| Sep 22 - 00:10:59 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| As The Pig Sees It | Started by: maxwell on Oct 29, '07 23:26 |
|
A young immigrant steps out of his HQ in Philly after the sound of gunshots have died down. Feeling safe, he walks to the corner where a handful of mafiosi are gathered... That's right, folks. It has come to my attention that something is missing from these streets, and that something is my infinite wisdom and incredibly handsome face, which I will so graciously impart on the rest of you drooling morons. Given the recent events, I would like to discuss a trade that my family line holds dear to its heart. I'm talking about the art of murder, and being a hitman for your family. There seems to be alot of confusion these days concerning a hitman's role in our world. Being a hitman is meant to be a sacrifice. They don't have the bullet dodging abilities of many others, and when a war between families occurs, they are the first targeted. They might also get sent right into the line of fire in order to kill someone who is a threat to the family; a rogue, for example. Being a hitman also means your chances of receiving auth at some point are more slim. Nobody wants a dangerous killer with an HQ behind him. Given all this, why in the world would anyone in their right mind choose this profession? The answer is this: Loyalty. Being a hitman isn't in one's own best interests given the lack of opportunities and short life span, but it GREATLY serves the interests of the family. A family with a well-trained corp of loyal hitmen has the ability to intimidate other families, and keep their Boss alive for a longer time. Their Boss holds the big stick, in order to influence policies throughout the country. It isn't difficult to see the many advantages this family would have. So, since we have so many mafiosi around these days are determined to train their guns, can we assume that loyalty is at its peak? Not hardly, and that should be obvious given the actions of recent rogues and opportunists. The problem, as the Pig sees it, is a poor attitude of those who train their guns these days. They aren't doing it to protect their Boss, but instead are doing it to gain power for themselves, in the way that they view having power. They feel that being able to kill someone else gives them power, but the problem is that unless it is done at the command of their Boss, it will result in their death. The dead have no power. Crewleaders are partially to blame, as well. Coming from a family line that has served as a hitsquad leader for more families than I can count, I can tell you that getting every hitman in the family to come forward and report their progress is like pulling teeth. If they don't want to make their skills known to their Boss in order to serve him or her, then why do they bother training their guns? It seems logical that the reason is to serve themselves, and if this is true, why do the leaders allow them to continue training? I would suggest pulling their guns at a minimum, or even having one of the "loyal" hitmen in the family train his gun on those who are training to serve their own interests. Being a hitman isn't a glamorous life. It involves being hated by many, being the first shot in a war, and never getting to see the bold suit in many instances. It is a position only for those who wish to serve their family to the best of their ability, and for those who put the life of their family members above their own. I hope that those wishing to become hitmen take this into consideration. It will take a changed attitude in both the hitmen and their Bosses in order for us to return to some sense of normalcy around here. |
|
| Report Post | Tip |
| maxwell is correct on several fronts. in fact i think the rogues from the last few days have proved the rule that guns in recent times are used in the same respect as a double neck guitar, just for show. guns wield undeniable power in resolving conflicts now, but in saying that, it also shows that people get away from communicating as a first method to deal with a problem. | |
| Reply by: CathalTheCleric at Oct 30, '07 00:06 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Maxwell, I would argue that many who train their guns these days are also heavily influenced by the lives of their parents and grandparents and not just by power. This, as I'm certain you're aware, goes against everything you preach here. Instead of holding grudges for generations, they ought to be focused solely on their families and what is asked of them by their bosses. Rather, we're seeing the same bloodlines continually go against everything this life is about in order to take matters into their own hands. Loyalty seems to be increasingly hard to come by lately. Joining a hit squad used to signify loyalty to ones family--a commitment to protect and defend the family until death. In addition to being valuable to the family's strength and protection, hitters obtain knowledge about the family that should never leave a family. For this reason, it disgusts me when members of hit squads ask to relocate to another family once a friend of theirs has been given permission to head a family. Families come before friends in this life. Enough of my rambling, though. You say that the problem is with the attitude of those with guns. If these power-hungry hitters could be identified, I agree that their guns ought to be taken at the least, but recognizing them is difficult. It isn't always the hitter that doesn't frequently share his or her shot record with the boss or hit squad leader that has a personal agenda or the desire for power. In the instance of the most recent rogue, Justified, a hitter was very upfront with hit shot record and often helped the family. (In fact, he seemed incredibly loyal on all accounts.) Would you say there's a way to identify those that are likely to use their guns for something other than their sworn duty to serve their families? |
|
| Reply by: JohnnyAxe at Oct 30, '07 04:29 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Being told beddtime stories as a kid, I remember one about my cousin hangin' round with a bunch of UncleNicky's guys. Slowly, he was accepted into the family. Sure, he wasn't made but he earnt a pretty packet for his Boss. Now then, he had a few spare dollars around so he went and got himself a colt 1911 from his local pawn shop. Just getting outside, some little hood tried to rob his wallet; he dragged him down an alleyway. Baddaboom. "Hey, this is pretty damn easy" he thought to himself. Now, he didn't get carried away, he just carried on doing his thing. Couple of weeks pass and he's notched up what he thinks is an impressive 7 notches on his pistol grip. So he goes and he talks straight to UncleNicky. Tells him he's made his bones. Tells him he wants to protect the family. UncleNicky laughs and baddaboom, my cousin's lying in a crumpled heap on the floor, blood pumpin outta his chest. As he's dying, UncleNicky says to him "You don't join my most trusted guys when you're a little earner with a few bummy kills. How do I know you ain't a spy?" Either way, the message was, UncleNicky only wanted the best walking around with him. Forgive me for getting out the ol' rose tinted spectacles but my oh my, how things have changed. I understand this is totally off topic but these days, my late cousin here would be in the Hitsquad already, if accounts in diaries I've ring true. By no means am I saying that these individuals who feel they are taking a stance by going rogue should not be held accountable for their own actions, but is it all their fault? Or have certain people let standards drop when it comes to family security. When the Hitsquad leaders themselves place less weight and onus, and indeed emphasis on the extolled status of Family Hitter, is this all we can expect? |
|
| Reply by: Strummer at Oct 30, '07 06:54 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Interesting story, Strummer. I guess it's all a matter of personal philosophies. The amount of trust you show to people in your families has advantages and disadvantages. Someone like Nicky might not have had as much trust in everyone, and that might have protected his "inner circle" from spies for a short time. That, of course, would be an advantage. The disadvantage to this philosophy is that you might miss out on including someone who would be a tremendous asset to the family by not showing trust in them. I've always believed in the mantra that "In order to receive loyalty, you must show trust". Nicky ended up being killed by a member of his own family. On the flip side, Piggeh the First also ended up being killed by a member of his own family, after he placed trust in him. Either way you go, you can get screwed. As far as Nicky only wanting the best around him, I must disagree. He chose Kes as his LHM. Enough said. |
|
| Reply by: maxwell at Oct 30, '07 11:00 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
There's no true hitmen any more because there have been no leaders recently to inspire the type of loyalty that Mr Maxwell is talking about. Many argue that leaders should never pander to those beneath them, ie the 'public'. But until the leaders start showing the population of these cities a reason for them to be loyal, there will be none. Instead leaders will be constantly used as protection whilst their members follow their own interests - whatever they may be. And the role of the 'true' hitman will remain elusive until such changes take place. |
|
| Reply by: Yojimbo at Oct 30, '07 11:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
A leader who can inspire the masses into loyalty, either through fear, respect or other means, is extremely rare. Equally though, every single leader should, and does I believe, have a member core of those they trust implicitly and gain absoloute loyalty in return. If you're a leader and you don't have that member core, well, should you be a leader at all? |
|
| Reply by: Strummer at Oct 30, '07 11:20 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
How much do you want to tip for this post?
Minimum $20,000
Minimum $20,000
