A "Loyal" Officer

What does the word "loyal" in Loyal Officer really mean? To what or who does an Officer give their loyalty to and what does this entail? Is this oath of loyalty one of conviction or requirement? What becomes of an Officer who breaks this loyalty? What exactly are the circumstances in which this loyalty comes about?

For most, a Loyal Officer is one who is bound by terms and creeds to a higher ideal, a goals and purposes conviction. But this is simply not so. In appearance, one who is a part of this organization is ruled by a regimented and refined sense of order through a unforgiving command structure. Appearances can be deceiving.

There is no greater adherence than to one's own integrity. In this, the loyalty lies.

It's a simple and rudimentary principal but it is one which outlasts all others. Centered in one's being, a officer has no loyalties. There are no loyalties spoken or implied in regard to organizations, individuals, purposes or plans. There is not a love-fest for the dementia of twisted logic, of rules and regulations in accordance to "proper" ways and means. If one has no understanding of one's own ethical nature, then no amount of instruction, given or received, will endow it with life. An officer is their own highest purpose.

Integrity does not come from an untrained and undisciplined mind. In this, the organization and organizations to which the Loyal Officer has given due regard, wisdom becomes the highest motivation. This is why a Loyal Officer can be dropped off any-where at any-time and be completely self-sufficient, performing correct and true actions and reactions in regard to purpose and plan. In this high order of awareness there are no losers.

There are no losers in wholesome conditions.

Of course the equation computes unwholesome actions by those in opposition. In this balance of perfection much is learned through trial and error but there is no trial and error for a Loyal Officer, there is only dynamically aligned action or inaction. Trying to "break the programming" of an ethical being is a ludicrous supposition as there is no learned mechanism in play and though an ethical being be subjected to such endeavors, they always ultimately fail. They ultimately fail in that an officer, when placed in conditional scenarios will use all actions to the best advantage. The advantage being the return or acknowledgment of the ethical nature of Man. Contrary-wise it can be stated as the elimination of unethical constructs mistakenly perceived as being true and correct.

Loyalty, when applied to one's own integrity, requires a dynamic alignment up, down and sideways on the full and complete scale. But it must, as always, begin at home. If it does not, the House of Cards tumbles in glee.

When it does begin at home, there is no firmer foundation upon which to place existence.

Loyalty is not some "thing" which is given nor received. It blossoms within and makes it's existence unmistakably known.

So why fight it?