The Secret of Power

[neilhytholt]

To use another example, say a politician strong on influence but shy on ability used this sort of conduct to surround himself with yes men, ran for president, and Rogue voted for him...

But that worked out so well. The yes men and friends did such a great job in 9/11, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Hurricane Katrina, getting the U.S. out of debt, making it a stronger country.

They even were honest and didn't line their own pockets in greed, but rather put their money back into the country, fixed the education system, worked tirelessly on environmental reforms, and eliminating poverty.

In short, this country is in super great shape due to Bush, that it's literally unbelievable! We all owe him such a debt of gratitude ... what a great guy.

[rogue]

So Mao didn't gain power and keep it for a good long time?

[neilhytholt]

What perhaps is more interesting about Bush and Mao, is how they can use the fear and ignorance of common people to establish such totalitarian regimes.

It really doesn't give one much hope for humanity as a species, does it?

[David Jamieson]

Mao still has power over people and he's been dead for a while. He is not Comparable to Bush in the least.
Bush fell into power, Mao built his power and kept it til death.

there's a huge difference between these two.

nevertheless, there are many examples of power being maintained right up until death. KC, you are citing the small percentage of those who have power as opposed to the nature of it.

personal power is differnet from vast power over nations and ideological contructs that we live under. Yes, once in a while, the responsibility of power is neglected and even corrupted to a point where it bites the holder in the ass.

But anyway, this list is a pale shadow of Sun Tzu's writings on the nature of power which predated Machiavellis ideas by quite some time I would add. Although, I would say that the Prince is a fairly accurate model of how it's viewed in western culture.

People would hope that love is true power, but it isn't, love doesn't seek power and so it is not powerful but it is percieved as such by people who find it and sway with it's influence.

I wouldn't interpret any of this emotional and instead view it more as a matter of fact sort of thing. When percieved as such it makes more sense than seeing it through the eyes of love/hate or indifference. remove the emotion and you see the true mechanism of both personal power and vast power. If you try not to be bound by lust for power and instead act in the manner of what is needed to sustain and maintain, then you will follow the rules of theart of war, the prince, this list or any of the other axioms that fall under this path.

It really is a matter of being responsible enough to handle it and to do it with the correct intention which is to do it selflessly. When you become greedy, you lose power. When you become selfish you lose power. Those who do that collapse under the weight of their corruption, but in their rise or having it thrust upon them, there is only drunkeness and not much is accomplished. Someone who moves to it with a steady step, resolve and correct intention will simply do what needs to be done and in doing so is perceived as deserving of power and is therefor given it.

the psychology of how others will percieve it and bestow it has been known for a long time. This is nothing new except for who makes the actions to do it next.

also, i don't completely agree with the entire list and find it lacking in some respects because it ties in with manipulatrion that is associated with need and emotionalism as opposed to the actual nature of power. There are a few items on that list that are manipulative and decpetive without the need to be so. so, the writer of the list exhibits not a true understanding and instead opts for only what he has observed and ties that to what he has gleened from greater minds than his own.

[neilhytholt]

Mao still has power over people and he's been dead for a while. He is not Comparable to Bush in the least.
Bush fell into power, Mao built his power and kept it til death.

Well, Bush doesn't really have any power. It's his friends who put him into the Presidency and gave him all of this. Bush is just a figurehead, but when I say Bush I mean Bush and his friends.

It's pretty obvious what Bush and his friends mean to accomplish. It's enriching themselves while bankrupting the U.S., and the integration of the Americas. Bush has already bought a large spread down in South America for his family.

[Yum Cha]

Power, influence, control.

The measure of power is not that you have it, but what you do with it.

Al Capone was powerful, Bobby Kenedy was likewise powerful, as were MLK and Gandi.

Striving to raise your individual collateral is a fair effort, but not the be all and end all.

Going back to 7's examples. He used his physical power to reduce the need to exercise physical power. He used generosity to establish credentials amongs his friends and the people who look after him as a 'nice guy'.

As for 'facing" the marketing dpt, well, that's just plain fun...you should have choked one of them out just for general purpose.

[SevenStar]

no doubt. A few of the marketing guys are talking about coming to our school to train. They don't realize what they are doing...

[neilhytholt]

The thing is, like one of my grandfathers, he worked for years and years and amassed several million dollars. He was very popular with a lot of people, yet managed to completely alienate most of his kids because he was never around.

He was always striving for more, more, more, and to get away from the stress of working.

Well, once he got his money, and retired, everybody was after it. His kids wanted their cut of it, and resented the fact he was never around. His former 'friends' wanted money and wanted him to give them deals for helping him make money.

The IRS wanted money, and continually audited him, even though he paid his taxes, he always had to show a lot of paperwork and it caused him a huge amount of stress.

He was always extremely stressed out, and died of a stroke in his early 60s with millions in the bank.

Contrast that to my other grandfather, who also worked. Not as hard, not as much, he loved to go fishing and gambling.

His wife didn't like him, divorced him, but his kids loved him because he was always around for them. He retired, spent all his extra time and money visiting with his kids and his grandkids and gambling and fishing and died in his sleep at 80 with little money left.

Now you ask me ... who was more successful? The millionaire grandfather who was always stressed out? Or the relatively poorer grandfather who had pretty much no stress at all.

Does money and fame and wealth and influence really make you happy?

???

[David Jamieson]

money, fame, wealth and influence are not the same as power.

those things are often a by-product of real power. to strive after those things is powerlessness in action, seeking it, but having to work so hard that you never get it.

see how it's a perception thing? some people think being rich is being powerful, it ain't. being famous is not being powerful either. think back on some real famous people from the 50s, remeber any? what did they do that changed the world, your life? how about people who influence, does it hold sway over just their group? their company/business? their family?

now think about people who changed the world. Mao is one of those, Eisenhower and MacArthur are a couple of more, Ronald Reagan is another, Hitler, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, Lester B. Pearson, Julius Caesar, Tamujin, Alexander, Ptolemy and a few others of course. these are examples of real power, at least to me. They are people who changed the world and still have an effect on things in peoples everyday lives. none of them invented anything, made a better light bulb, or a better mouse trap. All of these people weilded incredible power though and to this day the ripples of their being effect others and how we think and govern ourselves.

so, these 48 "laws" are lacking in many respects, but tre are many points within them that are absolutely true methods of attaining and maintaining power. Except that real power doesn't follow a little list of laws, it simply IS what it is. Almost a divine thing in many respects. A roll of the dice, a decision made at the right time in the right place and a continuance of correct intention and steel resolve.

[neilhytholt]

money, fame, wealth and influence are not the same as power.

how about people who influence, does it hold sway over just their group? their company/business? their family?

now think about people who changed the world.

In English the word influence is usually meant to change something, change the world, change people's views, control them, etc.

So I ask again, was Hitler happy? Was Mao happy? Does influence bring happiness?

What is the true measure of success, to mold the environment?

Honestly I have no idea. I have a few old friends who do nothing but do menial jobs and come home and smoke pot and play video games, and they seem to be the happiest people I've ever met.

They never seem to get angry, they don't have a lot of family stress, or anything. Compared to a lot of my friends who have families, husbands/wives and constant problems, get divorced, etc.

They seem to be total losers -- yet at the same time, they seem content.

So what is success?

[Master Rob]

robert green can kiss my ass...

[David Jamieson]

happy? I'm not sure what happy has todo with it.

we are talking about the nature of power and not the nature of contentment.

one can be content in any number of ways, but does being happy effect change in the world?

being happy is often a selfish motivation. not that it has to be, but it can be.

being powerful is an entirely differnet ball of wax. apples and oranges.

successful? what is your goal? did you achieve it? if so then you are successful, if not, then you have failed. You will fail more often than you succeed. But this has nothing to do with power. it may be tied to it in some way, but often it is not about the selfish things such as contentment and happiness so much as it is about being an agent of change.

[David Jamieson]

robert green can kiss my ass...

lol.

a) if you are a regular poster, why waste an email account to post that?

b) if that's your first ever post, then what's your beef with robert green?

[neilhytholt]

happy? I'm not sure what happy has todo with it.

we are talking about the nature of power and not the nature of contentment.

one can be content in any number of ways, but does being happy effect change in the world?

being happy is often a selfish motivation. not that it has to be, but it can be.

being powerful is an entirely differnet ball of wax. apples and oranges.

successful? what is your goal? did you achieve it? if so then you are successful, if not, then you have failed. You will fail more often than you succeed. But this has nothing to do with power. it may be tied to it in some way, but often it is not about the selfish things such as contentment and happiness so much as it is about being an agent of change.

But why does anything need to change? What's the point of it? Isn't thinking that something needs to change extremely egotistical? Basically it means that you think you know better what things should be, and you want to change them to your liking, right?

And judging the people you've said, these people were primarily figureheads of social movements. Without the underlying impetus or stress (poverty, famine, class inequality, social problems, etc.), they never would have been the figureheads of these movements.

A cavity in your mouth is caused by stress, acid, too much sugars, etc., bacteria eating away at your tooth. So is the cavity successful? Is it an agent of change? Or is it the natural outgrowth of a problem with your mouth?

[rogue]

Well, Bush doesn't really have any power. It's his friends who put him into the Presidency and gave him all of this. Bush is just a figurehead, but when I say Bush I mean Bush and his friends.

It's pretty obvious what Bush and his friends mean to accomplish. It's enriching themselves while bankrupting the U.S., and the integration of the Americas. Bush has already bought a large spread down in South America for his family.

Do you have a problem with staying on a topic. If you want to talk about your hatred for the President go start your own thread. Please.