The Dark Side

One day, while I was writing the Seduction book, the following image came to my mind: every person has a dark side, like the moon. We never see this side, but we know it is there and we catch glimpses of it in certain moments and imagine the rest.

Here’s how it works. People present to society the side of their personality they want to be seen. This could be their positive and selfless traits; it could be their aggressive and powerful qualities. This is learned from childhood on, as a kind of defense mechanism. Beneath this social side lies a lot of insecurities, weaknesses. As a child, we see that letting people glimpse these weaknesses can only hurt us or raise doubts. So we cover them up with something approximating the opposite. The word personality comes from the Latin persona, meaning mask.

Someone who is always cheerful, pleasant and eager to help most often is concealing a lot of hidden aggression, resentment, anger. This will often come out in actions that are subtly passive aggressive and sabotaging. Another person is very correct, politically–they eat the right things, they support all of the right causes, they drive a Prius. But behind this is a powerful desire to do the opposite, to let go, to experience some chaos. Yet another is blustery and aggressive, seems intimidating. This person is concealing a lot of shyness and frailty; they secretly yearn to be led and dominated. On the most obvious level, the person preaching vociferously against homosexuality is disguising their own longings.

Read more

The Three Types

The theory or idea of a Centre begins with the observation of man’s chaotic reality, his confusion, his sorrows. These are attributed to his ignorance, which renders him easy prey to inessential phenomena, to “shadows” which, eventually, turn him against himself, against his fellowman, against the world. In an effort to counteract the effects of man’s deadening and enslaving dependency upon the multiple and confusing variety of existential phenomena, the men of wisdom in Asia had sought to perceive the substance or essential Centre of existence–the Centre where…dazed and pained blindness became calm clarity, the unintelligible became intelligible. (from Secrets of the Samurai)

In relation to strategy, we find three types of people on this planet. On the lowest rung are those who respond to practically everything with their emotions. They are tied to the present. As I explained in the WAR book, strategic thinking is not a function of education. We often find the most educated people in the world living and breathing in this lower atmosphere. The educated types are the ones who are most dangerous.

Many of those in the media occupy this rung. You have probably noticed many times in the media how much hysteria plays a role. One possible terror attack, or one bad landing of an aircraft, or a bit of powder in an envelope, and all of the pundits are hitting the airwaves raising the alert levels. Of course, much of this is just business. The media thrive on stoking a constant near panic, a sense of THIS IS NEWS. But I believe many of the pundits become consumed with this. They become caught up in the day to day cycles.

It is strange how none of them are ever held accountable for their ridiculous predictions and analyses. Take David Brooks, for instance, a very smart columnist for the New York Times. Just after the Iraq invasion, he was in near ecstasy at the smoothness of it all, and berated all of the liberals and wet people who doubted the necessity for this war. As reality began to deliver its cold bath, his columns cooled. Now, he berates the incompetence of how the war was prosecuted. A little late, one might say. But at no point does he say, mea culpa; I was wrong; I see the light now.

Read more

War Declarations

War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free. — Heraclitus

I have noticed in my writing that I always seemed to write better when there is a bit of anger just below the surface. This was easy when I wrote The 48 Laws, but by the time I got to the WAR book, I needed to stimulate this in some way. I began to play a game with myself: before writing a chapter I would think of particular things or people or ideas that really really angered me, and I would declare WAR on them. As I wrote, I would visualize this bête noir, and what about him or her or it that stirred my hatred.

There are some that have the misconception that I advocate repressing your emotions. In several chapters of the WAR book I return to the idea of Machiavelli and the ancient Greeks that we are all part animal and divine and that the animal part of our nature is what gives us energy and drive. A warrior cannot fight without feeling inspired, or believing in the cause. Mercenaries are the worst fighters. But this emotional part of us must be under control and channeled properly. That is what a death ground strategy will do for you, for instance.

I find in general that declaring war on something (the subject of chapter one in the book) is a healthy way to get through life, to define what you believe in, and to react against something you despise. The following is a list of some of my favorite declarations of war as I wrote the book, the ones I kept returning to:

Read more

2008 and Beyond

In studying demographic and cultural trends in the United States for the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that there is a great opportunity for the Democratic party to forge an electoral majority that could last for many years. In my opinion, this should be the primary strategic concern of the party. This would require the ability to connect to large numbers of the electorate, using certain key issues and values that transcend the monthly news cycles. In prior entries I have signaled what this could be. But the content is not as important as the decision to follow this path.

We are seeing an America that is increasingly Balkanized. Political coalitions of the past are splintering. People find it harder to identify with anything large anymore. The danger in politics is to passively follow this trend and become a party that is a slave to the laundry list syndrome: taxes, education, energy, defense, national security, this special interest or that one, on and on. Not only does this fail to inspire or heat anyone up, it creates a strange void. What connects the list, what is the idea behind them, what does this party stand for in the end?

This is a moment in which the Democratic Party must transcend this deadly pattern. It must find a way to create a kind of common mythology that unites voters, makes them feel they belong to a greater cause. In the Seduction book, I analyzed how JFK was able to do this in a masterful way in 1960, a period of time that reminds me a little of what we are going through now. It is not something to blindly imitate, but a possible model.

Read more

Random Thoughts and Salvos

O’Reilly versus Letterman: As many of you might know, I did my time on the O’Reilly Factor back in 1998. I was on the show twice. The first time he was all smiles and loved me. He invited me back. The second time he was rude, talked over me non-stop and made the most ridiculous deductions from my book. He is a master manipulator. So it was with immense pleasure that I saw him back in January being taken apart by David Letterman and then having it repeated a few nights ago on another appearance.

It wasn’t so much that Letterman beat him up with the facts, but that he gave him a taste of his own medicine and O’Reilly looked very uncomfortable. Letterman would not let him talk, would make wild deductions from what he had said, and at one point blurted out with incredible audacity, “60% of what you say is pure crap.” What I loved was seeing someone not serve up the usual lovefest between celebrities. He did not give O’Reilly the slightest shred of respect, and I have to say it, I loved it so much I watched it over and over again. I know Jon Stewart has done this to quite a few. I loved his appearance on the now defunct Firing Line. If this is a trend on television I am all for it. Check out the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCS38OSsL4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWOGMKQ1aHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_LO-BuhxW0&mode=related&search=

Read more

Art of Argument Confusion, part two

I had hoped that the current election cycle would supply me with endless examples to illustrate the following ideas taken from Schopenhauer. But the Republicans cannot hang themselves quickly enough and so their discourse seems more pointed inward than outward, and the Democrats are just standing aside and laughing. Please provide your own examples, if … Read more

Thoughts on Seduction

Sorry for the hiatus here. I have been working rather hard the past week on the proposal for my next book project. It all should be finalized within a month and you will be the first people to be informed as to its content. I am aiming for a grand slam, trying to also sell … Read more

False Arguments

I had mentioned in an earlier entry a work I greatly admire, Schopenhauer’s The Art of Controversy. I find it very appropriate because in it he analyzes the various spurious ways people can construct an argument, how they can manipulate words and strategize rhetorically to cover up their lack of knowledge, or their ideas that … Read more