Anyone who subscribed to the philosophy that ‘September Eleven changed the world’ is lacking a large measure of understanding about world affairs. Indeed, everything is different, but very little has changed.

Terrorism has nothing to do with where they place the next bomb. Let’s not bamboozle ourselves by the seemingly irrational actions of individual terrorists. Instead, we need to identify the real motives behind terrorism. We must marshal our resources and focus on how terrorism differs from crime, and how terrorists differ from criminals.

Criminals set out to break our laws, even though they want the rest of us to retain and obey the laws. It is in their interest for the majority to uphold the laws, so that an advantage can be gained when they alone break them. For example, if a law prohibits an average family from possessing a pistol, then armed robbers can barge into someone’s home, confident that they have the upper-hand. Another example involves Bus Lanes. Criminals want drivers to stay away from Bus Lanes so that they can have a clear run, in or out of the city — driving stolen vehicles while using fake ID.

Terrorists set out to change our laws through undemocratic means. They have no regard for our laws, and no respect for our culture. Of all the terrorists, the ones whom we really need to worry about are the sophisticated strategists who, unlike psychotic serial killers, take no personal pleasure in performing acts of violence. They are cold-blooded, heartless, and ruthless, but that’s not why they turn to violence. They use it to call the shots and set the agenda. They know us to be squeamish and devoid of the ‘political will’ to engage in their brand of brutality that shows no regard for human life.

Tit-for-tat skirmishes will lead us nowhere. Terrorists will not cease their assault until we learn the fine art of intrepid retaliation, and until we understand the purpose behind 21st Century terrorism.

Gone are the days when chivalrous knights would refrain from slaying an enemy if it meant that innocent parties would be hurt in the process. Slowly, across hundreds of battles, we have come to accept and expect that some military missions will cause collateral damage. If a surgical strike against a despotic dictator happens to kill dozens of children, it can be justified as the ‘reality of war’, so long as everyone can attest to it being unintentional or accidental.

Modern terrorism turns the tables. Civilian casualties are no longer classified as collateral damage. Children are no longer the innocent bystanders. Rather, they are the target. They are part of the strategy. As despicable as it is, such is the new reality of war. In this war, there are no soldiers to lure and no battalions to capture; just cultures to modify and customs to alter and laws to change and egos to feed and evil to serve… oops, there goes another suicide bomber. She was only thirteen. Is there a word for that?

Studying terrorism does not help us to understand the mind of the terrorist — no more than studying warfare can help us to understand the motive of the soldier; or studying crime can help us to understand the plight of the criminal.

If we are to comprehend how suicide bombers rationalise their actions, we must peel away the veneer and drill down into their hearts and minds. No matter how haunting it might be, we must rattle the spectre that lurks behind their human mask. Only when we delve into the deepest recesses of their psyche, can we discern the heavy responsibility that burdens our generation.

Throughout the ages, the thing that we have feared most has been the human mind. It is a mysterious tabernacle whose form and structure is as vast as the universe itself. All of us must learn about the enemy’s culture, language, motivators, and innermost rhythm. Policymakers who lack these insights are like lawyers who understand everything about contract law, but have no understanding about the industry in question. I once commissioned a leading law firm to advise me about a publishing contract. After thousands of dollars, it became clear that although they understood ‘law’, they knew nothing about the many opportunities and pitfalls associated with publishing. As a result, my lawyers did not equip me with the right questions that I should have asked the publisher.

What this world lacks most is expertise. It is the experts who immerse themselves in their craft. Are our policymakers experts, or merely spin-doctors who carry violins they cannot play? If our leaders are to maintain ‘law and order’ they must understand ‘pain and suffering’. If they are to secure ‘peace and harmony’ they must intercept ‘greed and corruption’.

Here are two examples of the sorts of questions that will help us if we are to navigate through the quagmire: what do fundamentalist terrorists fear more than death, and what do radical terrorists value more than life? Respectively, the answers are humiliation and honour.

Terrorists would rather die than suffer humiliation, and they will often lay down their life to defend what they see as their honour. Very few leaders appreciate the seriousness of these cultural characteristics, so they devise policies that consequently humiliate and dishonour. As such, they unwittingly infuriate terrorists.

So, how can we triumph? If we know that humiliation is worse than death, and honour is more important that life, then we have vital clues about their nerve centre. To squash terrorists, we must manoeuvre with ‘resolute action at high speed’ and strike them where it hurts most. This is perilous, but do we want to win this war, or are we willing to surrender? If we do not correct our weaknesses immediately, we will not only lose our way of life, but we will be castigated by our children for abandoning them.

Our ‘technological supremacy’ and our ‘great common wealth’ pale next to the tools available to terrorists. Terrorists are strengthened by our own failings. It is through our weaknesses that they are currently generating momentum and amassing power. In part, they are mighty by their resolve, but mostly, they will prevail because of our lack of conviction. We can’t even curb vandalism. A society that both generates and tolerates vandals, is a society that cannot tame terrorists.

Ten types of terrorists

If we do not amend our current trajectory, we are doomed. Before I explain how I arrive at this conclusion, it is important to identify ten broad types of terrorists, ranked here in reverse order of danger, taking into account their varying degrees of discord. In fact, ‘D’ is the operative letter.

10) Daredevils

At the bottom of the count-down are daredevils. These terrorists have a hacker’s mind. They like to pit their ingenuity against the gatekeepers. They don’t set out to harm anyone. They just enjoy the thrill of breaking codes or foiling security systems. Most daredevils are intelligent and highly skilled. Annoyed at incompetence, they set about to embarrass the authorities who might not have done a good job. Some daredevils are demented. Nursing a gripe, they seek revenge and/or publicity for their cause. The danger is that some of them might not understand the implications of their misdemeanours. They could unintentionally put innocent lives at risk and/or cause untold inconvenience and expense. In some perverse way, daredevils are good for a lax society. They keep authorities on their toes. The downside is that they expose weaknesses in systems, and they give clues to others about loopholes and backdoors.

9) Defiant

Defiant terrorists cannot accept the status quo. They refuse to allow their enemy to have the final word. They might have understood that they no longer have a voice, but they will not acknowledge the decisions that are being made for them. Therefore, defiant terrorists will strike in desperation, as a last resort. Yes, defiance is an admirable quality. It refuses to allow anyone to break one’s spirit. Defiant people are steadfast, until all hope is lost. This is when they are ready to lay down their life or to take the lives of others. They hold a high moral ground, but when that is shaken, they decide to inflict pain and suffering on others. They justify this as a ‘lesser evil’ by comparing it to the pain that they or their loved-ones have suffered. The dangerous terrorists are the defiant people who have no solid basis for their grievance. They lose their sound judgement, and choose to strike because they are delusional.

8) Don’t Know

Next are those who, strangely enough, ‘don’t know’ that they are terrorists. If you challenge them, they will insist that they are not terrorists, much like addicted smokers will insist that they smoke because they want to, not because they have no choice but to inhale the nicotine. Arguing with addicts of any sort is draining, and so too is arguing with people who cannot acknowledge their unethical or immoral behaviour.

Muggers who harm old women in order to steal their handbags do not go home and lament their reprehensible deeds. Rather, they count the cash and curse the ladies for not carrying more. When con-artists net a large sum, they are pleased with themselves and boast about their business acumen, without sparing a thought for those whom they had just ‘ripped off’. And so it is with terrorists who don’t know what they are doing. They fall into the category of ‘arrogant power-mongers’ whom I will one day elevate to the second position on this list. This will happen when future technologies fall into the wrong hands.

The future of terrorism is inextricably linked to technology. Terrorists of the future might resemble modern-day directors at respected corporations who find ways to manipulate the technology within the law. The ‘superpowers’ of the future will be those who can conquer the three pillars of wealth-creation, being Nano-Technology, Bio-Techno-logy, and Chemical-Technology. Fuse all three upon maturity, and the world will change to such a degree, that all previous inventions would be deemed inferior. The nuclear bomb would look like a primitive tool when compared with weapons of the tri-technology terrorist (T3) of the future.

By way of illustrating how terrorists can wholeheartedly deny their actions, let us look at the people today who illegally download music or copy films. In their heart, in their mind, in every way they look at it, they are 100% convinced that they are not hurting anyone. Heated debates with intellectual-property thieves would be amusing if they were not downright frustrating. It’s not that they have no shame; it’s that pirates cannot believe that they are guilty of any crime whatsoever. One day, tri-technology terrorists might patent human genes and prohibit people from having life-saving operations unless royalties are paid. They will see themselves as innovative operators deserving of awards, not as agents muscling in for a cut of God’s creation.

Mind you, some T3s will operate underground. Their dexterous discoveries will not be rushed to the patent office. They could not afford to parade their discoveries because they would not want anyone to know of the existence of their concoctions. How could we anticipate invisible weapons when we don’t know of their existence, and when we can’t even imagine the possibility that they exist? [These 
scenarios are explored in my novel called ‘Z’. You can read the first chapter of Z by clicking here.]

7) Disenfranchised

These terrorists feel the pinch in the divide between the rich and the poor, or between those who have and those who don’t. Disenfranchised terrorists seek equity. They fight on moral grounds. They do not mind others being richer, but they bemoan their debilitating and deteriorating condition. They fight on behalf of their wider community that cannot access medication or basic sanitation. These terrorists have tasted fairness and want more. They value peace and will fight for it. They prize freedom and will die for it. They seek justice and will kill for it. They feel cheated and marginalised, and they cannot understand why they are not given the same opportunities as others. Generally, they accuse their oppressors of discriminating against them for being of a certain race or creed, or for their customs and ethics. They made the mistake of nailing their colours to the mast, and now they are paying the price for being ‘one of them’ not ‘one of us’. Poverty begets poverty, so these terrorists feel justified in righting some wrongs. They once had a say, and their vote counted. Now they are not allowed to vote, or if they are, they feel that their votes are quashed by those who rig the system. Within their neighbourhood, they see deprived and depraved comrades who have sold their soul and their vote to a gangster who rewards them for the utmost betrayal — trading one’s conscience for mere existence.

6) Disowned

Unlike the disenfranchised, they have nowhere to go and nowhere to live. Their land is still there, under the rubble that was once their family home. They believe that they are abandoned because help is not forthcoming. These terrorists are forced to watch their children die in their arms, as harsh elements and starvation take their toll. They feel aggrieved and victimised. They know that someone out there sent an incendiary their way, but they cannot imagine who could be so callous, because they have personally never harmed a soul. When they lose all, and have nothing more to lose, they become entangled in a barbaric game of self-preservation. One thing leads to another, and the disowned feel justified to re-acquire. Along the way, they learn more about the phantoms who destroyed their life, so they seek retribution.

5) Disgusted

Disgusted terrorists totally abhor our culture, sense of humour, behaviour, values, and our acceptance of nudity, pornography, alcohol, freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-expression, and freedom-of-choice. They can no longer tolerate our customs and lifestyle that they interpret as a display of indecency and vulgarity. They are not just irritated, but incensed. We might feel that they are over-reacting, and that they are unreasonable, but we simply do not understand how our actions affect them.

In subscribing to the live-and-let-live philosophy, we feel that they are not being gracious. We allow them to perform their rituals. We give them time off work to attend their social and religious events, and we do not disrupt their pleasures. For this reason, we cannot understand why they would object to what we do and how we do it — including our non-observance of certain ceremonies.

It is bad enough that they should object to what we eat, but they also take exception to when we eat. They neither like what we drink, nor what we do in the process of drinking. A sunny day on a topless beach might liberate us, but it inflames them. Their protests are not strictly selfish. They are not trying to stop us so that they can feel better. Nay, they interfere in our affairs for our sake. They are trying to cleanse us, and to help us to see the right path.

Although in our culture we have etiquette, in their culture they have procedures, so for them, there is only one way to do things because there is only one truth. We have voluntary conventions; they have compulsory standards. What we call freedom, they call debauchery. What we call liberty, they call self-indulgence. These terrorists are trying to purify the city by exter-minating unacceptable behaviour. The fact that they were the newcomers into our town, and that they were the outsiders who chose to live amongst us, is inconsequential next to their inherent duty. We value principles. They revere principals who have kindly given us a choice; conform or perish.

Keep in mind that many terrorists are bilingual, and are therefore able to keep tabs on the West. They are unimpressed with the West’s record in relation to social injustice. One day they hear Western leaders espousing capitalism and boasting about corporate governance, and the next day they watch CNN and learn all about corporate crime exemplified by the likes of Enron and WorldCom. They use these examples to showcase the rhetoric of the West. They are sceptical about democracy and freedom, and they cannot buy into the West’s version of truth and liberty, because they perceive the West to be hypocritical. They are disgusted by the West’s double-standards when it publicly disapproves of torture, yet privately practises rendition, which they see as a dirty loophole that facilitates torture. They are bemused when the West is appalled at beheadings, yet via remote-control, it pulverises entire buildings whose inhabitants include innocent women and children. So, they play the same game in return. They torture their captives to degrees that would make our skin crawl, yet they feign rage when they secure evidence that hardship has been perpetrated against one of their own. They cannot fathom the existence of Guantánamo Bay, which they see as a facility used by the Coalition of the Willing to keep people in no-man’s land — a legal limbo where prisoners are protected by neither international law, nor the laws of their homeland, nor the laws of the United States. They see it as a ‘legal black hole’ and a ‘human rights scandal’. They cannot understand why enemy-combatants are deprived of the safeguards decreed under the ‘Geneva Convention relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War’.

The Convention was first adopted in 1929 and revised in 1949. Notwithstanding its charitable intent, it neither addresses nor mentions the dumbfounding issues of terrorism. Perhaps the Convention, like any archaic legal or religious text, needs updating — even if it is just to clarify itself to the modern generation whose new vernacular on the new battlefield does not accommodate old analogies expressed through old language.

The then Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan said, ‘Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy.’ If he recognises that terrorists aim to destroy human rights, how does he propose to deal with terrorists who wish to impose their own laws, and who refuse to adopt any of the UN’s Conventions? It seems to me that we are writing protocols that shackle us morally and physically, while terrorists advance defiantly, backed by recalcitrant dictators and rogue institutions. Contrary to the sentiments of the Geneva Convention, it is foolish to extend all courtesies to our enemies.

4) Desirous

Those for whom self-interest comes above all else, strike because they are jealous. They are the desirous terrorists who see, who lust, who want, so they get. They like what we have, so they take it — just like murderous pirates at sea. No remorse holds them back, because as we know, human desire can be intoxicating and myopic. They want more, and the more the better. They do not think for one moment that we will miss it. If we can afford fancy things, then supposedly we can afford to replace them. But desirous terrorists are not always after material goods. Anything prestigious will do, such as personal profit through power, position, passage, or perpetual patronage. We can see how this fits neatly into the framework of organised crime and powerful gangs. Desirous terrorists see themselves as business tycoons whose only serious threat comes not from governments (officials can be bribed or intimidated), but from other organised criminals — competitors who vie for market share. Drugs, prostitution, money laundering, and people-smuggling are just some of their staples.

3) Devotees or Disciples

Next on the list are terrorists who fight without personal conviction, but with the confidence that their leader knows what to do. These obedient (and sometimes gullible) terrorists are either devotees or disciples. They will follow their master to the grave. In fact, many adore their leader. They hardly understand world politics or military strategy, but these comrades-in-arms feel that they are needed. They are excited by solidarity, and they want to pitch in. So the devotees feel that they are doing for a neighbour what any self-respecting friend should do. If the brotherhood is weak or unclear, it can be strengthened with money. A monthly wage goes a long way to securing loyalty, especially if a devotee’s employment prospects are slim. Warlords don’t mind investing in good soldiers, and none can be better than those who are willing to lay down their life for others. Disciples lead an uncomplicated life. They see the fight in simple terms, as a struggle between the unconscionable enemy and the innocent victim. Simplicity is the key in advertising, and so it is when asking someone to lend a hand. Devotees are plentiful, especially in poorer countries where the monthly wage would hardly keep an Australian’s fridge stocked with beer for a week. Those who do not see money as the great motivator can be persuaded with intangibles, such as fear — come and help us because soon the dark vulture will invade your town too.

2) Deposed or Deported

The second-most troublesome terrorists are the deposed or deported. Indignation fuels their fire. No words can comfort these ferocious terrorists. Theirs is a seething rage. They not only want to reclaim their land, but they are also hell-bent on obliterating the impertinent enemy. Nothing is negotiable. Nothing is acceptable. Not even a total withdrawal will quell their commitment to seek revenge. And when the oppressor is crushed, the terrorists will not settle until they have cast a curse to cripple the enemy’s kith and kin. These terrorists are strategists. Intimidation is but one of their weapons. They know that an anxious enemy is an enemy on notice. An enemy on notice is an enemy on edge. Some might call these terrorists ‘freedom-fighters’. If they play their cards right, they will win sympathy from credible supporters who will inflate their ego or raise their hopes or fund their sorties. If the invader commits atrocities in the process, the freedom-fighters will call on their friends and family abroad to take up arms or to snap at the heels of the brutal oppressor. Here, terrorism combines with patriotism and several other ‘isms’, including the stickiest of them all — nationalism.

1) Divinely-Directed

Topping the list are terrorists who have endless patience and no deadline. These terrorists are on a special mission. Not any old mission, but one allegedly bestowed by god, for god, with god, in god’s name, for god’s glory, and with god’s blessings. These terrorists have no personal gripe. They are like the seasoned executioner who looks at the convicted man and apologises before pulling the rope — sorry, nothing personal. These terrorists have no ill feelings toward us, because we are ‘the scum of the earth’. We are not their personal enemy, not unless we insult their god, in which case things become complicated and convoluted.

Which ‘D’ word do we ascribe to these religious fanatics? It’s a dual-D, being divinely-directed. Their creed is definite; it is absolute; it is supposedly holy; and nothing we do or say can make sense. Besides, they’ve already determined that we are insignificant, so nothing we put forward can be of any value. All our words and retorts are but thorns that jab the nervous system of already miserable terrorists. They are miserable by proxy; they feel sorry that their god has to suffer the likes of us. The divinely-directed terrorists have better things to do, but there’s no immediate hurry because god’s will is paramount, so our elimination is key. Besides, their rewards shall be eternal and blissful in another life. It’s peculiar that these terrorists cannot see the irony in all this. If heaven is the place to be, then what’s all the fuss about down here? Why don’t they just let the unbelievers die on Earth and rot in hell? Alas, irony is for thinkers, and the divinely-directed do not think. They are not allowed to. After a while, they can’t think.

They tell everyone that there is only one god who is merciful, yet they presume that only they have access to him. They believe that god is almighty, yet they think that he needs them to speak for him. They look up to a powerful god, yet they ascribe to him the personality of an impatient teenager. They shoot off at the mouth or from the hip without first asking if the merciful almighty powerful god really wants his Earth to be turned into a living hell. They pray publicly but they have no private relationship with god. They speak and act for him, but they do not consult him. To them, god is the quintessential celebrity whose name they drop into conversations, hoping to show that they have come to know the truth from the source. They have appointed themselves agents of god, without asking if god is so incapable of handling his own affairs that he should want violent angry unforgiving inflexible stubborn warriors on his squad.

The war on terror

Keep in mind that the list above describes individual terrorists. There is a completely different list that ranks state-sponsored terrorism, and another list that classifies world leaders (including dictators, generals, and elected representatives). And don’t forget the tangled web of nations, regimes, and bureaucracies. So in view of these many players, we have to ponder what it means to declare ‘war on terror’.

We have declared ‘war on poverty’, yet thousands of people die daily from hunger. We announced the ‘war on waste’, yet millions of children can’t find unpolluted water to drink. And what of our track record regarding the ‘war on drugs’? Surely nothing short of abysmal. In any case, we would do well to understand that we are not in a war on terror. Terror is not the same as terrorism, which is not the modus operandi of all terrorists.

At this point, let’s look at the anatomy of terror. To do this, let’s first examine horror. Horror refers to a single isolated event generated through the evil machinations of humans. Despite the intensity of the horror, victims quickly understand that the event has passed (even though the trauma might be long-lasting).

Terror is the anticipation of random and recurring horror. Effective terror remains poised to taunt, psychologically and incessantly. It promises more to come, and aims to keep the victims in a constant state of fear. Clever terror is so non-selective, that you know it can reach you or your child anywhere, at any time.

Terror is designed to bewilder us so that we will tamper with our laws and tweak our precepts and make miniscule concessions that, on the surface, seem reasonable and sensible, but strategically, they nudge us across the chess-board into the clutches of a vexatious enemy who knows more about our weaknesses than we do.

No doubt, a conflict beckons. Hence, there are urgent decisions we need to make, and pressing action we need to take, and difficult realities we need to face. Then, having understood the issues, we can rally our forces to fight in the war on destiny. There is a mighty inertia that threatens us. We are destined to lose, because so far, we have underestimated the devious enemy. When I say we, I mean the voting public — the people who want to elect leaders to lead us, but only after we have told them what to do: come lead us, but do what we say, and by the way, 50% of us disagree, so if you upset either camp, you’ll be ousted; and be sure to solve this headache immediately because we come from the now-generation. And be sure to run all your strategies past us first, and if we agree, you can go ahead and do something bold, but let’s first undertake a comprehensive impact study while… Death! This is the ultimate D in the list. Dawdlers do not realise that the nimble terrorist does not understand defeat. We cannot defeat someone for whom the term does not exist.

The enemy in this ‘war on destiny’ literally has no concept of defeat, much like a person who has never feared heights cannot understand why you won’t jump. So how do we vanquish someone who refuses to be defeated? We embrace the decision to destroy. If we don’t have the stomach for it, we are doomed.

The only sensible thing that commentators have said about this ‘war’ is that it is unlike previous wars. Indeed, the new battleground requires fresh tactics. Some people think that we can overcome these hurdles by investing in re-education programs. Not so. People must dispel their current beliefs before their culture can be re-wired. For this reason, re-education is futile. It would be easier to perform a brain-transplant than a culture-transplant. Consider something as harmless as music or fashion. Have you ever tried to convince youngsters to switch from one style of music to another? Have you tried to advise teenagers about their clothes or hair styles? If so, you would understand how concrete they are about their beliefs. They would rather stay indoors than be seen dead in the wrong pair of shoes.

Instead of re-educating the individual, we could discuss the merits of de-educating the mobs, but this is virtually impossible, so why waste limited resources in this area? If de-education is pointless and re-education is useless, it leaves us with ‘education’, full stop. Catch them young and inspire them early. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible. Missions and missionaries have had their day. Rather than try to find ways to reach their children, we need to work out how we are going to prevent them from catching ours.

The intangible war

The materialistic West is distracted because it thinks that victory can be secured on the tangible front. It is desperately trying to protect the three elements that can help it to maintain its stronghold: 1) allies; 2) access; and 3) armoury.

Fearing that it will lose its technological supremacy in the area of armoury, the West is trying to secure its commanding position by hogging the pre-eminent weapon — the nuclear bomb. It knows that terrorists already have two of the three pieces of the jigsaw that comprises: 1) compounds/facilities; 2) components; and 3) competence.

While everyone is being distracted by a sensational tug-of-war on the tangible front, terrorists are making quiet advances on the intangible front — much to their own 
surprise. Unbeknown to them, terrorists have picked up a few tricks from the West: 1) how to package passion; 2) how to sell to the masses; and 3) how to make ideals contagious. These three skills emanate from the power of marketing — something that terrorists have not dabbled in, until now. When public opinion can influence decision-making, we enter an arena dogged by marketing wars.

What must we fear most?

Before I present additional reasons as to why we are almost doomed, we need to answer this question: in the age of terrorism, what must we fear most? Members of the public fear a biological or nuclear attack. They fret about their family’s safety, and they worry about dirty bombs or contaminated water supplies or an attack on vital infrastructure.

In the age of terrorism, what we must fear most is an intangible and invisible disease called ‘corruption’. The D-words associated with this are depravity, degeneracy, and decay — the decay of three elements by stealth, being: 1) corruption of the soul; 2) corruption of the servant; and 3) corruption of society.

In the process of earnestly urging people to ponder the dynamics of corruption, I am aghast at how oblivious we are to it. People in Western democracies so often say that we are not like other cultures, in that we are not afflicted with the disease of corruption. Statements like these elevate my fear to the point of panic. Even the Australian Government’s 
199-page Flood Report, resulting from its official inquiry into its intelligence agencies, did not contain a single mention of ‘corruption’. Corruption does not always involve the exchange of money in brown envelopes. People can nurture corrupt morals and ethics, without even knowing it.

I do not agree with the adage that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’. I do not believe that power, in itself, corrupts. It might erode the soul of those who are of dubious character, but it cannot corrupt the upright and mature leader. Corruption is not the by-product of power. It might present opportunities for weaknesses to surface or for flaws to grow, but it does not dilute the resolute person whose ethics and morals have bonded beyond reproach. With this in mind, I cannot see how power is corruption. Rather, corruption is powerful. This is why I place corruption as the number-one disorder, and why I fear it most.

What incubates corruption? The answer is ‘apathy’. And what fertilises corruption? The answer is ‘the simplest, smallest, and most insignificant acts of heedlessness, born of inattention and ignorance’. Here, we have a two-edged sword, in that citizens beg for open government, yet the war on destiny requires decisive action in secrecy, meaning that, with an honourable purpose, leaders need to legitimately withhold information. To preserve our way of life, they must take action that might unfortunately lead to massive conflict that will require the support of the community — but sadly the authorities cannot tell us what they are doing because… because… they cannot tell us why. Hence the double dilemma.

Constituents cannot be told about the larger plan behind the war on destiny, and they cannot be told why they cannot be told. For example, if medical researchers wanted to work out if people who drank six litres of water per day were more likely to lose weight, they would have to lie to their patients about why they want them to consume so much water. If they do tell them that it is an experiment associated with body weight, the patients in the study would become conscious of the experiment every time they reach for a bar of chocolate. Another simple example of this type of predicament happened to me when my boss had to travel abroad. For operational reasons, he entrusted me with a computer password to our firm’s most sensitive and top-secret files. Only two people had previously known the password — he and his boss overseas. He said, ‘Jonar, there can be no reason on this earth that you would divulge this password to another employee, so make sure that no-one finds out.’ He then told me that the password was something like ‘KP5XP7U01’. I could not believe it. That was the same password that the accounts department used for its own systems. What a co-incidence. The computer engineers who installed the system must have assigned the same password to both departments, thereby leading both to believe that it was unique to them. The problem was that the two systems were centrally hosted by the same computer under the same program, which meant that anyone in accounts with basic skills could easily dig into the sensitive files. Two days later, while I was still deputising for my boss, an accountant convinced me that he needed access to the accounts computer to meet a government deadline. His boss was on a flight and could not be reached, so it fell upon me to log-in for him and stand there and watch him log-off after he had interrogated his program. The accountant was livid that I would not trust him with the password, or that I would insist that he log-off in front of me. It all seemed petty to him, but I did not want to be responsible for uttering the password. I felt that I would be betraying a secret, even though many clerks in the accounts department knew that password. My dilemma was that I could not tell my colleague why I was unable to divulge the password. If I had explained that the very same password also opened Aladdin’s cave, he might have told someone, or he might have tricked one of the many juniors who knew the other identical password. It did not matter. Even if I felt that he were trustworthy, I was not authorised to utter the password to another soul, despite this quirky situation. Iron-clad confidentiality was paramount. The accountant accused me of being ‘power-hungry’. All I could say was that I was not in a position to reveal the password, and I was unable to tell him why. This illustrates one simple scenario. Imagine if the consequences were astronomical, as indeed they are in the war on destiny.

Not sharing important strategies with voters, tends to strain the democratic ideals, and puts a society on the verge of losing balance. In an effort to grapple with this, leaders will do their best to justify an attack, even if they have to sex-up dossiers and speak untruths. They will resort to ‘spin’, whether it is about weapons-of-mass-destruction or oil or militant dictators. Their master-plan cannot be revealed. Meanwhile, the sheer incompetence of lackadaisical and arrogant personnel will make a dog’s breakfast of the whole affair and expose the nation to greater risks when they commit the worst of all strategic mistakes — hesitation.

They hesitate because they are uninformed and uncon-vinced, so they consult, discuss, explore, seek permission, ask forgiveness, check opinion polls, submit plans, commission research, conduct media interviews, and prepare a strategy on how to apportion blame — and then resign or get promoted or re-assigned within a short space of time. How can such half-hearted executives (those who have to execute the plans) survive when pitted against an enemy who is adamant, decisive, bold, committed, and down-right single-minded, and who does not have to leave the office at 5:30 for Pilates?

If one thinks of terrorists within the framework of business, what role within an organisation would terrorists hold? Meaning, who would the terrorists most resemble in a corporation? Would the terrorists be like the shareholders, the chairmen, the CEOs, the directors, the managers, or the junior executives? I would say that terrorists are unlike any of these because terrorists would be the entrepreneurs. I describe entrepreneurs as ‘visionaries who give everything they own to test an idea that most people think is unsound’. With this in mind, are we confident that our elected leaders possess this entrepreneurial spirit? If so, can they really operate decisively, boldly, and single-mindedly? Democratically-elected leaders are, in the end, employees who must justify their every move; whereas terrorists are evangelists, missionaries, and combat-ants, all rolled into one.

Death by distraction

In most affluent Western societies, there is a problem in relation to the ways in which the citizens are defocused. By this, I mean that the citizens are themselves split into two groups that are different from each other, in fundamental ways. The first group possesses disturbing Dispo-graphics. Generally, societies are ranked via demographics (age, gender, wealth, suburb…) and psychographics (feelings, beliefs, religion, leaning…). Dispo-graphics is a term I coined to describe people who possess a maturing disposition about life. These people value material goods, but only as tools to a better life. They have reached a point where wealth-utilisation is more important than wealth-accumulation. These are the people who seek the sea-change. Alas, they accelerate the war on destiny because they are too busy inviting friends over. Nonchalantly, they are sucking the marrow out of life, but in the process, they are unaware of wicked eyes preying upon them. Many nations have lost their decadent and sublime lifestyle due to their innocence and naïvety.

The second group that lives alongside those with a maturing disposition is called the distracted population. These are the ladder-climbers in search of a dream. They are materialistic and discontent. They have more than any previous generation, yet they are the least satisfied. They have everything that their grandparents yearned for, including access to better education, medication, and infrastructure, yet they are unhappy. Their daily fixation is on one or more of the six things that torment and distract them: 1) the desire for financial independence; 2) the posturing for social acceptance; 3) the infatuation with body-image to impress others; 4) the hankering for emotional fulfilment through intimacy; 5) the search for happiness and career direction; 6) the need to postpone death, by visiting doctors, popping pills, undergoing surgery, and nipping and tucking to stay vibrant and youthful.

Any Western society whose constituents are preoccupied in such ways is doomed because one lot is befriending the angels, and the other is courting the devil. Neither has their eyes on the ball, and both are outnumbered by the ten types of terrorists and the millions of people who can but lust over the richness of their land, resources, or lifestyle.

What hope have we got?

What are our chances of stopping the needle from plunging into the red zone? Can we survive? The mentality of Generation X and Generation Y is one of hope. We have seen so many advances in our time that we are confident about our future. Even when we are faced with potential pandemics, we are relaxed about the dangers, because we expect that somebody somewhere is doing something clever to solve the problem. We think that nothing is insurmountable if we grant enough money to enough scientists.

Sadly, nothing we try in the war on destiny will suffice — not until we attend to our political, societal, institutional, and personal failings. Below are some of the hurdles we face. If we do not confront these challenges, our future will most certainly be bleak.

A) Distracting discussions

Our society is distracted by committees. Little can be achieved via a committee unless everyone around the table is fully committed to the outcome. Unfortunately, in the individualistic West, committees are a collection of disparate and selfish chiefs who congregate to tell everyone why certain strategies do not suit their personal powerbases.

Once upon a time, the word ‘committee’ was singular, in that it referred to just one person who was committed to supporting the leader; much like an employee (one person) backs the employer.

Committees should only exist if everyone in the room is absolutely immersed in, and loyal to, the new project. Delegates have a duty not to distract a newly-formed taskforce. They are not there to represent their respective members back home. A meeting that comprises a collection of ‘representatives’ is but a gathering of interested parties, not a committee. Anyone who does not make every effort to assist with the outcome of the committee ought to be denounced. Sadly, Western-style committees comprise part-time casual volunteers who attend with suspicion, not with dedication.

B) Derailing diplomacy

Upon committing ourselves to the illusive war on terror, our chief weapons have been politics and diplomacy. These are the wrong tools because diplomacy is only useful in negotiations when the other party has the upper-hand. With whom are we negotiating? In any case, we refuse to negotiate with terrorists. As for politics, this is the wrong tool because politics is the peacetime tool that is used to protect powerbases. Our powerbases are not being attacked. The terrorists who concern us do not place the same value on our treasures because one man’s treasure is another man’s trash. If our powerbases are attacked, it is not so that they can be confiscated, but so that we can be derailed. The war on terror is not a political war, but a war on our system of politics.

C) Despising discrimination

When one person lives by the doctrine of ‘turn the other cheek’, and the other subscribes to the dogma of ‘an eye for an eye’, it is easy to predict who would dominate if they collide.

We have weakened our position because when it comes to multiculturalism, we try to be politically-correct. A society can embrace diversity, so long as everyone signs up to the creed of ‘live and let live’. But when one group tries to enforce its culture upon another, calamity follows. We are allowing divisiveness to sneak through on the back of innocuous cultural shifts and insignificant legal amendments. When we are not looking, and while we are being tolerant and accommodating, foundations are being eroded. Multiculturalism cannot work if tolerant people tolerate intolerant people.

I am not a racist. Rather, I am a ‘meddlist’ — someone who will discriminate against those who meddle, who poke, who prod, and who eventually mould into their likeness (and by force) a street, a community, a country. Those who meddle are difficult to stop. They can only be prevented from starting. Think this through, and the word ‘pre-emption’ creeps into the argument. To be pre-emptive, one requires an intimate relationship with perceptivity.

D) Dismissing disasters

We don’t seem to know the difference between the benefits of being ‘pre-emptive’ and the dangers of triggering a ‘chain-reactive’ process. By all means, we need to pre-empt disasters, and look ahead to halt possible attacks and potential attackers. However, if in the process of pre-emption, we trigger a chain-reaction, then we will soon regret the endless loop that augments a catastrophe.

If you strike a vicious dog, you had better succeed on the first blow, otherwise you will provoke a fiercer attack. Similarly, to curb terrorism, you had better be incisive and decisive, lest you trigger a series of events that feeds the very cycle you were trying to thwart. A chain-reaction is a process whereby two ingredients are attracted to each other. When they combine, they create an unbearable third element that produces more of the initial two ingredients that are attracted to each other… And this keeps on going, but more importantly, it keeps on growing exponentially. If a pre-emptive strike is made upon a country, one had better be prepared to win at all costs. Otherwise, a bigger problem will spawn unabated. Try playing tennis where the number of balls coming at you doubles with every hit.

E) Denying dangers

Sadly, we are neither suspicious enough nor paranoid enough. We quickly forget the warnings. Most of us have not had to suffer the atrocities of war, so we do not even know what the silhouette of suspicion looks like. We don’t pause to think about the loopholes and the backdoors, because we are blind to them.

The fact that Internet scams can still net millions of dollars for fraudsters, shows how gullible society is. Despite all the education and public warnings about identity-theft, people will still answer the phone and divulge information to a total stranger. Credit-card companies even call their cardholders and expect them to undergo a six-point identity check. A major card issuer called me to check a transaction. In so doing, they asked me to verify myself. I objected and spoke with a number of managers, but got nowhere because no-one cared, and those who wanted to care did not understand how identify-theft works, so they did not know what I was talking about, despite them holding the title of Fraud Manager. Six months later, the issuer called me about a different transaction, and again I hit a brick wall.

Organisations go through the charade of security, yet they don’t stop to think that a thief can wait outside to apprehend the courier who hand-carries the backup tapes containing all the vital information. When a drama occurs, they promise a full investigation. How about some healthy paranoia pre-drama rather than post-event?

How many billions of dollars have been spent trying to capture terrorists and criminals, only for them to escape from maximum security prisons within weeks? It is stupidity, peppered with corruption.

On the whole, we see paranoia as an ailment. I prefer to see it as a skill. Sometimes we need more of it. What was that Israeli soldier thinking when a Palestinian lady walked through a checkpoint and triggered the alarm on the metal detector? He told her to retreat, but she insisted that she had an important engagement. He said that no women officers were available to frisk her, so she offered to wait. ‘It will be some time, so you had better wait in the office.’ In she goes through the security doors, inside the citadel, and detonates; killing herself, the young soldier, and seven other officers. This was at a time when suicide bombers were striking weekly. What was that soldier thinking?

F) Dismantling democracy

I understand the dangers of issuing firearms to all and sundry, but we have taken the concept of disarming innocent people to extremes. Countries like Australia have forbidden their citizens from possessing weapons, but not enough has been done to keep weapons off the streets. No matter what the authorities say, gangsters or thugs or fourteen-year-old girls can still acquire weapons. No country is a fortress. Guns, bombs, chemicals, fake passports, and drugs still get through. Even in prisons that are protected by razor wire, cameras, and armed guards, drugs and information still pass through, day in and day out. It is the antithesis of democracy when law-abiding citizens lose power to the outlaws.

This disarming mentality extends beyond firearms. We have also disarmed innocent people by depriving them of vital information. If your daughter is about to marry a shady character, where can you go to find out if he has a criminal history? Nowhere, because no department can divulge private information.

Catch a litter bug, and you catch a whole lot of litter. Stop thugs in their tracks, and you protect hundreds of innocent people. The question is, can a society’s law-enforcement officers be positioned at the right place, at the right time? With a multibillion dollar budget, the US intelligence apparatus failed to foil the 9/11 terrorists, despite the many clues that presented themselves.

On a factory-floor, it is incumbent upon everyone to be a quality-control officer. On the shop-floor, it is the duty of every employee to be a customer-service manager. On the new-age battlefield that has no boundaries, what is the role of innocent people? We don’t want them alarmed, but does it suffice for them to be alert?

G) Disguising dividends

We are in a fix because those whose job it is to combat terrorism, can actually benefit from it. This is the irony of our intelligence and military infrastructure. Who dares to agree with this statement? Who dares to dispute it? It’s an unutterable situation. Alas, those who are assigned to protect us stand to increase their powerbases. Only at the peak of the Second World War did agencies enjoy such support.

Think of the billions of e-mails that circulate the globe. Over 90% of all personal e-mail traffic is spam. In whose interest would it be to rid the world of spam? No-one who makes a living from the infrastructure wants this nuisance to stop. The traffic keeps both the service-providers and the software merchants happy. Every time that a virus is released, millionaires are made.

When a new strain of deadly flu becomes front-page news, what do you think happens to the stock prices of some pharmaceutical companies? I keep urging journalists to ask each of the commentators to disclose their financial interests. When will doctors place a plaque on the wall next to their certificates, declaring their interests? Does your doctor stand to gain from dividends every time a prescription is dispensed for a particular drug? And so it is with intelligence agencies, military establishments, et cetera. They do not wish harm upon innocent people, but they do not bemoan the fact that they have larger facilities, bigger weapons, more money, and an increased staff. And what of security guards who dishonestly apprehend blameless people so as to justify their employment. We saw this when corporations hired dozens of in-house lawyers. They generated writs left, right, and centre. They became litigious because it kept them in a job.

H) Dignifying dogma

The first objective of the Charter of the United Nations is ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’ The UN cannot save the next generation from the scourge of terrorism, because it dignifies dogma that ought to be banished.

It is baffling how we have sanctified the word ‘religion’ — the word, not the practice. It has been consecrated and protected by an impenetrable force-field with science-fiction-like qualities. It is astounding how quickly people retreat from an argument when their opponents justify their actions ‘in the name of religion’.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’

Does this mean that a religion will be struck off the register and no longer recognised as a ‘religion’ if it victimises constituents who wish to change their beliefs? There are significant religions out there whose faithful will kill anyone who opts out. There are religions that refuse to allow others to practise a different religion. Does this mean that the Declaration of Human Rights will not acknowledge any religion that abuses human rights? If so, the Declaration must be re-worded because such an important document must not be nebulous. We must not dignify a dogma that does not allow people to adopt their own brand of religion. The Declaration demands equality for all religions, but it does not offer any protection to victims of religious discrimination. This anomaly voids the Declaration.

A Declaration that protects any and all supposed religions does not serve humanity. The Secretary-General warned that the UN ‘…has reached a fork in the road. It could rise to the challenge of meeting new threats or it could risk erosion in the face of mounting discord.’ He created the ‘High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change’ to generate new ideas about the kinds of policies and institutions required for the UN to be effective in the 21st Century. He noted that ‘we live in a world of new and evolving threats, threats that could not have been anticipated when the UN was founded in 1945…’

In an effort to revitalise and reform itself for the 21st Century, the UN can make a magnanimous contribution to humanity that will foster peace and sanity by adopting a new declaration that will: 1) define what constitutes a religion; 
2) distribute a list of religions that adhere to all UN conventions; 3) disclose the religions that abuse human rights; 
4) discontinue the membership of any country whose theocracy or dictatorship prohibit its citizens and visitors from practising a different religion; 5) de-register Member States whose official country-name comprises a name of a religion, because this would suggest that anyone living in that country ought to be of that religion, or ruled by it; 6) draft new amendments to the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention so that prisoners of war are not afforded religious freedom if their nominated religion is not on the approved list.

If the UN cannot meet these challenges, it would be left with only one course of action: to denounce the Declaration of Human Rights and the various Conventions because there would be no point in having such instruments if they are blatantly ignored by those whose actions would have necessitated their draft in the first place. Nations who abide by the rules are otherwise placed at a severe disadvantage, whereby they are obligated to extend freedoms to enemies who not only refuse to reciprocate, but also inflict indiscriminate pain and suffering in return.

A perplexing question

At the conclusion of my AIPIO presentation, I posed a closing question: what would be worse than not catching a terrorist? I did not furnish the answer. I felt that if the delegates were forced to ponder this question, they would be more likely to understand its significance. I was hoping it would remain unanswered, but one year later, after the London bombings, it became evident. You see, there is something far worse than letting a terrorist get away, and that is to construct an environment within our own society whereby we not only harbour terrorists, but we also create terrorists. The London bombers were home-grown. What could be worse? I was trying to emphasise that terrorists are not always ‘over there’. They can be over here. I saw how we were splitting our 
society into the age-old problem known as the ‘them and us’ syndrome, whereby neighbours began to segregate themselves. This is a massive crisis that requires wisdom that only a seasoned and hardened military general can formulate. It also necessitates action that only a benevolent leader at the rank of dictator can even attempt to instigate. Meanwhile, one of the major contributors to this syndrome is racial profiling.

I cannot over-emphasise the dangers of racial-profiling in mainstream communities. Describing criminals by their eth-nicity is the most damaging thing that a multicultural society can do. It serves no positive purpose. Not a single rational reason can be given.

If in your town there is only one motor vehicle that is made from solid gold and is encrusted with diamonds, then it would be reasonable for the police to issue a media alert to say that the vehicle was involved in an armed hold-up. The uniqueness of the vehicle warrants the description. But if the incident involved a red sedan, what possible advantage does it serve the police to tell the public that a red sedan was involved? Do they expect everyone to file a report every time they see a red sedan? Using this analogy, you will see the futility in publicising a bank robber as being of Middle Eastern appearance. First of all, who is to know what that means? Middle Eastern appearance could refer to anyone from Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Turkey, Armenia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, Qatar, Jordan, Iran, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Malta, Monaco, and so the list grows. Therefore, what do you expect the public to do? Should people wait outside and contact the police when a person of Middle Eastern appearance walks past?

Furthermore, if four thugs happen to be involved in a drive-by shooting, and supposing that they are all members of the Green Golf Club, would they be called Green’s Gang? Surely not. If they happened to be students of Smith University, would they be called the Smith University Gang? Of course not. So then, why would unidentified third-generation Australian citizens, whose ancestors might have come from Europe and the Middle East, be called a Lebanese Gang? On what basis does anyone know this? Lebanon is one of the smallest nations on Earth. No-one had the wherewithal to take down the vehicle’s registration number, so how did the television reporter know that the occupants were Lebanese and that they belonged to a Lebanese Gang? What does that mean? A professional outfit selected and appointed by the Lebanese Government? How bizarre. I am not trying to protect the Lebanese people’s image. I am warning that such mindlessness will drive a wedge into a multicultural society. It belittles and isolates certain innocent members who feel that they belong to ‘them’, not ‘us’. Make people feel rejected, and you force them to side with those who will embrace them.

In 2005 and 2006, senior figures within the Australian government said that they were evaluating the prospects of deporting anyone who commits a crime. The very thought that an Australian citizen can be deported is fuel enough to ignite anger and loathing in any citizen who swore allegiance to the new country. This despicable proposal is both hideous and embarrassing. Naturally, it can be argued that any law-abiding new Australian would have nothing to worry about; and this would be true. But the fact that senior officials of a multicultural nation can even contemplate this question, proves that they still see the division. It’s as if they have not embraced the newcomers as firm Australians, which means that citizenship is a farce that provides no bonding. It is an arbitrary grant than can be withdrawn. If citizens cannot feel 100% naturalised, they will be forced to re-evaluate their allegiance. Besides, how would such a proposal work when it comes to a child born in Australia, and whose father, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers were born in Australia? Would he be deported and dropped off in Down Town Beirut and told to start a new life in a foreign country? One might as well drop him off in Timbuktu. Under this policy, how many people will be sent back to England, and what will the English do with them? And where will we send Aborigines who offend?

I dare say that many migrants who chose to become citizens of Australia are more Australian than those who had no choice in the matter and were just born at a local hospital. Citizenship, much like marriage, is both an emotional and rational decision. Those who have travelled a long way to disembark on these shores are citizens who made a conscious choice — unlike those whose place of birth was decreed by the arbitrary laws of geography. A country that can disown its citizens is like a wild youth who racks up debts and declares bankruptcy. Both shirk responsibility. Both will pay dearly.

Beyond terrorism

Now that I have highlighted my fears in relation to the dangers of creating terrorists from within our community, I would like to ask another question, and leave you to contemplate its severity: at which point will terrorism stop being terrorism? In other words, when will terrorism morph into a new, deadlier phase? What is the next step from where we are now? For a long time, we ignored terrorism, but now we speak of little else. To what are we oblivious now, and what will soon torment and steal the headlines? I ask you, ‘What’s next?’

The answer to this question points to the subsequent diabolical phase that will plague many nations. There are other questions, of course.

The future of intelligence

Now we come to the function of intelligence officers (IOs). Their role within a society is to gather information so that the larger picture can be brought into focus. This ranges from classical overseas spying by operatives from organisations such as ASIS and MI6, to the security or counter-intelligence work that ASIO performs — sometimes in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and the state police forces.

Unfortunately, these days many IOs in the ‘security area’ are smothered by surveillance work. It would be better if the job of tracking and spying on individuals moves to a policing role.

Intelligence officers ought to be freed up to ‘perceive and understand rapidly’ so that relevant authorities can take ‘resolute action at high speed’.

IOs require perceptivity to assess risks in terms of, ‘What’s going on, where’s it heading, who’s behind it, and what can be done?’ Nipping things in the bud (through root-cause analysis) would be the most effective. However, no heroes are acknowledged for this type of work. Instead, much hoopla is made when terrorists strike. The invisible work of prevention goes unappreciated.

If we want IOs to nip things in the bud, so that we can take control of our destiny, we require a new type of intelligence organisation — one that knows how to value foresight, not one that waits for confirmations of hindsight. While some people can look at a musical score on a page and hum the tune, others see only a foreign code. Similarly, some intelligence officers run to policymakers to deliver electrifying assessments, but the policymakers insist on proof. In effect, they cannot see, they cannot hear, they cannot understand, until something manifests before their eyes. Some policymakers know that they do not know. The word that 
literally means ‘to lack knowledge’ is ‘ignorance’. Unfortunately, there are many policymakers, managers, leaders, and executives who belong to one of two camps: Ignoramus-FTN who Fail To Notice the signals; and Ignoramus-RTA who Refuse To Accept the evidence.

Before outlining what the new intelligence organisation might look like, it is important to understand that terrorists operate on the basis of AAC — meaning that terrorists attack At All Costs. The only way to neutralise such terrorists is to reform intelligence organisations so that they can operate on the basis of NQA — meaning that intelligence personnel can do what must be done, with No Questions Asked.

If we are uncomfortable with empowering our agencies, then we might as well surrender now. If IOs cannot be trained and deployed, there will be hefty penalties for us all, because terrorists are becoming more sophisticated — soon, they will be undetectable, untraceable, and unperturbed. They will change our laws. We will lose our way of life. And thereafter, they will dictate our right to life.

A society that gives its guardians a brief and then lets them operate freely, is a powerful society, but it is one that exposes itself to huge risks unless it counter-balances autonomy with scrutiny.

Crucially, we need checks and balances. We must not liberate our officers if there is even a hint of corruption or ego or arrogance or incivility or incompetence or self-interest. There is no such thing as half a seesaw or half a pendulum. They must swing both ways in order to be functional. And so it is with powerful institutions. They must be accountable if they are to escape the rot that can so easily destroy the foundations of democracy. I wholeheartedly recommend the NQA method, but only if we appoint independent supervisors to guard the guardians. Giving IOs a free hand within the law does not permit them to dismantle the principles of justice that we have fashioned over decades. The presumption of innocence must reign supreme, along with the right of habeas corpus.

In November 1925, Adolf Hitler told his people, ‘If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower.’ Terrorists have now maximised their willpower, and they have marshalled armies in readiness for when they do acquire the weapons. What could Hitler have done with both willpower and weapons? History has revealed numerous ambitious politicians who would have stopped at nothing if given the scope to realise their zeal. Do such leaders still exist? In his early years, Hitler served his country well. Then he flipped. Does our society too readily accommodate potential tyrants?

Divide et impera

Terrorists are uncompromising. If we don’t change how we respond to them, the time will come when, through willpower and weapons, they will destroy our freedom. Is that our destiny? Much evidence points to it.

The warning to us all is that we are doomed unless we can: 1) devise new tactics for an enemy who plays by no rules; 2) desist from shooting messengers who present foresight rather than hindsight; 3) discipline arrogance and other abominable qualities that swell the heads of ill-bred operatives and their subordinates; and 4) divide and conquer.

Beware of those amongst us who try to weaken our resolve with elixirs and sedatives such as ‘false hope’ and ‘popular lies’ about the roadmap to peace. Undoubtedly, many of us would like the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis to end; but that’s not going to happen. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want the conflict to end, because neither side will compromise. They do not strain their intellect in search of an ‘end’. Rather, hardliners on both sides jostle for power in order to eliminate their opponents. Their only frustration is their own impotence. Give them absolute power and they will exercise it without hesitation. They desire to be unleashed, but Westerners keep urging restraint. The only thing they have in common is that they both stipulate total victory. They are not seeking an end to the conflict, but an end to their enemy’s existence.

Both sides are blessed with a new generation of enlightened youth who are amiable and amenable, but these young hopefuls are easily disheartened or defiled when external players, power mongers, nosy neighbours, and arms dealers sabotage their efforts. In no time, youths are stymied by pride and fury. In any case, let no-one tell you that the problems of the Middle East hinge around this prominent issue, or that the drivers behind terrorism spring from our controversial Western polices. Indeed, our Western policies are flawed; in so much as they are executed blunderingly. We Westerners are not perfect, and we are far from competent. We have a lot to answer for. However, Middle Eastern political issues are red herrings that will drag us down while terrorists re-group. We must neither waver from our duty nor desert our posts, lest history mock us for relinquishing the privileges and liberties that our gallant forebears secured for us with their own blood.

If we tarry, terrorists will collude against us. The last thing we want is for the various factions to appoint us as their common enemy. Terrorists will find ‘strength in turmoil’ unless we help them to self-destruct. They have every reason to turn on each other, and they will do this in due course, but for now, they will find ‘strength in numbers’. Despite their differences, they have much more in common with each other than they could possibly have with us. Once upon a time, they would have revered or respected us, but now we have very little to offer. Terrorists are poking fun at us. They see us as glib talkers whose trite promises amount to nothing.

We Westerners can bluff, and sugar-coat, and massage, and sex-up, and spin, but we have now reached the end of the line. This is it. We can no longer postpone the inevitable. In the war on terror, peace is not an option, because peace is a lie, and lies make war.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from the Introduction of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Setting the scene

In a nutshell, what this book is all about

Leadership, management, and self-development principles are taught at hundreds of colleges to thousands of students who read millions of books. Yet companies collapse, businesses blunder, and friendships fail, while individuals and organisations are enslaved to inefficiency, inaccuracy, and instability.

Why is it that so many popular techniques have a higher propensity to fail than to succeed? All this, despite the groundwork set by ‘gurus’ who urged us to: go on a quest in search of excellence; win friends and influence people; engage in serious creativity; capture moments of truth; and develop the seven habits of highly effective people.

Beyond the hype, the real issues have been too controversial to communicate, too tough to tackle, and too risky to raise because:

1. It is likely that motivated individuals willing to modify or change their habits would feel isolated and overwhelmed by the enormity of the tasks that lie ahead.

2. It is a tendency among colleagues and opponents to thwart anything that threatens the comfort of the status quo.

3. It is difficult to tackle well-entrenched and politically moulded standards of behaviour.

4.It is culturally accepted to follow the path of least resistance.

5. It is a mammoth task to single-handedly challenge the establish​ment.

6. It is a fact that social and cultural forces that accommodate Despite the efforts of commercialised gurus, it appears that individuals have not been properly guided in their pursuits. Misguided enthusiasts can be as menacing as non-believers. This results in a multitude of irritating graduates from ‘The Textbook School Of Bluffers’.

Stand firm

The title, How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People, points to the fact that anyone who applies what is endorsed in this book is likely to do just that. It is envisaged that this book (and its supporters) will be ripped to shreds by supposed experts who among them think that they possess the collective wisdom of the universe.

Critics of this book will start to raise all manner of irrelevant and superfluous questions that will do nothing more than unequivocally prove the need for such a book. These critics are called hindsight experts. They are the kind of folk who would have naively: gaoled Galileo for suggesting that the world was not flat; banned Pythagoras from enlisting mathematics enthusiasts into his club; ridiculed Alexander Graham Bell for his ‘contraption’; and told Henry Ford that his invention would never sell, except to ‘the rich and idle’.

If you find truth in this book, do not let the critics intimidate you. Critics are those whose rich and condemning vocabulary largely consists of words like: never; impossible; not done; can’t be achieved; unreasonable; unrealistic; will never happen. They have the audacity to place limits on the future. They encourage censorship and promote the ‘banning’ of all sorts of things. They prize legislation and love thought-control, promoting themselves as mind-guards. Furthermore, they hide behind empty meaningless words which they do not understand — like morals, social standards, ethics, social behaviour, and political correctness. They have the gall to intimidate women, Jews, Christians, Moslems, socialists, communists, capitalists, those of differing lifestyles, and those of atypical sexual desires.

Righteousness. It is a timeless word that belongs to everyone. It is too bad it does not unite with ‘tolerance’ and dance with ‘individuality’ and blend with ‘acceptability’ and stay away from ‘justice’ — an obscure word that has legitimacy to the one who applies it, and no useful function to the one to whom it is being applied.

Majority versus minority

The majority-rule society has produced nothing more than heartache and intolerance. Throughout the majority-rule period, members of the minority have made an impact. For better or for worse, it is the daring few who have shaped this so-called majority-rule society.

Inventors, pioneers, radicals, and visionaries have ventured from the lonely and costly camp of ‘minority’ only to be obstructed by majority-rule concepts that tolerate inferiority, hinder progress, harbour injustice, and pose limits within the decaying status quo.

What is sad and insulting is that the majority basks in the benefits and riches that were originally afforded by individuals who sacrificed their sanity, their freedom, and their life. When you start your journey of leadership in the modern world, you too might have to make some sacrifices.

Is this book for you?

There are hundreds of books on offer, and collectively they explore every possible aspect of leadership, management, and self-development. Together they broach every conceivable topic, but they seem to lack one crucial ingredient — truth. Not that they endorse ‘untruth’, but they fail to tackle the very roots of important issues about leadership, management, and self-development in the modern world.

How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People is for those who can, for example, study cosmology and then do three things simultaneously. First, marvel at the grandeur of the universe. Second, recognise the majesty of the infinitely small. And, third, doubt that we possess more than a nano-parcel of information about either subject.

This book is for those who are fed up with, and frustrated by, inefficiency, inaccuracy, inconsistency, and untruths. It is a tool for those who know that they have the potential to stretch the boundaries, have the creativity to break new ground, have the vision to shape new futures, have the determination to realise their dreams, and have the courage to break out of the social cast, even if it means that they’ll have to bid farewell to friends and, along the way, infuriate the establishment.

If you acknowledge that nothing is ever final, that possibilities are endless, that life is never simple, that a rolling stone can gather moss, that a watched kettle does boil, and that those who cry last, cry the most, this book is for you.

I slam diplomacy as a waste of time. I blow the whist le on the corporate and political games. I discredit the rules that have done nothing more than nourish the lethargic, imprison new talent, and suppress freedom. I expose protocol as a brick wall that protects the insecure and keeps at bay the bold. I call on those who are in a position of power to lift their game. I plead for action from those who have new ideas.

Rubbing shoulders in the dark

During the eight years of research, investigation, observation, and testing, not a single interviewee was aware of the making of this book. Not a single letter alluded to my authorship.

My research for this book has been authentic and comprehensive — encompassing a broad range of successful and unsuccessful artists, scientists, business managers, military leaders, political and government heads, ethical entrepreneurs, and shady ones, as well as students, the general public, and academics. Not one is named. The sound information gathered would not have been given if the subject being studied had known that the material or exchange was for a book.

Some books are written like a brochure and are full of praise for the author’s clients or people whom the author would like as clients. This is a serious book, so unfortunately, there will be no profit from bulk sales to companies mentioned and praised here because none are mentioned or praised.

Authors of many popular books focus more on telling us who they know, than what they know. They want us to believe that they lead celebrity lifestyles, constantly bumping into the most successful people in the world. They expect us to believe that almost every aeroplane ticket that they have ever booked happened to seat them next to the founder of ‘Hero Corporation’, and that the only blind person they have ever met went on to win a Nobel Prize.

Egotistical authors seem to bolster their own image. Their enthusiasm echoes a sense of ease rarely attained by struggling individuals.

Name-dropping and telling readers about dignitaries they met, what was said, and of the exalted circles they move in, dominate some books. (Just for the record, I have dined with the privileged and spent time with the outcast, poor, and addicted, including the homeless and the titled. Their spirits hover over each of the chapters in this book.)

. . . and nothing but the truth

When I joined a large corporation as a manager of one of its divisions I read several books about the company. During my first week on the job I mentioned this to my manager who laughed and said, ‘Don’t believe any of them.’ I was puzzled. Could it have been that my manager, a thirty-year veteran of the company, was embarrassed about what the books revealed? Well, despite the fact that some of the books were speaking about the company in disastrous terms, most were sycophantic. I often wondered about his comment. Exactly two years, ten months, and fifteen days later the penny dropped. I realised what he meant, and why the contents of the books could not be believed. In due course I realised that nothing I read was true because the critical books could not be critical enough for fear of legal action while the sycophantic books were inaccurate because they were just sucking-up to the giant for reasons known only to each respective author.

How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People is not written so as to damage any company, nor to promote my friends, supporters, or worthy clients. It is written for readers who are committed to improving their situations and their environments.

Speaking out

As a long-time journalist, my first regular column was called ‘Controversials’. Since then, most of the things I have said and done have been controversial. In the mid-1990s a respected publisher approached a small number of industry leaders for what were their predictions. I was chosen by the publisher to contribute my views which, needless to say, were controversial, so much so that when the publication was released, my then boss summoned me into his office and expressed his displeasure at my speaking out. He said, ‘Jonar, no matter what you think, you must not speak out.’ I asked him if he had agreed with what I had written. ‘Yes, you are right. I agree with you, but I would never tell anyone,’ he said. Well, so much for courage. He made me sign an official letter of reprimand. I now look upon that letter fondly and thank him for being one of the many people who drove me to speak out even louder.

Through the years my radio segments (although ethical and discreet) have had public relations departments scurrying with all sorts of unpleasant repercussions. They were tough days (as they still are), yet I have weathered the storms.

The big question will be how I am likely to be reprimanded for writing this book. I know that the more resistance I receive, the more that would prove that I have hit a nerve. Still, I will brace myself once more because I am not looking forward to the wrath of political, corporate, and academic establishments that might feel threatened by this book.

Although I could have included many more chapters in this book, the existing collection sets down a foundation. In due course, I will write more books about leadership, management, and personal achievement. I will also write about a wider range of subjects, so that more readers can lose more friends and infuriate more people.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 1 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

What can you see from the balcony of life?

Time is running out

Imagine, way up in the sky, a balcony that resembles a viewing platform where you and others stand looking down on Earth. You are but a spirit. From the balcony you can see the marvellous and wondrous things on Earth — spectacular surf, exotic fruit, delicious vegetables, tantalising ice-cream, mouth-watering pasta, remarkable flowers, awesome gardens, stunning animals, breathtaking mountains, splendid rivers, people in love, exquisite fashion, fast cars, exhilarating snow skiing, and romantic sunsets.

The one in charge, Spirit-Superior, approaches you with a clipboard in hand and says that the next tour to Earth is about to depart. The problem is, only 10 percent of those on the balcony can be granted permission to go to Earth for a period not exceeding eighty years. Would you put your hand up? Would you ask to be considered? Are you enthusiastic enough? Do you really want to wear a human body and experience the beauty of life on that planet below?

According to Spirit-Superior, all candidates promise to make the most of their time on Earth. They are eager to start their journey. They cannot wait to take their first swim, to enjoy a juicy orange, to bite into a scrumptious cake, to walk in the park, and to make love with a beautiful companion in symphony with the cool breeze. You push to the front of the queue and plead, ‘Please pick me. I promise to make the most of life on Earth.’

Well, here you are on Earth. Not long to go before you have to return to the balcony. Not long when you compare eighty-odd years to eternity. What are you doing about it? Did you bite into a delicious apple today? Did you take a swim? Did your heart skip a beat as the stars came out to bid the sunset a fond farewell?

Or did you waste the day and insult Spirit-Superior by allowing anger, that elusive intangible, to take hold of your body and spoil your moment? You are not guaranteed the full eighty years. Only ‘now’ is your guarantee. Tomorrow is not in the contract. You have no way of knowing when your tour will be terminated.

Every night, as you put your head to sleep, Spirit-Superior visits you and asks, ‘Would you like to go back from whence you came — back to the balcony of life where you will never again have the opportunity to come back to Earth? Or would you like one more day to give it another go?’ What would you say? Most people say, ‘Oh please, give me one more day. Tomorrow I will live. Today I messed up, but tomorrow I will go to the beach and grab an ice-cream, and feed the birds, and make my friends laugh.’

Doubtless, some do choose to terminate their stay. They cannot see what all the fuss is about. They want life no more. So, Spirit-Superior grants their wish and takes them back to the balcony. Tragically, others tamper with the process and take their own life when they can no longer believe that tomorrow will bring relief. Some of my dear friends have decided to leave me behind by terminating their contracts.

One young man of nineteen asked his mother for some money. As loving mothers do, she obliged and asked no questions. He bought a rifle, went back home, and did the deed. He used to love life, but a door shut in his face. He was convinced that the door would never re-open. Faced with that prospect, he bowed out.

Where are you at in life? Are you battling with time thieves? Are you being robbed of your moment? Who is stealing your chance to walk barefoot in the sand?

Flight 101 never returns

In the airline business, everyone knows that once an aircraft departs, any empty seats on that flight cannot be filled again. The opportunity to recoup that lost fare has gone. This is why many airline companies overbook their flights. They do not mind inconveniencing their travellers, so long as they can be sure to pack the aircraft.

For undersubscribed flights, and since the advent of the networked world, airlines are trying to sell the last remaining seats via Internet auctions, hoping to fill every seat, even if at cost. It is better to cover costs than to fly with an empty seat, because empty seats cost money.

Your life can be likened to this challenge. Every day that you allow to slip through your hands is irretrievable. You cannot decide to return to yesterday or ‘turn back time’ to mend the broken dreams. You cannot return to last Monday. So, yesterday is gone, tomorrow is not yours, and today is already packed with drama. Is this what you planned when you were standing on the balcony of life? If not, stand up and do something about it.

You know what needs to be done. You do not need ‘motivational’ speakers to pep you up. This is your life. No-one is authorised to upset you. This is your turn. No matter how generous you might be, you cannot pass it on to someone else. If you choose to skip a turn, you will not be doing anyone a favour. The one thing you will be doing is ringing the alarm bells in the control room, and Spirit-Superior will have to take a closer look at your files. (For more about motivation, see Chapter 3, ‘The secret destroyer’.)

Every minute of every day

Have you considered that the Olympic Games would not have progressed if it were not for technologists’ ability to slice time into tiny bits we call a second, a tenth of a second, a hundredth of a second, and so on?

Electricity and the entire power grid, including street lighting and traffic controls, rely on disciplined and regimented pulses that must beat to time. The loss of one beat could stop a city. Traffic would grind to a halt, and the city could very well become grid-locked, meaning that no-one could move because no-one can move.

Computers operate to time. Not only for calendar and date-stamping purposes, but for internal microchip operation. One tiny beat out of rhythm and the computer fails.

Time, at its smallest, is precious. Even the big chunks we call day and night are great punctuation marks that herald a new week, a new month, a new season.

How well do we manage time? As a society, we manage it well. Things tend to work more often than not.

How well do you manage time? Do you divide your day into work, rest, and play? Is work something you do out of obligation? Is rest something you do because you are exhausted? Is play something you do to forget about work? This is not a pleasant cycle.

Life is life. To allow manipulating hounds to steal your life at the office through bureaucratic and politically poisoned meetings is theft of the highest order. Life is now, not after work. Life is shopping, not when you get home. Life is every minute of every day. So, how well are you managing your life? How well are you managing your time?

Time management is not about a list of things in order of priority that must be completed by a deadline. (How apt that we call it a deadline.) Time management is about life management. The issue is not what you do, but where your soul is at.

Do you put your pleasures on hold when you clean the house? Do you accept misery and boredom as unavoidable traits of your work domain? Do you accept domestic unrest as your lot in life?

Ups and downs

Life management is not about a delirious state of affairs. You own your life, so only you can live your life. Take charge of it. This does not mean that you must seek to be happy at all times. This is impossible. Not because it is too difficult in this day and age, but because happiness can only mean something to you after you have experienced sadness. From a young age we are taught that if one achieves happiness, one has achieved something worthwhile. However, although sadness, pain, and sorrow are not mentioned, or are undervalued or avoided, they are vital for the attainment of more happiness.

After one of my presentations, a young man approached me to thank me. He had the brightest disposition. He told me that although his colleagues were looking to build their careers in medicine, business, and the like, he just wanted to be ‘happy’, so it did not matter to him what profession he chose. He looked happy, but I knew that he did not know what he was saying. ‘How happy do you want to be?’ I asked. ‘Very happy,’ he replied. We sat for a while as I explained to him that if he wished to attain ten lots of happiness, he would have to endure ten lots of sadness. He finally grasped the concept and became scared. He specifically does not want to be unhappy. So he froze. I felt sorry for him, but such is life. Eventually he began to understand and assured me that he would brace himself. He valued happiness because he had experienced much sadness. However, he was unaware that more happiness could only be appreciated in the wake of more sadness. Even then, the process is not automatic, and much building is required. The trick is to use the sadness to build for yourself tools that can help you to get back on your feet again. You need to be ready to attain additional wisdom, to build shields that protect you, to enhance your attitude to cope with the situation. This is important because sadness knocks you down, and it is much easier to stay down than to lift yourself against the inertia.

Life management is not about being happy through ignoring society, or shedding one’s responsibilities, or resigning from corporate life to take up subsistence farming, or filing for divorce. These things in themselves do not make you happy. They might be important steps that you choose to take, but on their own, they do not lead to happiness. Life management is about being well adjusted. This means taking the good and the bad, and being able to stand against the wind of disappointment. It is the realisation that solutions do not come from escaping. Running away from unhappiness does not build happiness. A well-adjusted person responds well to what life dishes out, and builds new shields. In responding well to what life dishes out to you, be sure to arrest those who steal time — the essence of life.

Time is not really the important element. It is what time represents that matters. Time represents seconds. The seconds measure the division between the sun and the moon and these, in turn, ultimately measure the distance between life and death.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 2 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Light at the end of the tunnel

Inspiration is not kind, but it can be good

There were twelve people at a camp site. Independently and in their own pot, each was boiling an egg for breakfast. On close observation, one could see that each and every camper had sprinkled salt in the pot of water. Each had a very good reason for using salt. The young camper said that salt was used to flavour the eggs. Through osmosis, the salt would seep through the shell to provide for a delicious breakfast. Two of the campers used salt to make the water boil at a hotter temperature. While the first did this to save time by having the eggs boil faster, the second was more concerned with conserving what little gas remained in the gas bottle.

An older camper said that salt was used for the purpose of lining the shell of the egg to make it stronger, and therefore would make it less susceptible to cracking. The Mediterranean woman by the river used salt to increase the density of the water — enabling the egg to float a little more, thereby raising it from the strong flames which would have cooked the egg unevenly. Her husband insisted that he did this for a different reason. He was more concerned with increasing the density of the water in order for the egg to float so that it would not violently hit the base of his pot. Each of the remaining six campers had yet another reason for using salt.

Same thing, different reason

Isn’t it amazing that so many people could do the same thing — each for a different reason? Each camper was expecting a different result while unaware of the other benefits that the same action brought.

This chapter defines the framework for inspiration. However, definition is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, definition allows us to capture the essence of the qualities that comprise a complex phenomenon (such as inspiration, leadership, hope, or love) while, on the other hand, it can imprison, stifle, and entrap both the spirit of the subject itself and the spirit of the one who is trying to play with it. At the risk of the latter, here are the secrets of inspiration.

Inspiration is like salt. To some, inspiration leads to dedication. To others, it could result in determination, enthusiasm, or commitment. To a large number of people, inspiration leads to frustration while others become angry in its presence. In truth, inspiration can yield each and every one of these outcomes. However, each individual might not be aware of the multifaceted nature of inspiration. At best, some can derive goodness from it, and at worst, others can become bitter as it stirs them to destruction.

What most people do not realise is that inspiration resembles a little cheeky girl, her hair in a ponytail. She lives in her own little world and is oblivious to her surroundings. When you least expect it, she pops her head around the corner, throws a sticky-date pudding in your face and giggles in her loud soprano, ‘You can’t catch me.’

Inspiration does not exist

Inspiration emerges to tempt the astute. It springs up in the face of the intelligent. However, it is the same intelligence that, most often, overcalculates the situation to the point of destruction. Inspiration is not kind. It is not fair. It is not helpful. It plays at one’s conscience and torments the struggler. The whole purpose of inspiration is to remind the heavy-at-heart that hope exists. It emerges and disappears like a mirage. It hovers long enough to remind the weary that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Its wide eyes stare threateningly lest one weaken and lose sight of the importance of the task at hand.

Many people go in search of inspiration, and this is a mistake. Inspiration cannot be found because it does not exist. Inspiration is a carrier. It is the medium through which we receive gifts. However, as salt is to campers, its gifts are singular, even though their application can vary depending on the state of the receiver.

When inspiration beckons, we may receive the spirit of dedication. This is the result of our basic values of loyalty. If at any point loyalty wanes, inspiration flashes its glimmers of hope, confirming our basic values.

If we are predominantly stubborn then, when inspiration knocks, we are overwhelmed with a sense of determination.

If faith is what drives an individual, then inspiration (should it visit unexpectedly) yields enthusiasm.

When inspiration persists with the mature, it manifests in a severe dose of commitment.

The haphazard are frustrated by random sparks of inspiration because it reminds them of what is possible if they were to exercise discipline.

To those for whom injustice exists, inspiration delivers anger.

If you miss it, you miss out

Inspiration is not contagious. It relies on your ability to see what no-one else can see. Each signal is coded for the receiver. Unlike a shooting star which is visible to all who look, inspiration is a one-on-one deal. If you miss it, you miss out. Catch it, and it will do to you what you expect it to. The more you expect of it, the more you will receive.

Best of all, if you know how to catch inspiration, you will be able to use it to recharge your soul. It can be your silent partner, and your source of energy. Unfortunately, no-one will ever see what you see. No-one will ever appreciate what life means to you. Inspiration cannot be shared. It cannot be recycled. What it does to you will be instant. No second chance. With this in mind, you must be at the ready; but herein lies the dilemma. Like love, inspiration will not go near the expectant.

When we least expect grace, we receive grace. When we least expect love, we are surprised by it. Similarly, when we least desire a whip up the backside, we are blessed with another glimpse of the red rag that fires the spirit with inspiration.

Inspiration is not kind, but it can be good.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 3 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

The secret destroyer

What’s your poison?

No-one can motivate you. You cannot even motivate yourself — even though you have a motive for everything you choose (or choose not) to do, say, or feel.

What motivates an alcoholic to become an alcoholic? Nothing. No alcoholic sets out to become addicted — just like no-one sets out to catch cancer. The question is, what motivates a person to drink to such a degree that alcoholism eventually takes hold? Very often the answer has to do with one of two things — hope or escape. In some situations, fear acts as the third element.

Hope is the thing that vanishes moments before people commit suicide. Such people are unable to see what lies ahead, other than what is at hand. If what is at hand (the here and now) is displeasing or agonising, they choose to bow out because they do not like (or cannot cope with) the status quo. Alternatively, if they do happen to have a vision for what lies ahead, they are frightened or disgusted by it.

Many of us enter periods when the status quo is not to our liking, but the thing that keeps us going is either the belief that the chosen path will lead to a better life, or the hope that a new path will emerge in due course.

Some people take drugs in the hope that they will be accepted by their peers, or in the hope that they can relax or change their behaviour with a view to attracting a new friend.

The other motivator is ‘escape’. It is something that we do for release, whether we are trying to release pressure or anxiety, or trying to suspend the status quo by entering a cocooned environment, even if for a brief moment. To some degree, life-threatening sports offer people an entry into another environment by forcing them to escape from the status quo. Sky-diving and the like offer a rush for several reasons, including the immediate and urgent shift in focus to the risk at hand.

Very often the thought of the task ahead is more exhausting than the task at hand. This situation is temporarily suspended when we engage in an activity that focuses the mind sharply on one thing. Some people can do this through meditation, social outings, gardening, or reading. Others try alcohol and drugs in search of an escape.

Finding an escape can be a good thing. Unfortunately, it is when an escape becomes your master that you realise there is no escape thereafter. For example, once alcoholism grips, it will never let go until you find a motive to beat it.

The motivation to kick a habit, or to write a book, or to take up painting, or to file for divorce, needs to come from within you. It cannot be given to you by another person. The best that others can do is offer an incentive, or bribe you, or intimidate you, or threaten you with something you fear or hold dear. These things are not motivation — they offer a ‘reason’ for action. Note also that there is a difference between ‘motivation’ and an ‘incentive’. The former must come from within while the latter comes from external elements.

If people say, ‘We would like to lose weight but we need more motivation,’ they are not serious. The only thing that will motivate them to lose weight is the promise of an attractive environment which they cannot enter until they lose weight. Sometimes the promise comes through fear — such as the fear of death, with the promise of extended life if they lose excess fat.

To fear or not to fear

Fear plays a major role in life. It is unfortunate that people are easily motivated by it. Fear is a feeling that most societies consciously promote and develop in their members. Although fear is a good trigger that cautions us to examine our judgement before taking action, it needs to be balanced with courage. Sadly, courage is not something that society encourages.

When one quickly understands the taste of fear while unable to taste the glories of courage, the stronger force (in this case fear) will dominate. If the converse were true we would lean towards courageous decisions.

The healthy state is a balanced state wherein we work neither out of fear nor out of courage, but out of conviction. When a balanced person understands the consequences and still takes a course of action, that person is said to be acting with confidence. Confidence is fuelled by faith, and faith is fuelled by belief. Belief comes from knowledge, and knowledge comes not from logical calculations, but from emotional certainty. Emotional certainty comes from an unshakeable existence — where mind, body, and soul are fuelled by the spirit.

It can be argued that belief does not always come from knowledge. There might be times when belief seems to come irrationally and illogically. This is owing to the forces of a different kind of logic — such as the logic of love, or the logic of hate, or the logic of fear. However, such belief cannot fuel faith because it is not really ‘belief’. Belief must come from knowledge, therefore anything else that resembles belief might turn out to be an opinion, a desire, a suspicion, an idea, an expectation, or an assumption.

Most addicts acknowledge that their path will lead to destruction. Despite that knowledge, they lack the urgency to act because they do not see the damage taking place. For example, watching hair grow is tedious, and we would be unlikely to notice the microscopic growth. Similarly, the path to destruction is often as subtle. Because there is no evidence to show, it makes it impossible to reason with an addict. Furthermore, as one’s senses and health begin to deteriorate, even the willing can no longer wrestle with addiction. (It would be a different matter if every time addicts had cigarettes, they felt unbearable pain, akin to someone bashing their thumb with a hammer. The immediate consequence would discourage the act of smoking because the resulting pain would be immediate and unbearable.)

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 4 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Believe it or not

Are you ready to sacrifice your life?

So many supposed gurus speak about ‘belief’ as if it is a choice. They say things like, ‘You must start to believe in yourself.’ This is incorrect, impossible, and damaging because it confuses a lot of people and misleads them into thinking that ‘belief’ is something they can choose to have.

You cannot choose to believe something that you do not believe. It is that simple. No matter how much of a ‘positive thinker’ you might be, optimism has nothing to do with belief.

Therefore, if people speak about the need to believe, and they are sincere in their communication, they are speaking about a matter of fact. They are saying that if you do not believe, you will be unable to progress. They are not asking you to believe, because that is impossible. You cannot choose to start believing, any more than you can choose to feel satisfied when you are famished. You cannot believe that you are not thirsty when you are. In the same way, you cannot choose to believe in something that you do not really believe in.

Belief manifests itself to you through supreme knowledge and faith. Belief is not blind. It is not hope. It is unequivocal, unshakeable knowledge that what you hold to be true is true — or what you seek will be found.

Here is an analogy. Supposing someone walks up to you and insists that you are carrying ten dollars in your pocket when you know that you are not. Notwithstanding trickery, you know the truth. This means that you believe that you do not have the money. Do you hang on to your belief in the hope that the more you believe it the more likely it is that you will be right? Of course not. It is pointless to even engage in such brain activity because you know the facts. You are steadfast in your belief. That firmness gives you conviction which, in turn, is powerful. That is what is meant by the ‘power of belief’.

The power of belief

Many people can only believe when they know something to be true through evidence (either past or present). When something has not yet happened, people find it difficult to believe. They might have doubts because they reason that no-one can be sure of the future. Well, anyone who thinks that about any issue is entitled to do so, and that simply means that they do not believe it, no matter how much they would desire it to happen. Still, if you believe, such doubt would never enter your mind because you would have as much conviction as knowing that you are now alive.

Conviction alone does not help you because it is merely there as a question for you to answer. It is part of the checklist that helps you to determine the truth. Ask yourself if you believe in your project, or in your art, or in your idea. If your answer is uncertain, the answer is ‘no’. And you cannot do anything about it. However, the truth will set you free, and you will know in your heart the secret of your conviction or lack thereof. If your answer is an unequivocal ‘yes’, that too is your secret. The state of ‘believing’ is for your knowledge, not for others to understand.

Having determined where you stand, you can make decisions that will help you to progress. If you choose to sit back and not do what you ought to do, nothing will happen. Believing in something that requires intervention from you will not progress without your input. Therefore, your desire to see it happen rests with your decision to take the necessary action.

If you encounter failure, it is up to you to rectify the issue. Failure cannot be called ‘failure’ if it is in something you believe. It is merely an obstacle or a delay. It is up to you to observe, learn, and try again. Your setback will not shake your belief.

You’ll know when it happens

No-one can tell you what belief means until you experience it. When you believe in something, you will know it, and you will know what I mean. Until then, have hope in the power of belief, and stand at the ready.

To believe is to give all you have. When you have given your all and seem to have nothing else, you are left with one thing — your life. If you believe in something, and go after it with passion, you will give your life also. Passion is like rocket fuel. You will not know what hit you — nor would it matter.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 5 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

If you don’t control yourself, someone else will

The plight of the candle in the wind

Imagine being in a hot-air balloon, moving briskly through the sky in very strong winds amid a beautiful sunset. You look down and see your friend waving to you from the rooftop of a tall lighthouse on the beachhead.

You prepare to engage in an experiment you have planned that involves you and your friend each lighting a candle to determine how far you can travel in your balloon and still be able to see each other’s flame.

Your friend on the rooftop of the lighthouse strikes a match, but the wind is far too strong, so the moment that the flame appears it is blown out by the wind. Your friend tries several times to no avail.

What chance do you have of lighting the match in the balloon when the wind is even stronger at your altitude? You give it a go and strike the match anyway. To your surprise, you can light the match with ease, and your candle is lit effortlessly.

How can a tiny flame survive in such strong winds? The answer lies in its environment. The balloon moves gracefully with the wind and becomes part of it. The flame is at ease because it is protected from the wind by the wind.

Is the flame in control of the wind, or vice versa? Neither, because within the right environment, some things can co-exist in harmony, even if those things would normally clash with each other under different circumstances. Within the right environments, incompatible tangibles (such as the tiny flame and the strong wind) neither support nor obstruct each other. In this context, one might begin to understand the benefits of ‘going with the flow’.

Deciding to go with the flow of life ought not to mean that you have given up the fight, nor given in to the stronger force. You can go with the flow without losing sight of your goals, without compromising your position, and without changing your values. Going with the flow does not mean avoiding opposition and distraction, but co-existing with them. This state of affairs is called ‘peace’. The law of peace governs the co-existence of elements. Peace is an intangible state that reflects one’s life in relation to one’s environment.

Peace be with you

To be at peace neither guarantees happiness nor removes difficulties. To be peaceful removes neither conflict nor trials and tribulations. These things are part of life, and can be good for you. They are only bad when they spin you out of control.

One can still be in control in the face of difficulty and unhappiness. Trials and tribulations can also be addressed without losing control. To lose control is to lose peace. To have control is to be at peace.

Although you cannot control when difficulties arise, you ought to control when you allow things to affect you. Timing becomes an important factor in controlling your peace. Timing does not refer to ‘time’ itself, but to when and where you decide to react to a situation.

This chapter deals with the issue of timing, so that you can control your life and how you live it.

Where do you live?

When you live, where do you live? This is not a question of geography but of ‘state’ — meaning where does life take place for you, and in which state of affairs do you live?

Where do you hurt when you lose your loved one, suffer embarrassment, or feel unloved? Can you put your finger on it and say, ‘my pain comes from this part of my anatomy’? No, you cannot. Hurt is intangible. It exists nowhere on your body — yet it consumes it. Emotions live neither on you nor in you, but with you.

Many people who study tangibles (things you can see and touch) and intangibles (things you cannot see and touch) believe that tangible things are easier to control. This is generally true. Notwithstanding unfortunate accidents or natural disasters, we tend to control the tangible world around us. However, given that life is mostly about intangible things, does it not make sense to learn to control them — things such as thoughts, desires, anger, curiosity, love, ambition, motivation, sadness, hurt, and sorrow?

Although we live in a tangible world, life itself occurs within our mind, spirit, and soul. If life and most of its issues are intangible, we could live a better life by controlling these intangibles — what we feel, when we feel, and how we feel.

Controlling your net

Long before the term ‘net’ became synonymous with the Internet, I was using it to refer to our ‘shield’. We all have a shield, yet some of us use it effectively while others do not use it at all. Learning to control your net (shield) enables you to control the intangibles of life.

First, it is important to become aware of your net — what it is and what it does; how strong it is; where it is weak; how big it is; how flexible and elastic it is; and what size the holes are. Some nets (like tennis nets) have big holes that allow big things to pass through. Some nets (like hairnets) have smaller holes that catch most things that come by. Some nets (like mosquito nets) have even smaller holes, and allow very little to penetrate unnoticed.

Second, it is important to learn how to change the size of your net’s holes. You need the ability to make the holes a different size to suit different issues or environments. If your net is tightly woven your life is likely to become cluttered and tense because you end up catching everything that comes your way. You become superbly observant and overly sensitive to what is going on around you. This can be an asset, but it can also be a burden, especially if most of the things you catch are neither important nor relevant to you, or untimely in your life.

Third, it is important to learn when to change the size of the holes. This gives you greater control of what you let into your life.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 6 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Achieving intellectual simpatico

Using logic and creativity to reach logictivity

The logic of creativity and the creativity of logic is a study I call ‘logictivity’. It is a term I’ve coined to describe a very complex discipline that requires a book all its own. However, in Chapter 10, ‘Leadership’, I mention that the single most important factor in leadership is creativity. Although this is true, it is important to touch on logictivity because those who wish to develop their leadership skills need to develop both their logic and their creativity — in equal doses and to equal proportions. Although both are powerful on their own, a lot of synergy can be created when both logic and creativity are used simultaneously. Synergy is the creation of a new substance. When logictivity is in play, it is altogether a different substance to its component parts.

A person who is 100 percent creative is only operating at a capacity of 50 percent. A person who is 100 percent logical is only half as effective as is otherwise possible. A person who boasts to be one and not the other does not realise the synergy that both can bring. It is like having a television without a signal, or signals without a television. Claiming to be supremely creative may seem to be a colourful way to describe oneself, but it admits to a supreme ignorance of logic. And vice versa. To one who knows better, such a display of ignorance is greeted with as much contempt as the notion that reading is superior to writing, as if it were true that reading and writing can be mutually exclusive!

Logic says, ‘I’ll believe it after I see it.’ Creativity says, ‘I’ll believe it then I’ll see it.’

Logic asks, ‘What if?’ Creativity asks, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if?’

Logic keeps your life on track, while creativity fuels it.

The creative proposition, ‘I can talk to you from anywhere in the world’, is acceptable because our logic is aware of how the telephone can make this proposition possible.

The creative proposition, ‘I can speak to millions of people at the same time’ is also acceptable to our logic because of our understanding of how television can be used.

What would happen to these creative propositions if our logic did not know about the telephone and the television? If we were untrained thinkers, we would come to a standstill — as many people do when confronted with such seemingly impossible propositions.

Logictivity can be learnt

Logic and creativity are systems of learning. They are as important as learning to speak, or learning to walk. Some people possess very little creative or logical energy. Others tend to lean to one side or the other, while many boast to be one and not the other.

The important thing to realise about logic and creativity is that both skills can be acquired. This argument is about as true as the one that says that anyone can learn to ride a bicycle. The person who cannot yet ride a bicycle will not find it easy to learn, and might fall off several times during training. In the same way, a person learning the skills of logic and creativity might find it difficult at first, or might make mistakes that bruise emotionally, intellectually, or even physically.

Those who possess an over-abundance of creativity will find it just as difficult to learn about the structure of logic because people are not born ‘logical’ or ‘illogical’, nor are they born to be ‘creative’ or ‘uncreative’.

You will never learn to ride a bicycle until you first have the desire to do so. A decision to take action must then be made. Third, the determination to ride is necessary to see you through. These three attributes alone are insufficient to give you the skills to ride a bicycle. However, they will prepare you for your development. Cycling requires special muscles, special co-ordination, hours of training and practice, balance, an understanding of the road rules, and a place to ride from and to.

Learning to be logical or creative also requires the desire, decision, determination, and development. In the same way that a skill is never complete or whole, being logical or creative is a never-ending development. It is exciting that the more creative you become, the more you enjoy being creative; and the more logical you become, the more you enjoy being logical. But such enjoyment cannot reach a sustained level until the energy of both logic and creativity balance. That balance is what I call ‘logictivity’.

Remember that logic and creativity are extremes. The mind swings between them. On the one side, logic acts as the science of reasoning, processing everything in binary — meaning that something is either true or false, up or down, possible or impossible. Computers are powerful logic machines because they work using binary systems. Logic is our understanding of what is possible and what is impossible. It relies on previous knowledge (hindsight). Logic starts to work against creativity when we introduce fear, confusion, and irrationality.

On the other side, creativity is about creating, making, inventing, crystallising, and going beyond the status quo; it brings into being that which was not there. This applies to our thoughts, ideas, actions, behaviours, attitudes, and imagination. The limits to creativity are lack of vision, lack of foresight, lack of understanding (or an imperfect understanding), and lack of knowledge (or an imperfect knowledge). In addition, logic itself can be a barrier to creativity, just as creativity can be a barrier to logic!

Once you have developed both your logic and creativity, you can engage in logictivity — the ability to use both skills simultaneously (and at lightning speed) without having to be conscious of the rapid swing from one to the other. In fact, once you practise logictivity, you no longer need to swing from one to the other. A trapeze artist fights against gravity by swaying left and right. Eventually, a balance is found. Balance is calm, it does not fight against other forces. It is a new force. When you find the balance of logictivity, you also find a whole new thinking process.

At first, logictivity requires a conscious effort. This is like asking you to tap your head with your left hand while rubbing your stomach with your right hand. Many people find this difficult at first. If they are able to control this motion, they can eventually do it without any conscious effort. The same applies to people learning to play the piano. At first, they find it a challenge to use both hands simultaneously to play a different set of notes. After much practice, the desired dexterity is achieved.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 7 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Can you speak another colour?

Use mono-thought to sharpen your brain-speak

This chapter will introduce you to three powerful tools that relate to the development of leadership skills. These are ‘mono-thought’, ‘brain-speak’, and ‘colourful thinking’. These are terms I have coined in order to describe these complex, yet essential, leadership skills.

During party conversations that centre on dreams, someone eventually asks if you dream in black and white, or in colour. This offers a good opportunity to engage in an experiment. Try to keep the conversation alive by asking if they can dream in hologram or only in red.

Try to stretch the boundaries and ask if they can dream in mirror image. I have not been able to take it beyond this point. However, if ever I find a group of people with a higher tolerance for my experiments, I would like to ask if they can dream in fast-forward. Then, for some self-inflicted torture, I would be curious to see their reaction when I ask if they can dream in reverse (as if rewinding a film).

At a social gathering, there seems to be a sense of urgency to respond immediately to all questions. Awkward humour and witticism might emerge. Before you know it, the group will start to poke fun at the questions and, in no time, a new subject will command their attention.

The purpose of this social experiment has nothing to do with dreams. It is designed to observe the thinking process that someone gives to new ideas and strange questions. Above all, notice that there seems to be a sense of obligation to respond instantly to these interesting questions. Rarely would someone produce a note-pad to write down the question with a view to thinking about it and responding to it at a later stage.

At the other extreme are moments when friends and colleagues go through excruciating processes to arrive at a conclusion. They might be afflicted with hesitation or guilt thereby finding it difficult to take a stand. There are those who jump to conclusions without affording the subject sufficient analysis. The saddest of all are those who can no longer hold their own thought. They find it sinful to stand firm on a decision, except for socially approved norms.

Society enjoys social norms. As a result, those who gravitate towards the comfort zone are likely to sink into socially acceptable thinking processes. For example, at school I was conditioned to write essays that were devoid of my opinion — only authorities on the subject could be quoted or referred to. At work, I was encouraged to canvass several options and show flexibility in my views. The former says that one’s opinion is not important while the latter says that a lack of flexibility-in-thought amounts to unwelcome stubbornness.

Thinking is such a pain

It is true that the more you know, the more you realise how much you do not know. Similarly, the more you know, the more likely it is that others will irritate you.

The more you think, the more you realise that there is very little competition in this sphere. The painful aspect comes when certain truths become known to the thinker while these revelations remain undiscovered for those who do not engage in rugged thinking. This results in a sense of loneliness for the thinker.

Despite the revered qualities of intelligence, thinking is generally not understood, and is therefore not encouraged. Taking one’s time to think might be seen as not knowing the answer. Stopping at work to stare out the window to think might label you as a daydreamer. Those who slow down to think about a solution might be called procrastinators. Sadly, those who require periods of inactivity are generally seen as lazy or unproductive.

Mind you, there are those who are so slow in their deliberation that they infuriate others by staring or appearing so vague that they make others uncomfortable. Slow thinkers ought not to discard social graces. They still need to be able to multi-task whereby they acknowledge the presence of others around them, and communicate the fact that they will need time to think through the implications. Simply not responding can be rude, if not off-putting.

In which colour do you think?

Regardless of what others do, this chapter is about you and your thinking processes. What do you do? What thinking processes do you engage in to arrive at your conclusions? Are you uncomfortable with holding on to a thought for fear of things changing around you, necessitating a change of mind? Is your ‘thought’ the derivative of ‘thinking’ or do you hold thoughts that may have been born through someone else’s brainwaves?

Has anyone accused you of being simplistic when you have reduced complex thoughts into clear solutions? Have others tried to make you feel inadequate and accused you of being ‘black and white’ when you have cut through complicated situations? Have you been told that you must deal with life’s ‘shades of grey’? Have you been reminded about ‘the facts of life’ when you have tried to synthesise issues? Have your colleagues told you to ‘get real’? Do your actions still cause people to plead with you to ‘be realistic’? Or, have you been accused of being: a dreamer; idealistic; futuristic; or too courageous in your thinking?

If you have suffered these hurdles, chances are that you are a thinker (or a real loony who has not come to grips with the facts of life). If you are a thinker, and are brave enough to venture to the next lonely level, come on a journey as we explore the infuriating and liberating concept of mono-thought — a process of thinking that boils everything down to one element. If it were possible to observe thinking under a microscope, mono-thought would be equivalent to observing complex compounds at their atomic level.

Mono-thought goes beyond the ‘black and white’ and ventures through every shade of grey to colourful thinking, enabling you to arrive at the single thought or single word that best describes the answer. Mono-thought is a mental discipline that analyses an issue, concept, object, or thought, so that one arrives at the single most important element.

The following are approximately the first 1000 words from Chapter 8 of Jonar Nader’s book,
How to Lose Friends and Infuriate People.

Another dirty word

Ambition – power without mercy

I once heard a CEO of a large organisation criticise military establishments for their obvious reverence for visible ranking. This sparked my curiosity about the benefits of displaying one’s rank through pips and stripes. What does such categorisation do? Is it there to inflate one’s ego, or to communicate the reporting structure? Is it a way to seek respect and discipline? Does it keep subordinates eager? Or is it so steeped in history and tradition that it has lost its meaning?

The CEO presented a cogent argument about ‘respect for all’, not just for the chosen few. He advocated equality, and criticised the ways in which military personnel flaunted their rank.

The slight ring of truth in his argument dissipated when I started to realise the hypocrisy of his statements. Upon close examination, it was clear that he flaunted his position in more ways than his accused. His business card advertised his impressive title; his name was followed by a series of letters signifying his academic qualifications and industry associations; his supposed equality afforded him a much-desired parking space for his chauffeur-driven car; his spacious office was adorned with certificates and photographs; support staff catered to his whims; and he enjoyed a myriad of corporate accessories and fringe benefits that other comrades lusted for, including exclusive memberships, first-class travel, and his own washroom!

The authority he wielded attracted sycophants desperate for his approval. His influence and lifestyle had a glossy exterior that many found attractive and desirable. His executives seemed keen to acquire the trappings of the ivory tower. They focused more on climbing the corporate ladder than on engaging in an exciting industry — all the while aware that their skills and intellect (or lack thereof) had very little to do with their prospects for promotion.

This does seem to be a harsh way to describe his managers. One would think that among them were a few keen, enthusiastic professionals. Yes, there were but, typically, such individuals did not last long. Their refusal to ‘play the game’ landed them in hot water.

This destructive game lured executives with the promise of a possible stint on the throne, although anyone who threatened the incumbent received the fatal sting. He expected his followers to be ambitious — but not too ambitious.

The pecking order was re-set every time the boss went away on business. A much-awaited memo would give all the right signals to those who knew how to read the cryptic clues. It would decree who was to ‘fill in’ for the boss. Interestingly, complete power was never vested in just one person. A typical memo would read, ‘Jane has my functional authority, while Bob has my financial authority…’

In my developing years I had the misfortune of working with just such a person of discriminating power. I was too young to know better at the time. However, I became puzzled when, one day, the operations manager came into my office and moved the large pot plant to the outside of the glass wall. ‘What are you doing that for?’ I asked. ‘Sorry, Jonar. Your level does not allow you to have a plant in your office.’

That must have been a tribal hint to which I was completely oblivious. Whatever I did to trigger that pettiness was still threatening the boss, because a few weeks later the telephone that I had inherited was replaced. I was not permitted to use it because it contained a calculator, which in those days was a serious executive perk reserved for the privileged few. I recall seeing it thrown into a box full of junk in the storeroom. It was better for it to sit there and collect dust than to have a lesser ranked employee use it. To top it off, I had to buy a calculator at my expense because when I requisitioned one from the company, I was told that my choice was limited — managers at my level were not permitted to order calculators that contained more than twenty-one buttons. A few months later, the round table in my office was replaced with one that was slightly smaller in diameter.

Although we executives did not wear our rank on our sleeves, there was no doubt about our pecking order.

Climbing the ladder

In order to understand how ambition interconnects with rank, I undertook part of my research at a military air-force base where I met sergeants and officers, including pilots and the Air Commodore.

One of my visits was especially memorable. An officer and I were lured onto the tarmac by the roar of the F-111s. Within seconds, two airmen ran towards us shouting. They did not dare touch us because they did not know who we were. So they stopped, saluted, as befitted their rank, and asked us to move back. I did not pay attention because my eyes were fixed on a jet that was making its final approach to land. A third airman arrived. Realising that he was the more senior officer, he told us to ‘get the hell out of there’ in crude and no uncertain terms.

By this time, the F-111 had just landed on my right. The officer grabbed our arms and abruptly dragged us away. I felt a rush of adrenalin. What was all the panic about? As the jet taxied past us and made a sharp right turn, we hit the ground. Just over our heads the scorching after-burner put everything into perspective. I felt the heat-wave from those merciless flames and realised that we could have been burnt to a cinder.

Strangely enough, despite the intensity of that near-death experience, and the many fascinating conversations I had with all sorts of military personnel during my research, the one event that made the biggest impression on me was a conversation I had with a sergeant. I asked him about his career and what he was doing to elevate his status. To my dismay, he said that he had no desire to become an officer. I could not understand his response. ‘Why are you serving in the air force if you do not want to be promoted?’ I asked. I could not understand why he was so uninterested in furthering his career. Was he unhappy? Did he lack ambition? Was he complacent? I must admit that my esteem for him plummeted. For years I remained disappointed by his response. I was under the impression that the whole purpose of working within such an environment was to seek promotion and climb the ladder.