48 Laws - The Polls

Wow, way to let other people do your thinking for you,... no wonder you have such a hard time with this material. smmile2

 

One of the short-cuts I use to decide about reading a book is to read the one-star reviews at Amazon. If the most severe critiques are well thought out and reasonable, that tells me something, usually that the book is garbage. If they are shallow, dismissive, and derogatory, that also tells me something, usually that the book has something important to say. I've noticed this pattern holds true from reading books and later checking the critical reviews.

I'd like to share some snippets from the one-star reviews at Amazon for The 48 Laws of Power:

Having read the "laws", having listened to the author being interviewed, and having read the one-star reviews, I find that my short-cut technique has once again held true.

 

I'm 20 minutes in ... and my first and probably lasting impression is that "The 48 Laws" (without having read it but by listening to the author's own words) ... is that Greene's perspective reads like a tome on manipulation for self-interest without.care or concern for the environment.

That perspective is not necessarily sinister in itself; but it's the perfect tonic for a sociopathic system under real and perceived siege by real and potential empaths who are trying and who may try in the future to resist it. In short, Greene is just the most recent of those myriad pied pipers sent down by the mainstream media boxes and publishing houses (that are controlled by the social engineers) ... pipers trying to placate the masses by directing them inwards to look for a mystical quality called self-empowerment. These pipers come in all forms. Con artists like Tony Robbins promoting a false paradise front for a hidden MLM marketing scheme founded on the repackaging of common advice that's been around for the fat part of human history and which can be had freely by seeking out a few friends, elderly members of the family, philosophers from centuries past, etc. The human condition hasn't changed all that much that it requires special coaching from self-promoting, egocentric, know-it-all psychology peddlers and unicorn riders with very general solutions in their saddlebags, e.g. to fix one's lot of specific psychological deficiencies, inefficiencies, and insecurities.

But Robbins and Greene are not alone. Other examples of pied pipers trying to turn away the masses from a critical review of the environment, not to mention the fact of social engineers' programming the environment for their own sinister plans and ends, include:

Dr. Phil. <--- another lachrymose LCD-box-living titwit selling bottled sunshine for all the psychological displacements that had ever strummed the strings of a tangled mind.

Paul Hawken (Blessed Unrest) <--- corporate insider turned kool-aid mixer with a billion flavors for adult-sized children (Bill Ryan tried to promote Hawken and it was shortly after my researched rebuke of Hawken's video that I was banned from Sweet William's forum)

New Agers <--- there's a dime-a-dozen to choose ... essentially all are tasked by their handlers/publishers with the mission of turning environment observers into elsewhere observers (e.g. stargazers, channellers, navel gazers, etc) as far away from critical observations as possible.

Etc.

The environment is teeming with false energy. Being aware of this false energy is the best self-help there is. Those who are not aware need to be awakened to this designed programming. Programming that seeks to turn the troubled mind away from the toxicity in the environment (which is the real source of the psychological discomfort that we all face) ... by giving it safe harbor in fantasy; in false tranquility, in a false sense of self-empowerment..

Indeed, the kind of empowerment preached by Greene is personal survival in a hostile environment by adopting guile and cunning. Greene has no remedy for cleaning up the environment, which would actually suspend the need for survival and shift personal energy to living life, not merely surviving in it. And that is real self-empowerment.

Real self-empowerment is empathic. Self-empowerment as per the teachings of a power pyramid piper like Greene, is at the expense of the noble qualities within. Once we lose those, we become just another stone in the pyramid. Maintaining the pyramid, alas, is maintaining the primitive form of social organization that we all began with. Alpha male societies in the memes of the modern century, of course, are inalienably sociopathic.

To wit, Greene is an apologist for sociopathy. Just like Machiavelli was an apologist in his time. Machiavelli, being born centuries earlier, didn't have the benefit of hypermodern thought when he made his recommendations. Greene does ... and still prefers outmoded thinking. That says something about Greene in my surmisal.

Anyways, those are my opinions. I will dissect the video further when I have the time, and if there is further interest.

Pax

ps: Mind you, I would still recommend the video, if only to understand what we are up against ... not just the toxic environment ... but also the false energy that alleges to rescue us from this toxic environment.

 

I was thinking about Lee's statement. As a broad assessment, I would agree with her, but I also see that the 48 Laws of Power are a lot like good propaganda. Good propaganda always contains recognizable truth. It has to in order to be believable. It also contains various forms of untruth, and finally there is always a great deal of missing information that is critical to being able to recognize the untruths. The missing information is deliberately left out to allow the untruths to seem plausible.

Just as with propaganda, many people will focus on the recognizable truths and judge the propaganda to have merit. Rose's observations of allowing other people to shine as being a kind thing to do comes to mind. Some people, however, will focus on the untruths, because they have some bits of the missing information and can see some of the untruths. My observations of the problems and abuse of letting other people shine as a way to deceive and manipulate them come to mind. It is the intent that makes the difference. The intent behind the 48 laws is not a good one. It is all about the selfish pursuit of power to dominate others, rather than empowering all people to avoid being deceived and manipulated by sociopaths.

 

Perhaps you can elaborate on what you meant by having "respect for this author". It can have many meanings, and I took it to mean you had respect for the overall philosophy he's selling. And even that can have different meanings, depending on what you respect and why. Shezbeth's respect for the author will be of a completely different quality than my respect for the author.

Granted, watching the entire interview can be useful, but not necessarily. I commented only on the half that I watched, and having forced myself to watch the second half, my comments are still valid and I wouldn't change them. I also had the impression that he did better in the second half, but I suspect it is because he was playing "the game" he writes about more consciously and deliberately -- not trying to outshine the interviewer, not saying too much, trying to be "formless", working on his reputation, being agreeable, etc.

 

In closing, I would like to emphasize the underlying point of Master Doodoo's position.

Everyone else is misguided, manipulated, confused, or a sociopath (except for those who agree with him), but don't worry, cuz he's got if all figured out.

Out, enjoy the bed.

 

May I suggest that you've been conned?

I watched with a critical mind, and I took some notes. Let's compare notes.

They start with the same deceptive arguments as the book Preface that you posted. So if power is so desirable, something that everyone wants more of to keep from being miserable, then why do we need to know the 48 laws of power to defend ourselves against power? Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy there? Shezbeth also pushes this hypocrisy, by the way.

@ 3:58, Greene talks about power as influence over others. Power is not influence, as the author naively suggests. It is imposition!

"Misery and unhappiness is truly the root of all evil," says the interviewer @ 4:25. I can't believe my ears! So happy psychopaths are the epitome of good? All the evil comes from the miserable and unhappy slaves? Give me a break! I'm surrounded by insane people! Hey Zook, did you hear that? It's not organization that causes evil, as you claim, it's now misery and unhappiness!

It is mentioned that these laws are based on studying the habits of historical leaders, who are mostly sociopaths with an abnormal quest for power. Power is central to their lives and their psychological needs. If you were to study the habits of non-sociopaths instead, you wouldn't be writing about power. You would be writing about moderation and balance.

@ 6:20, the interviewer points out the reinforcement of the ideas by the structure of the book, so that it practically has the power to win you over clandestinely. @6:45, Greene confirms that these ideas are like a "vaporous poison" that get under your skin, and "you will have internalized the ideas" by the end of your programming, er, I mean reading. He's describing mind control. Is the book constructed to be a vehicle for brain-washing? That certainly meshes with the sociopathic agenda of molding the general population in the image of the sociopath using such clandestine techniques as neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and covert conversational hypnosis.

@12:25, Greene talks about another author recommending that "getting outside of yourself, looking at nature" is "a lot healthier than being constantly locked in yourself and your own emotions". Well yes, that's so much better than what Greene is writing about, mainly your lust for more power driven by your own misery of not having enough power! The hypocrisy again is blatant.

@ 14:58, talking about not outshining the master, Greene says "Even George W. Bush, the president of the most powerful country in the world, he serves the American public, and if he doesn't do the right things, he's going to be voted out of office." Say what!? OK, that's all the BS I can take. That's as far as I watch.

So I didn't come away with any respect for Mr. Greene. He's a very confused man who is way out of his league. That's pretty much what happens when a non-sociopath tries to rationalize the behavior of sociopaths without any real understanding of how their pathological psychology differs from normal human psychology.

 

Clearly, you do not. But I said as much when I stated that sociopaths, lacking empathy, cannot genuinely understand the Golden Rule. It lies outside their psychology. They understand vindictiveness, revenge, betrayal, dominance, tyranny, and the like, because that is part of "playing the game" and "winning", at least as sociopaths define winning, which is what The 48 Laws of Power are all about.

But I thank you for demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of the Golden Rule and thereby confirming my earlier statement.

You will surely want to try again, but it will not help. You will just be trying to imitate an understanding of the Golden Rule from here on out, just as sociopaths have to imitate the emotional reactions normal people display that are derived from empathy, emotions that sociopaths cannot feel. Basically, you played the game and lost in one. But sociopaths can't stop playing until they win, even if they have to "throw" the game to claim victory in their own minds.

The Golden Rule you quoted is not the one I quoted, but you didn't even catch that. Yours is the twisted version, and I suspected organized sociopaths twisted it for their benefit long ago (by putting it in the Bible). The one attributed to Confucius is the older and more proper Golden Rule, where it is stated in the negative form -- "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." This is completely different, setting a floor rather than trying to raise the ceiling.

Would you like to try again to display your mastery of understanding the Golden Rule? I'm sure we would all benefit from that.

 

The 48 Laws unmistakably details methods of social/political/hierarchical manipulation. The onus of what to do with that information is on the individual. The Laws can be utilized by individuals with a sociopathic/psychopathic bent/inclination, or they can be used to guard/protect against such. One can either observe the Laws/reversals, or they can observe what can happen when one does not. Is it always bad to not follow the Laws? Certainly not, but one could do far worse than to at least pay them heed in one's endeavors.

Rather than buying Alt personality's sales pitch, individuals might think to themselves ", what is their agenda in telling me all this?".

Rather than suffering a tyrant's abuse needlessly, individuals might decide ", the cost of effort and attention is not worth the satisfaction of participation,".

Rather than bullhorn-slandering innocent and (mostly ^_~) blameless others, individuals might realize ", perhaps I can find a way to better cohabitate and work with such individuals, since I see them everywhere anyway (and some of them are quite clever),".

... as just a few examples.

 

Even further, lets LOOK at the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," in his 'scholarly' voice.

Okay, we all know what that means right? Right?

So what does the Golden Rule say about ignorance? What does it say about abusiveness? If the person one does unto (how they would be done unto) chooses NOT to do unto (as one has done unto), does one continue to do unto as one would have done unto OR does one CONTEXTUALLY do unto how one would have be done unto IF they were doing unto NOT how they would have done unto?

Ha, I'll simplify. Grannie is nice to everyone, because that is how she would have them be to her. Most people ARE nice to her. Some people are not. Grannie runs into a thug with a knife who wants her purse. Should she continue to do unto the guy with a knife as she would have him do unto her, or should she do unto him as she would have him do unto her if she was accosting HIM with a knife?

<sigh> Should she hope that by being nice she'll change his disposition, or should she hope that she can whup an ass with her cane? If she was accosting him with a knife, she would want him to whup her ass with a cane, so thus by whooping an ass with her cane she was IN FACT doing unto him as she would have him do unto her (in context).

This whole idea that the Golden Rule is a disarmament plan is foolish IMO.

 

Okay first, let's get one thing straight. Chicodoodoo does not speak for 'sociopaths' or 'non-sociopaths'. When he presents what non-socs (the group he identifies with/as) think, he's really just presenting what he thinks. When he presents what sociopaths think, he's really drawing on a small handful of sociopaths that don't necessarily represent the full spectrum. This isn't exactly Pew research here. Having said,....

It is irrelevant whether a person 'likes' the material or not. Personally, I find it to be amongst the most profound books I have ever read, and remains the only book which I will re-read with frequency; I couldn't calculate it other than to say >10x. But that too is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that, before even BEGINNING to apply labels of 'soc/non' there is one qualifier which is undeniable.

Though presented circumstantially and colloquially, the concepts (I'm still just on the Preface here, but I might repeat this phrase with later laws) and ideas are evident. Evident.

Is evidence sociopathic? Can evidence even have such a nature?

At NO point in the ENTIRETY of this discourse will you EVER see me say that this information is not CAPABLE OF BEING USED SOCIOPATHICALLY AND/OR BY A SOCIOPATH.

I WILL NEVER say such a thing, because its simply not true. EVERY law can be utilized readily and efficaciously by sociopaths AND non-sociopaths, and every law IS used likewise.

That's the problem, 'they' already KNOW about these laws. They put them to good use on a regular and consistent basis! Being 'disgusted' does not allow one to comprehend how the laws work and build an effective counter-strategy. Remaining ignorant of one's opponents finest 'weapons' is not an effective strategy.

Beyond all that, I'd also like to point out the extreme value in the quotes, stories, fables, anecdotes, etc. that appear in the sidebar. The Preface alone contains 6 quotes from Lord Chesterfield, Neitzsche, Gothe, etc. In approaching the content Laws and ALL, this is one work that - if one is being honest - requires a suspension of credulity.

 

Oh my gosh, even the preface is sociopathic! I can't even get past the first sentence without being disgusted!

This is bullocks (as the English would say)! At least to non-sociopaths. But to sociopaths, it is the truth! For sociopaths do indeed find the lack of power unbearable, due to their defective psychology! The pursuit of power and control over others is the foundation of their existence!

I have no desire to have power over people. None. It is not even a consideration. In my eyes, people are equals, deserving the same freedoms as I do. This is a consequence of having empathy and understanding the Golden Rule. I would no more want to have power over other people than I would want other people to have power over me!

I don't have power over events either, and that too is not unbearable in the least. What I have is choice. That is how I influence events, and it is how events influence me. It is also how I influence people, and how people influence me. That is the reality of the world when viewed with empathy. It's about maximizing choice. And sociopaths do not see the world like that at all. They are practically another species of human compared to most people. The reality of their world is clearly described in The 48 Laws of Power. It's about controlling others, meaning minimizing the choices of others.

OK, so I have to force myself to read the rest of the preface, just as I forced myself to read all 48 laws for the second insufferable time. It's a sacrifice, but it is worth it if I can open just a few eyes to the insidious and destructive nature of the sociopath.