the Left, all of their carefully rehearsed excuses for their defeat—legal (and not particularly effective) gerrymandering, discarded ballots, a biased media environment—were swept aside by the size of the Fidesz mandate. Indeed, the party even expanded on the two-thirds parliamentary majority it achieved in the 2018 elections. The rout was so substantial that opposition leader Péter Márki-Zay lost by a double-digit percentage among his own constituency.

As a friend (one of America’s most noted conservative intellectuals) wrote to me in the wake of Orbán’s win,  “They [the global Left] are apparently terrified that if just one dissenter is allowed to stand, their whole edifice . . . will come tumbling down.”

In sum, Orbán won overwhelmingly with a campaign and record that was conservative, nationalist, anti-immigration, pro-traditional family, and firmly against military intervention in Ukraine. There is a lesson there for the GOP, should they be inclined to learn it............Substitute “USA” for “Hungary” and you have a powerful vision to animate the American Right in the future............To Read More..

 My Take - "Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty." To be or to do? Which way will you go? " .  Col. John Boyd

Aggrieved swimmers learn the hard way to speak out against transgender tyranny

February 10, 2022 By Stephanie Hitt

According to Aristotle, courage is the "first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others."  Courage is the one virtue that ensures all other virtues, which explains why "Do Not Be Afraid" defined the papacy of John Paul the Great.  This wisdom is being borne out today by everyday people — Canadian truckers, parents at school board meetings, inquisitive celebrities, and Turkish basketball players.

And female swimmers at the University of Pennsylvania.  Last week, sixteen team members finally expressed their concerns to the NCAA and the Ivy League over having a male team member, whose biological advantages as a male are making competition unfair toward females.  The most chilling part of the letter was the statement (emphasis added):...............

I witnessed the same situation at my kids' high school.  As one of the organizers of the parent group fighting the influx of Critical Race Theory and "diversity, equity, and inclusion" ideologies, I was aware of every parent complaint.  Many stemmed from the girls' field hockey team, whose coach forced the girls to take implicit bias tests, purchase Black Lives Matter t-shirts, and support LGBT causes, and promoted it on the team's social media.  Many girls and parents were uncomfortable doing this but went along because they were afraid of being cut from the team, not given playing time, or not being supported in college recruiting efforts.  And no one wanted to complain directly to the coach or the athletic director.

So our group arranged to have a school official complain to the athletic director, who promptly censured the coach.  And surprise: All those girls (whose parents didn't want to rock the boat) "somehow" got cut from the team.  The sad part of this story is that those parents blamed us for their daughters' demise and believed that if we had just kept our mouths shut, the girls would still miserably be on the team.

Here is the lesson: the girls never identified themselves, yet somehow, the coach already knew who was on board with her agenda and who wasn't.  Had they voiced their complaints and gone on the record, they would have been protected from retaliation.  And they would have stood for something.  But now they aren't on a team, and they sold their souls, or at least their voices, in the process. 

This story is all too common.  And now it is playing out on a public stage. .............To Read More.....

 

The World as I See it: Shack, A-No.-1 and Cigaret

"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?" - Col. John Boyd

By Rich Kozlovich

I know the title is a bit cryptic, unless of course you've seen the movie Emperor of the North Pole with Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, and Keith Carradine.

Here's the outline of the characters: 

• "Shack (Ernest Borgnine) is a merciless, inhumane, and sadistic bully, a dedicated Company Man/Railroad conductor on the Oregon, Pacific and Eastern Railroad, during the Great Depression". He happily kills (murders) anyone who attempts to hop a ride on his train. 
  
• A-No.-1 (Lee Marvin) is a hobo hero.  He's determined to ride Shack's train all the way to Portland, Oregon, and no one's going to kick him off.  
• Cigaret, (Keith Carradine) is a scheming back stabbing braggart who happily betrays him, and yet desperately wants to be somebody within the hobo ranks and tags along with A-No-1, attempting to take credit for A-No.-1's feats, and just about gets both of them killed.  

The movie was startlingly violent for that time, 1973. It ended with what I thought was a great scene.  After beating Shack half to death and kicking him off his own train in the middle of nowhere, he kicks Cigaret off the train for trying to take some credit for his victory shouting to him:

Hey kid you got no class. Hit the bums, kid. Run like the devil. Get a tin can and take up mooching. Knock on back doors for a nickel. Tell them your story. Make 'em weep. You could have been a meat-eater, kid.   But you didn't listen to me when I laid it down. Stay off the tracks. Forget it. Its a bum's world for a bum. 

 

You'll never be Emperor of the North Pole, kid. You had the juice, kid, but not the heart and they go together. You're all gas and no feel, and nobody can teach you that, not even A-No.1. So stay off the train, she'll throw you under for sure.

 

 Remember me for that. So long, kid.

And the movie, which I viewed as a lesson in life, was a box office failure.  The director said he'll never understand why saying: 

"I thought the symbols were so clear. It never occurred to me that the audience would miss the relationship – that Borgnine was the Establishment, that Marvin was the anti-Establishment individualistic character, and that Keith Carradine was the opportunistic youth who would sell out for whatever was most convenient............ Nobody cared."

Does anyone beside me see the parallels for this time?  The leaders today are either Shacks; vicious, self serving, and traitorous, or the Cigarets; invertebrates who will follow the latest philosophical flavor of the day, corruption not withstanding, if it will benefit them.  Both of whom are immune to the devastation they leave in their wake.  

That leaves us with darn few A-No.-1 characters in the mix.  Leaders who are prepared to draw a real line in the sand, and like the heroes of the Battle of the Bulge, taking  their stand, irrespective of the consequences, manning the walls telling the world; no one will harm you on my watch!

Paraphrasing A-No.-1 regarding the nation's leaders in the political, scientific, medical, media, academic, industry arenas:

You could have been meat eaters, but you didn't listen, wouldn't listen and didn't care. You'll never be real leaders! You had the juice, but not the heart and they go together. You're all gas and no feel, and nobody can teach you that. Steers got horns, and you got none.

Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart, and so the question remains. Does anyone care?  

The John Boyd Principle: 

At some point in our lives we come to a fork in the road and must make a decision. If you take one path you will be popular and you will be rewarded. If you take the other path you will be criticized, ridiculed and scorned. However, you won’t have to turn your back on your friends or your principles. If you are more concerned with accomplishing that which is right and best, the satisfaction for having stood against the conventional wisdom on right principles will be your reward, and you may actually accomplish something worthwhile.

To be or to do, which way will you go? The world is now aware that what appears as leadership within the nation is not real leadership at all; only self serving hucksters and con artists displaying an astounding lack of character. The only real leaders emerging to defend the Constitution and fight for justice and the rule of law are being attacked and smeared.  Leaders who are prepared to lose everything for that which is right, while being painted as unreasonable. My answer to that is this:   I would like for someone to show me any insurmountable obstacle that was overcome by being reasonable!

Being unreasonable in pursuit of a worthwhile goal requires definition, clear vision and understanding.  It takes courage, it takes fortitude, it requires the ability to stand outside the comfort and support of the group.  It means being a rock against the current. 

The link above in part deals with the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case saying:

 I would be willing to bet the children Sandusky abused would have loved to have seen someone who was "unreasonable" in the university's ranks of ‘leadership’! Unfortunately there was no one!  Including a much beloved football coach who should've been in the forefront defending these kids.

To be or to do.  Which way will you go?

Military Strategist Explains Why Donald Trump Leads—And How He Will Fail

By Dan McLaughlin   December 16, 2015

No matter how much you dislike Donald Trump and his effect on the Republican presidential primary race—and there are many, many good reasons to do so—you have to spare a little grudging admiration for the sheer madcap genius of Trump’s ability to disrupt, unsettle, and exploit the primary system.   We can better understand what Trump has done successfully, as well as his ultimate limitations as a candidate and why he would be such a terrible president, using the ideas of military strategic theorist John Boyd. Trump has been, thus far, the true Boyd candidate in this race, yet he is already exhibiting symptoms of precisely the flaws that Boyd saw as fatal in combatants.

Observe, Orient, Decide, Act
 

Boyd, an Air Force fighter pilot, Vietnam and Korea veteran, and fighter design engineer, is best known for the “OODA Loop” or “decision cycle,” a concept he developed as part of a broader study of “patterns of conflict” in the 1970s and 1980s later widely adopted in the military, especially the U.S. Marine Corps. OODA stands for Observe-Orient-Decide-Act, and refers to the process by which soldiers in combat—or humans engaged in any form of conflict—absorb information, make decisions, and act on them. Boyd illustrated this with a graph:
 

 

To Read More....Much More.....

Military Strategist Explains Why Donald Trump Leads—And How He Will Fail

Air Force fighter pilot John Boyd's theory about confounding opponents with a constantly shifting battlefield applies to Donald Trump and all GOP aspirants

By Dan McLaughlin   December 16, 2015

No matter how much you dislike Donald Trump and his effect on the Republican presidential primary race—and there are many, many good reasons to do so—you have to spare a little grudging admiration for the sheer madcap genius of Trump’s ability to disrupt, unsettle, and exploit the primary system.

We can better understand what Trump has done successfully, as well as his ultimate limitations as a candidate and why he would be such a terrible president, using the ideas of military strategic theorist John Boyd. Trump has been, thus far, the true Boyd candidate in this race, yet he is already exhibiting symptoms of precisely the flaws that Boyd saw as fatal in combatants. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act......To Read More...

Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty.

By Rich Kozlovich

James Arlandson posted an article today titled, "Did Paul Ryan say a shutdown is on the table?"  In the article he goes one to explain how bad a plan this is, stating:

 

"Reportedly, Ryan drops Boehner's pledge not to shut down the government. Flexing his legislative muscle: "This is the legislative branch, and the power of the purse rests within the legislative branch. And we fully expect that we are going to exercise that power," Ryan said when pressed over whether he planned to attach so-called "policy riders" to a must-pass spending bill that Congress needs to approve before December 11. Uh-oh. If those words can rightly be interpreted as a shutdown, then it's a bad strategy.  I wish conservatives could understand these things about the American electorate today:.....it's a political loser for the GOP".

I wish those who profess to be "conservatives" understood this has gone on for 80 years because "conservatives" didn't bite the bullet years ago. At some point someone has to stand up to the negative press and tell the truth and then stand firm. Leadership isn't about being popular - it's about leading - and the willingness to be un-liked for long periods of time for standing up for one's principles is essential for real leaders.   Stop worrying about who's blamed - time and history is the left's greatest enemy - but it takes guts to tell that story - and to keep telling that story.

 

As for the "conservatives" in Congress need to be loved in order to be re-elected over and over again while failing their oath of office, and the people whose interests they're supposed to be representing, being liked isn't your job!  If playing it safe is the strategy- I have to ask -what exactly do these people think their job is?  If one has to lose an election let it be for standing up to those things that are right and true.  To quote Col. John Boyd:

 

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go."..... "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments."...... 

 

"Or you can go that way and you can do something— something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference." He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Boyd’s dictum  "Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty." To be or to do? Which way will you go? "

To Be or To Do: Which Way Will You Go?

By Rich Kozlovich 

This morning I watched the news on NBC….my wife likes them….reporting on the trial of Jerry Sandusky and his attorney's claim that they are going to appeal. Then the report made it known that the authorities weren’t done with this mess, and that others may be charged as more evidence of what occurred comes out. There is the head of the athletic department and a vice president at the university that have been charged or may be charged with lying under oath or covering up the child abuse perpetrated by Sandusky.

I know this may seem like a strange question, but does anyone see a glimmer of enlightenment over all of this?

The glimmer of enlightenment is this; there is a difference between managers and leaders. A good leader can hire a good manager when the leader is in charge. A person with good management skills but no leadership skills can’t hire a good leader since they're in charge.  What’s the difference?

Through the course of my life I discovered that being a good leader means standing up and saying:

 Hold it! This is all wrong and we’re going to change!

Never confuse real leaders with those with titles or rank.  Whether it is in academia, the military, government or in business a real leaders means being the rock in the current, a quality that had to have been there for most of their life. 

Let’s face it, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart, and for the most part is a personal trait, which means this quality was part and parcel of who and what they are, making it easy to be seen for what they are, often disliked, ridiculed and rejected.  However it can be learned and practiced, if one has vision and courage.

As for the go along to get along guys who are perceived as 'good leaders':  They may in reality only be ‘good managers’ who were chosen to merely organize the direction everyone decided to go! They’re easy to deal with, easy to get along with and would never in a million years stir up the manure.

Take for example two arenas where this is so obvious I shouldn’t have to explain it, but most don’t get it because people believe they represent the highest standards for leadership. Military career officers and PhD’s!  Let me tell you about Col. John Boyd. (What appears below is from a site that no longer exists.)

"Forty-Second" Boyd, the man remembered for defeating every opponent in aerial combat at the Air Force's premier dog-fighting academy in two-thirds of a minute, helped found the Fort Myer get-togethers at the end of his Air Force career”…..however this doesn’t demonstrate the “long and often painful saga of a man who, as a full colonel, went toe to toe, time after time, with a phalanx of two-and three-star generals for the good of the country, winning most of his battles and surviving long enough to help provide secretary of defense Richard Cheney the ideas needed for swift and decisive victory in the Persian Gulf War. 

("Keep it simple — so that the generals will understand it,") Boyd frequently told his small band of fellow guerrillas, known collectively as "The Acolytes." Boyd was…..a Pentagon "Whiz Kid"— one of the rare few who were "defined by the courts-martial and investigations they faced." He was also "the most important unknown man of his time and the most remarkable unsung hero in American military history."….. Loud and profane, Boyd's intellectual achievements were matched by his relentless guerrilla warfare against hidebound "careerists" then running the Air Force…… The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference."

He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

The only reason he ever was promoted to Colonel was because Reagan became president, but he would never be allowed to wear stars. This pattern plays out in the universities also. Show me a graduate student who, while attempting to get his PhD.,  told the PhD.s evaluating him that their ideas were all wet…. and worse yet …..proved it, and I will show you someone who is stuck with a Masters degree.

They learn early on that to get along you must go along.

When that happens it becomes a way of life and as they rise in the ranks they will only tolerate those that are just like them. To do otherwise would be a personal admission of failure. Eventually the ranks of “leadership” are filled with those who don’t have the courage to stand up against all odds for what's right.

Within the scientific community it has been made abundantly clear that the holy grail of science isn’t ‘truth’; its government grant money. The fraud perpetrated on the world by ‘scientists’ regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming has been exposed and now the world is aware this has been going on for decades.

The world is now aware that what appears as leadership within the scientific community is no real leadership at all; only hucksters, con artists and cowards. The only leadership in science is from those that are attacked and smeared as ‘skeptics’, even to the point of being called ‘Flat Earthers’ and compared to those who perpetrated the holocaust during WWII. Those who are real leaders, those who have the courage to stand against the tide, those who are prepared to lose everything for that which is right are always called….. unreasonable. My answer to that?  I would like for someone to show me any insurmountable obstacle that was overcome by being reasonable!

Being unreasonable in pursuit of a goal takes a clear vision and understanding, it takes courage, it takes fortitude, it requires the ability to stand outside the comfort and support of the group. But I would be willing to bet the children Sandusky abused would have loved to have seen someone who was "unreasonable" in the universities ranks of ‘leadership’! Unfortunately there was no one!  Including a much beloved football coach who should have been in the forefront defending these kids.

I wonder how many of this cast of characters now regret their cowardice?   Whether it is in the government, military, academia or business this is something we need to learn, repeat, retain and practice:

"To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?" - Col. John Boyd