"Have character . . . just don’t be a character."

— Richard Marcinko

character n 1 : the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person or group 2 : REPUTATION 3 : moral excellence and firmness

Different groups (with various agendas) choose to selectively define "character" to meet the standards they’ve set for their adherents (the better to ensure that they conform). We feel that the true nature of character can be divided into three distinct categories: Integrity, Appearance, and Authenticity. Some thoughts on these subjects follow.

INTEGRITY:

It is important to set limitations on one’s behavior. There are certain things which one must not do, and specific "lines" which should never be crossed. Once you have dishonored yourself by gaining a reputation for thievery, lechery, or addiction, it is nearly impossible to shed the stigma — even if you’ve discontinued the negative behavior. If you act like a degenerate monkey, you can reasonably expect to be the subject of scorn and ridicule.

Lesser infractions can also affect one’s reputation. For example, what do you think others would think if you were known to exercise trickery in business transactions, purchase stolen goods, and take advantage of inebriated females? One must be careful not to be tempted into doing things one knows to be wrong. Once you have committed a wrongful act, it can sometimes be denied, but it can never be undone.

It is important to be trustworthy. If others believe (due to your past actions) that you would be likely to steal from them, tell their secrets, molest their womenfolk, report for duty under the influence, or otherwise betray their confidence in your integrity, then you are more of a monkey than a man. A man’s word is his bond, and once his word can no longer be trusted, he ceases to be a man. People would be able to look at you, and honestly say, "He ain’t shit."

APPEARANCE:

How one presents oneself to the general public is very important. It is said that "clothes make the man," and in many ways this is an accurate statement. Wearing an expensive tailored suit will not make one successful, although it may make one appear to be so. Similarly, wearing black jeans and a leather jacket will not make a weak individual rugged, although he might be perceived as such by an ignorant observer. The fact remains that society judges us based upon the clothes we wear.

One should never "greet the public" looking like a scumbag. It truly does not matter how poor an individual might be — there is no excuse for walking about unwashed and unshaved, wearing dirty ragged clothes. If you are out in the woods, or working in the garage, it would be understandable for you to be wearing stained and threadbare "work clothes," but not when you’re out and about. If you do not give a shit about your appearance, others will not give a shit about you.

AUTHENTICITY:

It is of the upmost importance that one is real. Most people wear various "masks" when interacting with other groups (i.e.: supervisors, co-workers, policemen, bureaucrats, attractive females, threatening strangers, friends, family, and small children), and this is a normal and valid sociological response, but this is not necessarily "inauthentic." An inauthentic person is someone who walks around "putting on an act," pretending to be something that he is not. They will often dress a distinctive way, to identify with a group to which they do not truly belong, and use excessive amounts of slang and jargon associated with the group. In more extreme cases, they may even weave a complex tapestry of falsehoods and "tall tales" in order to further substantiate their sense of belonging. Such persons are commonly referred to as "poseurs" or "wannabes" and are widely considered to be objects of ridicule — walking jokes, if you will.

You need to present yourself as what you truly are, rather than trying to emulate others. Emulation often takes the form of homogenized conformity, in which everyone dresses, talks, and acts alike in order to "fit in" with what is currently being presented as "popular." These deluded fools have been duped into performing the way marketing executives have "programmed" them to, though hours and hours of bombardment with advertisements, propaganda, and memes through the television/altar in their living-rooms. Are you going to let your television instruct you (and your family) how to act, or would you prefer to be an individual and think for yourself?