"Not what I have, but what I do, is my kingdom."
—Thomas Carlysle
Machiavelli, Republics, Republican Troops, Kings and Emperors
What are some book recommendations for democracy and other forms of government?
You might consider Machiavelli's The Prince, which was well-read and well-admired by most of the American founding fathers. I just read "Machiavelli, Violence, and History" which is a short essay -
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hrp/issues/1992/Minter.pdf
Machiavelli is widely misunderstood because his most striking quotes—like, "Better to be feared than loved"—are taken out of context. The essay I just linked you to talks about violence in pursuit of the common good, things like that which can be a bit of a head-trip.
The Prince is one of those books that you have to think critically on, you won't agree with all of it, but there's some interesting insights. The most interesting one I got from there was reading about how the soldiers of a republic tend to be more loyal than a monarchy's soldiers. Republican troops, thus, fight more fanatically, are more willing to die, less likely to retreat, and more likely to keep fighting even if it looks like the paymaster can't make their wages for a while.
I read that book around the same time I was learning about Napoleon, so it shed a lot of light on things. Republican troops (I use "republican" the way most people use "democratic"—for instance, America is a republic with some democratic elements, not a democracy—there hasn't been a pure democracy in a very long time)—anyways, republican troops tend to fight harder, fight more fanatically, give up less easily, and require less quality of life and less pay and less wages to fight on. Napoleon did a lot of other things right militarily, but I think an underappreciated reason for his success is that he was running an imperial republic for government instead of a monarchy.
I suppose I should define terms again—"imperial" has two potential connotations. First, of expansion and empire. This is the modern usage of the word.
There's an older usage of the word, from Latin "Imperator"—that's where the word Emperor comes from. But an Imperator wasn't an Emperor under modern usage of the word emperor. "Commander" is probably the closest modern translation of Imperator, though it's not quite right—an Imperator would have both civil and military authority to the end of a common cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperator
So it's funny, sometimes you can wind up in a government structure that I'll call an "imperial republic"—that's a government with republican elements (i.e., some democracy/voting to choose representatives, then the representatives meet and have some legislative authority), but also has a very strong executive branch run by an "imperator"—Napoleon, I think, would quality as an imperator, and indeed, he took the title "Emperor" later in his life but never "King."
Interesting, isn't it? When Napoleon re-emerged for the 100 Days, it was the Emperor Napoleon I vs. King Louis XVIII … oftentimes, the distinction isn't made in history between an imperator-style "Emperor" and a traditional monarch "King"—but there is a difference. While "Emperor" and "King" are used more or less interchangeably in modern usage, people would have understood the difference back then. While Napoleon was to some extent a monarch later in life, he was always more of a commander than a monarch. Imperator, y'know?
Oh right, I'm off on a tangent, but I brought it up about Machiavelli and soldiering and republics. The problem that "pure republics" with a weak executive tend to face is dissent and the inability to get things done. That happened in the United States a few times—notably with the Nullification Crisis, which Andrew Jackson smashed, and then the Confederate Succession, which Lincoln smashed.
Between those two events, America was transitioned greatly from a "pure" republic towards a semi-imperial republic (again, I use "imperial" mostly in the classic sense here, though even the classical imperator also had connotations of expansion/empire).
Machiavelli wouldn't be a bad place to start analyzing the differences between monarchies and republics, as he covers history without much embellishment and doesn't care if he looks good or bad in the process. Perhaps before reading The Prince you would do well to check out that Harvard article/essay I linked that discusses violence as a means to common good—it's fascinating stuff. It's totally taboo to even talk about these days, but this is how much everyone through history analyzed and thought up until at least the end of World War II.
The Building Blocks of an Empire
If you were going to build an empire, how would you do it?
I've been thinking on this lately. I want to choose the imperial path first, last, and always. Every decision I make ought to be to the end of building. We can get into the "why" of it and philosophy another time, but I think pretty much the meaning of life is to expand, the mid-term goal of humanity ought to be to spread outside of Planet Earth and diversity our habitats a little bit, and I'd like to participate in doing that.
That's a really long discussion though, so we'll save that for another time. Yesterday I was in a really nice cafe and I was thinking, "You know, I want to always be choosing the empire-building way. When choosing between options, when prioritizing, when picking activities, when picking projects—I want to choose expansion and empire."
I thought about that and I don't have any really good heuristics for what's conducive to expansion and what isn't. So today I went to a cool little Vietnamese restaurant where the owner is friendly, got some coffee and tea and bread, and started brainstorming a little bit.
I think the following are the building blocks of an empire:
The Imperial Path
People:
Accomplish & Credential:
Self:
Resources:
Organizations:
Any of these sections could be broken down into significantly greater detail. You could probably write an entire book on the vast majority of elements here. Hell, there's got to be dozens of valuable "Skills," each one of which could have its own comprehensive book on it.
This is really a "barest elements" sort of analysis. It leaves out some of my core philosophies. For instance, "Out-compete by out-serving" isn't written explicitly, but would fall under Habits, Routine, Beliefs, Loyalties, etc, etc.
It strikes me that the "Self" category is the most important, because with the right mix of skills, habits, spending your time wisely, etc.—then you can build the rest of everything else.
There's a lot of feedback loops in here. The more you develop yourself, the more you're going to accomplish and get credentialed, which is going to make it easier to meet and connect with good people, which is going to help you develop yourself and do more, which is going to get you access to resources, and so on.
At the highest levels, it seems like you need good relationships (or at least, not bad relationships) with important organizations. If you're an American doctor and doing medical research, you're really going to be hurting if the FDA or AMA dislikes you. It'd be good if they liked you and wanted to work with you, but it's at least necessary that they don't dislike you to the point of wanting to shut you down even if you're doing good work.
Prioritizing from the above list becomes a bit easier. I might flesh it out a little more, but I got a lot of clarity from making the list.
Some Differences Between Being Low Born and High Born
So, I expect this one to be controversial. If you're a very sensitive person that likes to get offended, you might want to skip it. If you're in a hurry, feel free to skim the bold parts.
I didn't come from all that much. My great-grandparents and grandparents were dirt poor. My parents dug out of it a little bit, though I was born when they were young and unestablished. My kids will have more opportunities.
I wish to do much. How much is possible? To know, you have to study history.
So I study history. And looking at the history books, I see a number of differences between people of low birth and high birth.
Now, before I go any further, I recognize this is unfashionable and controversial to talk about in this day and age. But it's definitely a real phenomenon, and I've never shied from the truth even when unfashionable. Also, I think after reading this you'll see that the majority of high born characteristics are superior to low born characteristics, and it's worth learning, training, and becoming better.
You have to do things correctly and consistently in order to become wealthy or powerful and hold on to it for any significant amount of time. People can become wealthy or powerful through evil means in the short term, but it's unsustainable in the long term.
Before we go any further, let's define wealth and power.
Wealth is anything that's suitable to humans that humans want. Reshaping matter and energy into forms more suitable and desirable to humans produces more wealth. There are near unlimited possibilities to reshape energy and matter into more and more suitable forms. Thus, there is near unlimited wealth available.
Wealth, honorably gained, is purely a virtuous thing. If you steal, extort, embezzle, or fraudulently gain control over things people want, that is bad. But gaining wealth by building, innovating, shipping, transporting, taking risks, making the world beautiful and more suitable for humans—this is a purely virtuous thing.
Power is mastery over yourself and your surroundings. Again, power is virtuous if virtuously gained. Definitely, the power that comes from self-mastery and self-discipline is purely virtuous. Power over surroundings also tends to be a good thing—you are more powerful if you have a roof over your head and an umbrella so you don't get wet in the rain, if you have books so that you become more knowledgeable, if you know how to write, if you understand numbers, and so on. You become more powerful by cooperating with other people in an honorable way. And so on.
The first difference between low born people and high born people are their attitudes towards wealth and power.
To put it bluntly, high born people generally pursue wealth and power, while low born people do not. Funny enough, a lot of times high born people actively put down and say bad things about wealth, while accumulating more and more of it. For instance, a notable insurance salesman campaigns for having higher estate taxes, while lobbying the government to make life insurance payments tax free—then he includes in his advertising that his insurance lets people get away from taxes.
This two-faced behavior is perhaps the largest turnoff of high-born people—they advocate for equality and unity while establishing political positions of great power. They find roundabout ways to enjoy all the privileges of wealth while simultaneously condemning it. Yes, I find it insufferable, but we can still learn from it. The first difference between low born and high born people is that high born people are generally steered towards getting wealth and power. (Ignore what they say, look at they do—they're drawn to power)
I think this, in and of itself, is probably the biggest and largest difference. If you actively say, "Okay, I will get wealthy. I will move matter and energy around so that is more suitable for humans, and I will gain a greater mastery over myself and my surroundings"—in that case, you will become wealthier and more powerful. The decision to do it is a big part of the process.
High born people expect to be treated well. Low born people frequently expect to be treated poorly. And thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you grow up watching people snap to attention and treat your parents well, you expect it. Thus, paradoxically, you become kinder, friendlier, and less adversarial. High born people tend to have a an expectation that the situation will work out favorably for them, that people will do right by them, and that they're going to get what they want. Thus, they do. Low born people frequently have an expectation that the situation is going to go poorly, that people do wrong by them, and that they're not going to get what they want. Thus, they don't.
High born people generally are more friendly, giving, and helpful than low born people. I understand this goes against what you see in movies, but it's true. Generally speaking, someone who is successful or was raised by successful parents is more likely to do you a favor, introduce you to someone, or otherwise help you out. Low born people tend to be more paranoid and stingy about everything.
High born people don't look to get paid back immediately. They know that you help people who seem friendly with a good character, and a lot of them will do right by you someday, sooner or later. Many won't, but that's okay.
Personally, I've found 90 out of 100 people you do right by kind of forget about it and are ungrateful. 9 out of 100 are gracious, friendly, and cool about it, and then that's the end of it. But then that last 1 out of 100 people changes your life in an amazing way. I'm not looking to get paid back when I do something nice for someone—it's like, do a lot of nice things, and good karma will catch up with me sooner or later. My best friend in the whole world I met because he sent me a long question at a company I was running, and for whatever reason, I was inspired to take two hours to write a long, detailed reply with lots of instructions. Since then, he's helped me put together some really important business deals, we've been snowboarding together in Japan, I stay with him whenever I'm in Los Angeles, and I've learned so much from him.
There are dozens of people I've helped out that didn't even say thanks, but who cares? It doesn't matter. Low born people feel very quid pro quo about things—they expect to get back right away, and will often remind whoever they did a favor for that they did a favor. This is tasteless and turns people off. High born people tend to know better—spread the good around, it'll catch up with you sooner or later.
With that said, high born people are much more comfortable getting compensated for their skills, ability, and contribution. A girl born to a wealthy family will go to a cafe and say, "I made some paintings. Can I hang them in here with price tags on them?" A girl born to a poorer family will be more shy about trying to sell her work, despite the fact that she could use the money more. This is really a shame. High born people are more comfortable asking for money or compensation in exchange for providing value. People of high birth do more nice things for free with no expectation, but are also more comfortable selling themselves and their work.
High born people define themselves less by money and possessions. Thus, you see less asininely stupid purchases. Well, you might see someone who is making $2,000,000 per year buy a $200,000 sports car, and you think that's asinine. But that's only 10% of what he makes in a year, which isn't so much compared to paying $25,000 for a car when you make $40,000. Low born people tend to be more insecure about not appearing well off, so they put a greater fraction of their income into consumption and showing off. This is, of course, not conducive to getting wealthy.
There's lots more, and examples in both directions. I could write another 10-20 other points off the top of my head, but this is getting along. Though, I've got one big important one here:
Low born people often try to do too much in one generation, and wind up over-expanding because of it. If you're familiar with Japanese history, compare Hideyoshi Toyotomi to Tokugawa Ieyasu. Hideyoshi had entirely won and unified all of Japan, but then—inexplicably—he immediately declared war and tried to conquer Korea and China. As a result, his family was overthrown shortly afterwards by the Tokugawa, who then ceased expansion, solidified their position, and ruled Japan for the next 250 years.
Hideyoshi was of low birth, he came from nothing. Really, he's an inspiration, but he's also one of the greatest lessons to low born people—don't go too far. Hey, don't mistake me for someone who is overly cautious—I'm trying to become the greatest strategist of this era. But note that strategist is a captain and advisor, not a general role or a king. My children will be high born, which means they'll see from a young age these lessons—yes, it's virtuous and appropriate to build wealth and become powerful. Expect to be treated well. Be friendly, giving, and helpful and don't expect anything in return. Yet, when you've got something of value, offer good deals and get compensated. Don't define yourself by money and possessions. There's an unlimited amount of wealth and power available, you can gain it by building, inventing, innovating, cooperating, trading, and doing other virtuous things. Don't be stingy and scramble for the last penny, leave something on the table. But don't be too shy either, build and receive a lot in return, because why not do so?
I've learned a lot of these lessons, but many of them too late. I'm still shy about picking up the phone and calling a stranger to ask for help (though, getting better at it). I'm still shy about picking up the phone and asking someone how I can help them (though, getting better at it). I'm still shy about walking into an executive's office and telling him that he should give tens of thousands of dollars to my company to build things for him (though, I'm getting better at it).
But I still have many of the low born mentalities, so I'm going to be careful not to go too far. A captain, not a general, not a king. If one of my sons has the ability, drive, and desire to be a general or king, so be it. He'll be learning lessons at age 5 that I started learning at age 19. When he's 14, he'll know much of what I knew at 24. But not me—no over-expanding, no going too far and losing it all. I'm fit to be a captain, an advisor, a high-ranked servant, but I don't aim to rule. There's still too many screwed up low born ideas in the back of my head.
There are exceptions to this—John Rockefeller was low born, but epitomized all of the high born traits to an exceptional degree. Alexander the Great was high born, but overly expansive and lost his empire because of it. But as a general rule, you'll see these differences. I'd say aim to a most excellent captain, advisor, servant, or merchant if you're low born, but be careful looking to rule. The ideal pedigree to rule starts being constructed young.
Recap, some generally helpful things to work on:
1.) Consciously decide to pursue wealth and power. These are virtuous things, and there are unlimited amounts of them available. Do it honorably.
2.) Expect to be treated well, and act accordingly. Have a calm expectancy that people will agree to do things your way. Don't argue or get upset, but do calmly insist that things be done correctly.
3.) Be friendly, helpful, and giving to as many people as you can. Don't be modest—ask people how you can help them, introduce people to each other, look to do good things. Make book recommendations, buy people small gifts, hell, even wash the dishes if you're a guest in someone's home. Things like that.
4.) Don't expect to be paid back or remind anyone you helped that you helped them. Don't even mention it again. Keep doing good things, don't remind people you did something nice for them. It's insufferable.
5.) Yet, feel comfortable asking for compensation when you can bring value to the table. Sell some things you produce, sell some of your skills, get paid. It's cool to ask people for money as long as you know you can deliver 10x the value of what you're being paid.
6.) Don't define yourself by money or possessions. Define yourself internally by your ethics, what you stand for, what you mean to the world, what you mean to people who you truly care for, what you intend to do.
7.) Be careful about over-expanding—you don't have to do it all in one generation. Have children, raise them well, have your son take over where you left off. There's only so much a person can accomplish in one lifetime, whereas even a modest dynasty can accomplish much, much more.
Oh, I forgot one—high born people generally don't talk about this stuff. Whoops—guess I ain't gettin in polite society any time soon. It's going to be weird having my kids in with polite society and be high bred while I'm so rough and uncivilized. Ah well, life is a circus, as they say. Every dynasty's gotta start somewhere.
On Brilliance and Consolidation
In any field, brilliant maneuvers are remembered and celebrated. But brilliant maneuvers without consolidation amounts to nothing long-term except the empty glory.
We could look at military commanders for an example. There's been some in history that have shown remarkable amounts of brilliance in pioneering tactics and doing crazy maneuvers. These sorts of things go into the history books, like Hannibal Barca's actions or Napoleon Bonaparte's.
Despite Barca and Bonaparte being remembered for their brilliance, it's worth remembering that neither of them won in the end.
We've talked about over-expansiveness in the past and not trusting your successors/family to keep up with your work, which is a common flaw that afflicts low born creators and leaders. Today, I want to look at something a little bit different—on brilliant actions and consolidating actions.
One time, when Hannibal's troops were pinned down by the Romans and it looked like all would be lost, he came up with a brilliant scheme. He waited until nightfall, and then took all of the oxen in his camp, tied branches and tinder to their horns, and lit them on fire and drove them off.
The oxen panicked, as can be imagined, but the Romans—normally incredibly steadfast—also panicked. They saw loud noises and flamed horns emerging from the night—it must have felt like the Depths of Hell were opening.
During the confusion, the Carthaginian forces were able to escape.
This was a brilliant desperate move on Hannibal's part, one of many brilliant moves throughout his military career. But in the end, despite many victories, he wasn't able to consolidate and reap the spoils that would have been due to him.
Consolidation isn't sexy. They usually don't build statues to great consolidators. But it seems like the ability to consolidate, reinforce, and hold your gains and make them permanent is the key to lasting success.
When we look at the major political leaders of World War II, we see Roosevelt, Chamberlain, Churchill, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao Tse-Tsung, and the Japanese faction nominally under Hirohito's control.
Interestingly, WWII is the story of successful consolidation rising in the world, and unsuccessful consolidation falling in the world.
Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, and to a lesser extent Chiang were excellent consolidators, and the positions of their nations rose in the world. After making gains, they were able to fortify them, dismantle opposition, reinforce and benefit from the gains made.
The United States took over a great amount of military bases in the Lend-Lease agreement from Britain. Roosevelt additionally created new courts and agencies that catered to him, took broad powers over media, and embarrassed/denigrated/marginalized political opponents. He built infrastructure that would last and changed the scope of the American economy, consolidating personal, political, and national gains.
Stalin, likewise, capitalized on the state of emergency in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union was able to take control of everything between East Berlin and Moscow. Finland was barely able to fight off Soviet domination, but most of the previously powerful Eastern European forces had been worn out from fighting the fascists, and the Soviets were able to install themselves over those places. Stalin also broadened the scope of his secret police and cracked down on individual dissenters and organizations hostile to him.
Mao was one of the greatest consolidators in Chinese history. He had his moments of brilliance and was quite a talented military theorist (On Guerilla Warfare, by Mao, is worth reading), but he was fighting a defensive action almost nonstop from the start of his military and political career. Regardless of how you feel about the man's policies after taking power (I'm not a fan), it's worth noting he did an exceptional job consolidating. He achieved victory over the Nationalist Chinese largely by consolidating power successfully after the Japanese were defeated, seizing Japanese arms, supplies, and munitions. He also had lower losses and established better positions than the Nationalists when fighting the Japanese.
Chiang Kai-Shek, in his own way, was a good consolidator. Certainly, he made numerous mistakes. He's a great example of winning the vast majority of your battles, but losing on a decisive moment. He was an excellent commander in some ways, but he bungled the consolidation after defeating the Japanese, and the Communists were able to defeat him. Still, he picked the absolute best place he could have for retreat—Taiwan. Taiwan is a classically near-impossible-to-invade location. Completely surrounded by water, mountainous terrain, good logistical networks/roads through the mountains that would be able to be destroyed quickly during an invasion. Despite his huge blunder in losing Mainland China to the Communists, he was able to consolidate his forces in Taiwan intelligently, and the government, political, technological, cultural, and financial systems he helped architect live on to this day.
You can see the opposite among all of the defeated, but also some of the victors of World War II. Chamberlain is generally regarded as incompetent by historians—declaring war on Nazi Germany and then not attacking immediately was insane… they gave the Nazis first strike against Western Europe, which they did quite effectively when they ran the Maginot Line and conquered France.
Churchill, on the other hand, has his moments of brilliance… but he was a terrible consolidator. Unlike Roosevelt, Stalin, and Mao, he didn't have the same savvy consolidate-in-politics pulse of his fellow Allies. In the election immediately following WWII, Churchill was shocked to be voted out of office.
Likewise, the British lost more territory during and immediately following WWII than just about any victorious nation in history has ever lost in a war.
Looking quickly at the other WWII leaders, Francisco Franco and Charles de Gaulle were both good at consolidation and had moments of brilliance. Obviously, Hitler and Mussolini were unable to consolidate any of their gains, nor were the Japanese.
Truman is an interesting case—an excellent consolidator in some ways, but having tough shoes to fill following Roosevelt's popularity.
Following WWII, I'd give a nod to Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew as the best consolidators in the post-WWII era. Both were able to take quite shaky circumstances they inherited and rapidly transform their economy and infrastructure while simultaneously consolidating their personal/political positions. Sometimes I wonder if it's coincidence or culture that two of the greatest consolidators of that era are Han Chinese—I could be persuaded either way, but I think Han culture tends to celebrate and push for intelligent consolidation more than Western culture.
In terms of American presidents, I'd point to Bill Clinton as the best American consolidator in recent history, with Eisenhower's presidency second. Clinton had the rare ability to build supports around good things that were happening, fix and tuneup some fundamental problems, balance the budget, and otherwise run a good presidency without trying to launch any insane initiatives.
It's sad, but quite likely that in 200 years, Bill Clinton won't be remembered very much. He doesn't have a legacy for conquest or massive initiative—again, we don't build statues of consolidators. But the Congress he oversaw was brilliant—as the internet started to emerge, they did a surprisingly good job with the initial legislation. Large protections for the internet and streamlined policies to keep things running well without too much interference. He cleaned up a number of flagging government programs, and the military campaigns conducted during the Clinton presidency tended to be short and effective. (I've got qualms with the Kosovo campaign as a significant mistake—joining one side of a civil war and not seeing it through to conclusion tends to make permanent enemies, which it did and now the Serbs hate America basically permanently. But if that's the biggest blunder and black mark on his record, that's a quite good presidency)
(His monetary policy arguably kept interest rates too low, the effects of which were seen in the stock and housing markets… he could and should have tightened up rates a bit late in his presidency, but again, not a tremendous flaw.)
I think about this often. Brilliance is brilliant, but brilliance without consolidation gives you empty entries in the history books. There's many examples of companies that led great innovations, but were unable to capitalize on them. Tesla was a brilliant scientist, but Edison was better at consolidation.
Of course, cultivate brilliance in your field if it appeals to you. But also think about how to consolidate after successes, so that the good changes and gains you've made become permanent.
Self-Control and Enduring Success
"Persuade thyself that imperfection and inconvenience are the natural lot of mortals, and there will be no room for discontent, neither for despair."—Tokugawa Ieyasu, Unifier of Japan, Founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate
I've studied the Sengoku Era of Japanese history a lot. There are so many lessons in it—about courage, about restraint, about going too far, about not going far enough… about honor, about idealism, about pragmatism… about trust and distrust, love and hate, loyalty and betrayal…
It's rare that an era of history has so many unique and varied lessons to teach. The only thing that comes close, in my mind, is the Italian Renaissance. Certainly, there's been eras with a great many lessons to learn from them, but not so many with such a wildly diverse range of views. Sengoku was the crossroads that created Japan. The victors of the era were those who could appeal to tradition while using the most modern advantages—tapping into the samurai culture and spirit, while simultaneously beginning to employ firearms and other newly emergent technologies in war.
Out of Sengoku came Japan's "Three Great Unifiers"—Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu. It's a long story and you can read the history article I wrote on Sengoku that I linked if you're curious to see the whole thing.
But the basic idea is, Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were both probably more remarkable and more brilliant men than Ieyasu. But in the end, Ieyasu won and his family and administration ruled Japan for the next 250 years.
I think the key, most critical difference that sets Ieyasu apart from the others is his self-control. It's something I strive for and model, something that's easy to see in the leaders who build enduring success.
Washington had it. Augustus had it. Rockefeller had it. Rothschild had it.
Alexander didn't. Napoleon didn't. Hitler didn't.
Nobunaga didn't.
Hideyoshi didn't.
You know, the victors—the ones who build the really enduring victories—they're often not the most brilliant or charismatic or brave. They're the ones who are most patient, who are most rational, who have the most self-control. You can win 10,000 battles, but have it all undone in one rash misstep. You could perhaps lose 10,000 battles, but still win at a decisive moment and then consolidate intelligently.
I was originally going to write a slightly different piece than this one, focusing more on mental state than on historical analysis. But this is pretty good.
"Persuade thyself that imperfection and inconvenience are the natural lot of mortals, and there will be no room for discontent, neither for despair." Imperfection and inconvenience are part of the bargain of being human. Do not act rashly or impulsively. There's no reason to feel discontent or despair when things are going wrong.
Things are never perfect. Acknowledge things as they are, always. Discontent and despair don't serve you. When bad feelings come over you, acknowledge them and dismiss them. Thinking, reflection, and self-control reigns. Keep building. Win.
"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience. Patience means restraining one's inclinations. There are seven emotions: joy, anger, anxiety, love, grief, fear, and hate, and if a man does not give way to these he can be called patient. I am not as strong as I might be, but I have long known and practiced patience. And if my descendants wish to be as I am, they must study patience."—Tokugawa Ieyasu
In the late 1400′s, the ruling Ashikaga Shogunate of Japan became weak and lost its hold over the country. A many-sided civil war broke out, thus beginning the "Sengoku Period"—known as one of the most bloody and lawless periods in Japanese history, but also an era of some incredibly most heroic leadership.
Eventually, "Three Great Unifiers" came to power and ended the conflict through victory. These three were Oda Nobugana, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu.
In the end, Tokugawa Ieyasu won, and his family ruled Japan for the next 250 years. However, he's probably the least popular of the three great unifiers in Japan.
Nobunaga is popular for having an incredibly fierce, martial, masculine spirit. At one point, the warrior-monks of the Honganji allied themselves against Nobunaga and harried, harassed, and ambushed his armies. The Honganji provided supplies, spies, and information for Nobunaga's enemies and sometimes faced them in direct combat.
When the Honganji would be losing, they'd retreat back to their fortress on Mount Hiei.
This was kind of a sacred place with many relics and many nuns and priests, in addition to the warrior monks. The monks would war Nobunaga on temporal authority, and then refuse to fight and claim amnesty under spiritual authority.
Nobunaga marched to Mount Hiei, and burned it to the ground.
I couldn't adequately explain what a shockingly big deal this is if you're unfamiliar with Japanese history. The closest example I could give be if an Italian Pope was opposing the French, and a French King had marched on Vatican City, burned it to the ground, and put all the high ranked members of the church to the sword.
Certainly, many rulers in European history would have wished to do something like this, but none of them did for fear of the very real repercussions and consequences.
But Nobunaga? No, he just did it.
Nobunaga was assassinated by one of his own generals in 1582. His oldest son had been groomed to take over for him, but also died at the same time. A power struggle broke out among his two highest ranking generals—Shibata Katsuie and Hideyoshi Toyotomi. Katsuie lost and was commit suicide in 1583, leaving Hideyoshi Toyotomi as the strongest man in Japan.
Hideyoshi went on to unify Japan, and is generally the most loved of the three great unifiers. He originally came from nothing, and worked his way up from carrying Nobunaga's sandals for him. Through his excellent use of diplomacy and martial skill, Hideyoshi was able to get promoted to foot-soldier, sergeant, captain, and eventually general. When Nobunaga died, Hideyoshi and Katsuie battled for command of Nobunaga's forces.
Hideyoshi won, and then kept winning. He conquered all of Japan.
He didn't stop.
He launched an overseas invasion against China and Korea.
Hideyoshi died of old age in Japan while his forces were fighting in Korea. They didn't hear of his death until nine months after he had died.
This caused a lot of ill will among his top generals, and let Tokugawa Ieyasu recruit many of them to his cause. Hideyoshi had died while his son was very young and had entrusted his top five generals to look after the boy until he was an adult.
Once again, the former Toyotomi forces split into two camps: Tokugawa Ieyasu's, and his opponent, Ishida Mitsunari.
At the Battle of Sekigahara, Ieyasu won, Mitsunari was executed, and the Tokugawa family went on to rule Japan for the next 250 years.
Tokugawa Ieyasu is generally not as well-respected as Nobunaga or Hideyoshi. Nobunaga was the ultimate masculine, ferocious warrior. When the religious authorities worked against him, he burned the entire religious capitol to the ground. In the first battle of his career—Okehazama—he was faced with overwhelming odds. Instead of fighting a defensive action, he snuck around to the back of the enemy camp, raided, and killed their commanding officer, thus sending the much larger force into disarray.
Hideyoshi is respected—he's the Japanese version of the American dream. This boy of no significant birth works his way from being a sandal-carrier, to a foot-soldier, to a sergeant, to an officer, to a general, to the ruler of all of Japan… he's known for being incredibly tactful, diplomatic, graceful, and intelligent.
Ieyasu has no such defining characteristics. Whereas Nobunaga might be represented by a blazing fire, and Hideyoshi might be represented by a beautiful butterfly—well, Ieyasu would probably be represented by a large boulder in the middle of a river. The boulder diverts things around itself, and the immensely powerful water must detour around it. But no ones looks at a boulder and says, "Ah! That! I will be like that!"
If you were being charitable, you could compare Ieyasu to an oak tree instead. Yet again, a powerful fire or a butterfly would be more inspiring than an oak tree to most people.
Yet, I respect Tokugawa Ieyasu the most. You see, Nobunaga and Hideyoshi both unmade themselves with their bad qualities. Nobunaga's ferocious temper is what led to his betrayal—in a fit of rage, Nobunaga had insulted and beaten the general who later betrayed and assassinated him.
Likewise, Hideyoshi's persistence and ambition led him to become the ruler of Japan, but then he was unable or unwilling to stop.
Without the fateful invasion into Korea, Hideyoshi's forces would have been de-mobilized and garrisoned after he had unified Japan, instead of mobilized and sent to war. A number of his top generals felt upset that they were fighting for Hideyoshi in Korea after Hideyoshi had already died, and no one told them.
This crack in their loyalty is what allowed Ieyasu to court them, and bring them over to his camp. I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that without the Korean invasion, the Toyotomi dynasty is established to end Sengoku, instead of the Tokugawa.
Once again:
"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience. Patience means restraining one's inclinations. There are seven emotions: joy, anger, anxiety, love, grief, fear, and hate, and if a man does not give way to these he can be called patient. I am not as strong as I might be, but I have long known and practiced patience. And if my descendants wish to be as I am, they must study patience." -Tokugawa Ieyasu
Indeed, I constantly search through my moods and emotions. Certainly, all of us feel joy, anger, anxiety, love, grief, fear, and hate from time to time. Ieyasu does not say to suppress or not feel those emotions.
Rather, he says to not give way to those emotions. I had a major professional triumph last week. I celebrated for six hours, and then got back to work.
You know, I'm scared sometimes of giving way to being joyful. It is a good thing to feel joyful, but not to let joy dull your edge. Likewise, consistency in action even if feeling anxious, consistency even if feeling fearful, consistency in love, consistency even if trapped in the thralls of hatred…
You can see that emotions unmade both Oda Nobunaga and Hideyoshi Toyotomi.
Ieyasu gave way to none of them. Certainly, he had his highs and lows. But his even, consistent temperament, in the best and worst of times, is what allowed him to build the most prosperous of all Japanese dynasties. Study patience.