Four simple words, used to define political action at large for as long as we can remember. In essence, the Law suggests, nay, prescribes the use of a scapegoat in order to avoid potentially sticky situations. By utilizing (emphasis on the term) others to receive the blame for your actions or circumstances, you shift public attention from your own shortcomings and avert anything that might incite misgivings towards your position or potency. An example of this would be Emperor Nero persecuting the early Christians, on whom he blames a large conflagration that consumed a large part of Rome.
The Law also recommends the use of a “cat’s-paw” to do one’s dirty work for him; once he has outlived his usefulness, hew can be discarded, silenced or sacrificed. An example of this would be President Jose Laurel being manipulated by the Japanese occupiers to formally head a puppet government, while he is also put at the receiving end of many allegations by patriots of being a collaborator.
The Law encourages people in power to discard friends like a monkey going through bananas; once one has taken all that he could benefit, he leaves whatever is left in the dust.
However, this Law does have a flipside: if, for instance, a person in power uses his contacts to do his under-the-table dealings and his cover is blown, he might face exponentially worse results, like impeachment, or possibly even lynching.
Nathan De Leon
Hi18-O
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Hmm... This is a weak law for me. Manipulating others to do your dirty work is heartless. I mean, after using his/her usefulness you discard him/her. Yes, you will be a powerful guy but you have to rely on others to succeed.
Don Faylon
Hi18 N
I love this law. This is why; It is a law that everyone loves to hate but is the foundation of power. There are a couple of things that must first be addressed:
1) No one in this earth has clean hands
2) The world loves clean hands
So if it is impossible to keep your hands clean and the world kneels to clean hands, what do we do? We let other people do our dirty business. This is not a law for the loving, the caring, the teletubbying. It is a dirty law that can get your far. Your soul will burn in hell but if you are looking at it as a law of power strictly, then conscience doesn't matter.
A good example of this is my much loved Mafia. Why were Mafia bosses so powerful in the 1940's?
They always kept their hands clean.
What do I mean by this? Simple, when they needed to kill someone they hired an assassin and disposed of the body, when they interoggated someone they cut off the head of a horse and leave it for you to wake up to. Yes the cops put many behid bars, but as a whole the mafia got away with so many evil deeds because they kept their hands clean. Not only did they gain wealth but their community loved them. They had money to provide for the poor community, which most of them group up in and people respected them. People had an idea that they were in dirty business, but oh! Their hands were clean?
So to drive this point. If your hands get dirty then you fall. During the 1960s, drugs became very popular in the US. The Mafia made good money off their casinos and brothels prior to this era. When the drugs came, a lot of potential for good money came with it. The old timers did not want to indulge in this business, in fact many bosses were killed by the younger members in their crew because they were not willing to "get their hands dirty". The old timers knew this. The Mafia was able to prosper by being under the radar. The drugs would signal the world that they are truly dirty and the authorities could sniff them out.
Well as usual the new take over and the Mafia gets heavily involved. This was one of the major reasons for the fall of the Mafia in America. Imagine, before the drugs came, the Mafia were in control of an incredible amount of the economy, they owned multinational companies around the world. They were very good businessmen and had control of politicians as well. The drugs got their hands dirty and so they fell.
What could they have done differently? Well if they followed this law, they could have spread out their branches outsourced this dirty business to other people. There was just so much money to be made up the grape vine that the Mafia wanted to have complete control of it. Getting others to do your dirty business means less profit for you since you have to pay. Their greed was their downfall.
I agree Don. I’m not really sure if this law is effective. I mean how do you expect people to trust you if you keep putting the blame on them? In the long run you might lose all of your followers just for the sake of your reputation. I think is better to take the blame yourself sometimes showing that even leaders can make mistakes. In the end, it’s a matter of choice whether to take the blame or pass it to someone else.
This law is surely effective, and has been proven for years. Come to think about it, leaders (especially politicians) are not "clean" (not corrupt, has no vices, etc), but rather they only appear to be clean.
Of course, as what Robert Greene said in the introduction of the 48 laws of power, everything must be done in moderation. This law may work, but only up to a certain extent.
---
Ian Cadelina
Hi18 N
This law is used very much. Especially by those that have a certain image to uphold or are held at certain standards. They don't want to do the dirty work. An example are politicians, they get people to work for them then they also have a fall back man. Someone to take the blame if ever they get caught. But I think this law will only really work for you if you have a lot of money to pay or something that the person working for you really wants.
Katrina L. Abello
HI18-O
The most powerful men let others do their dirty work for them. Easy enough, when they have the right resources and know the right people. The catch is, letting others in on your dirty work adds a liability on your part. In protecting your oh-so-clean reputation, you have to foresee that one of these days the secret will get out, and the once respected official turns into the bad guy. It is hard to keep your men from telling on you, and it will end up costing you more than you had hoped for. It’s a corrupt world out there, and everyone’s just looking for a payoff.
Marian Janelle Aliwalas
HI 18 N
"Dan Vitan said...
I agree Don. I’m not really sure if this law is effective. I mean how do you expect people to trust you if you keep putting the blame on them? "
I think yo must exercise I bit of caution when choosing who to do your dirty work. Indeed if you keep blaming people, it is very likely that they will not respect you, even hate you. Therefore it is important that the negative effects of your actions is minuscule compared to the benefits from blaming other people.
This is why leaders like to blame the weak. Like Hitler, he blamed the Jews. In fact they were the wealthy in Germany at the time thus giving them importance. Even with their money, they could not fight Hitler. The negative effects of scapegoating was nothing compared to the benefits Hitler received for doing so. He was considered pure by the majority of the Aryan race and were able to weed out the Jews.
Like all rules, there must be some strategy and the use of the good old coconut for it to be successful. To gain power through this rule, one must selective on who to blame or who to use for their dirty deeds. There are a lot of people in the world to blame so you can never argue that there is a limited amount and the law is weak or cannot apply.
This law is very susceptible to criticism because it is high risk and requires foresight. Other than that it is still a very powerful law
you guys have a point. but don't you think the ones using the power will have a lot of enemies. Today, its okay to do these stuff as long as you don't get caught. and when the people who you're giving the dirty work gets caught, eventually it will all go back to you. It's like it will naturally come out who is the mastermind, the boss, etc. behind the act/s. well anyway, it's still pretty much weak, effective but very grave consequences.
effectiveness < consequences.
Don Faylon
Hi18 N
Having a scapegoat is definitely the best way to succeed in this law. One must appear as pure as snow by framing somebody for his misdeeds and by making others do his dirty work. It is a matter of manipulation. But if caught, aside from the danger of impeachment, it causes a huge blow to ones reputation. It will cause a lifetime of disgrace. So the question remains, are you willing to exchange face for power?
Dexter Tanengsy, Hi18-N
This law reminds me of what Ms. Jalandoni said days ago, "Don't hire mercenaries if you can't pay them!" And as Mariel said, "everyone's just looking for a pay off." I think the situation of Carthage after the first Punic war best supports the said statement- Carthage then was forced to fight its own army since she did not have any money left to pay her mercenaries (as she had to pay a huge war indemnity of 3200 talents).
Where's the "keep your hands clean" in this? Carthage, realizing its capability to do more, hired an army and made these mercenaries do the dirty work. This law cannot just be viewed in the perspective of blame and in keeping one's reputation clean. It can also be used in lieu of realizing one's own capabilities and in focusing on one's 'forte' (I mean, if you graduated from college with honors, would you channel your capabilities through a job that's much too simple for you? Would you want to be underemployed? Let others take that job.); and that, to me, is a concrete road for power.
"Kung kaya nila, ipagawa mo sa kanila."
This reminds me of tactics I sometimes use when playing games that require a bit of strategy. I set up characters (usually those buff ones you call 'tanks') and let them go head on with an enemy, distracting it and making damage at the same time. With them doing the "dirty work" my character can go and loot the area or heal up and support the team. When they go down, the enemy is significantly weaker, and I can go in for the kill. In some games, I can even get all the experience points for surviving or dealing the killing blow. This way, I reap the most profits and stay healthy enough to complete the dungeon.
Another example would be when facing two adversaries, lay low and let them take each other out. By the time one comes out victorious, you've had enough time to prepare and study them. At this time they'll most probably be weary and weakened--the perfect time to pounce.
Patty Geollegue
Hi18-N
I have a problem with a part of this law, specifically the use of a “cat’s-paw”. The problem is that you're letting someone else do all the work for you. Can you really trust someone else, especially someone weak enough to fall under you, to execute your master plan? There's no way anyone else would be able to work exactly as you please. He or she would have a much higher chance of failing than if you executed the plan yourself. To me, the risk is far too high to let an underling take over and increase the chance of failure.
For those familiar with the anime Death Note: It was Light's trust of his pawns that eventually led to his downfall. He manipulated other people to do the dirty work for him. However, none of them were as competent as Light himself, so everything fell apart and Light faced the consequences.
Marvin Velasco
Hi18 N
There's a loophole here through which failure can slip through. I think just a key point to remember when applying this rule - make sure you treat your subordinates right. These people are doing your dirty work, or regardless of whether it's dirty or not, your work. They can easily be less motivated to do things properly if you fail to treat them well. I refuse to believe that they'll always do a good job for a good amount of money. I think to some extent, they also need respect and courtesy. Because if you're abusive, even if there's a salary, workers will refuse to meet your expectations.
Oops..
Krizia Cureg
Hi18 Section O
it's not about relying on others.
you make them pawns. and no it cannot be a matter of having a heart or not the applications vary from person to person. it depends on how this law is used. like most laws, it almost always seems as if you must become the ultimate master of deception and without any real and true allies. considering such a position, you only lead yourself towards your own downfall.
What if. This law is used as something generally for the greater good?
Example. The end of the movie Dark Knight(ok sorry nerdy example), Batman decides to serve as the scapegoat to preserve the heroic image of Harvey Dent, for the greater good of Gotham's citizens.
A monarch who has to carry out particulary vicious actions, for his kingdom, or experiences a very grave lapse in judgement, will inevitably viewed as a weak ruler, thus creating instability within the kingdom, coups may occur, or other neighboring kingdoms may see it as an opportunity for conquest. Thus it is only perfectly logical to use a lesser person to serve as a scapegoat for the monarch. An individual who can afford to fail.
But of course, this is only if you have such vanity as to think that you are important enough to even deserve a scapegoat.
But anyway. the point is. this law , and any other law for that matter shouldn't really be viewed as acts of cruelty and manipulation.
It's all in how one uses it. :D
Mark Bantayan
Hi18 N
This law, no matter how dirty it is, goes back to the very foundations of power in our history. It plays an important role whether it was displayed through tyranny or manipulation.
For me, its a very classic display of The Godfather, do the dirty work for 'em, whether you owe them your loyalty or you fear for your own life that you let men with higher ranks and cotton gloves to use you.
This law is really sinister, but you have to admit that it has proven its effectivity in history. I agree with Ian on the line: “It works, but only up to a certain extent”. If you go on and on using people as scapegoats, getting away with all sorts of debauchery and whatnot, sooner or later, someone WILL notice. And when they do, you're ruined.
Use this law sparingly.
_________________________
Patrick Reyes Hi18-O
This law seems too much like Thomas Hobbes' Philosophy. I think Mariel said it best that "the most powerful men let others do their dirty work for them". If you hold as much power and influence as Mike Arroyo, for example, you wouldn't sign your name on illegal documents (for, of course, illegal means of getting money). Instead, you'd have someone meet with your co-conspirators, and let someone else open a bank account for you to put your own money in.
If you are tried in court, unless the case against you is really strong, your cronies are the ones who'd end up convicted to prison. What's amazing here is, given that you were really good to him, even if he is in jail being punished for YOUR sins, his loyalty remains.
Pia Angela J. Maske
II AB-MA Political Science
Hi 18, Section O
Law 33: Discover Each Man's Thumbscrew
I don't think this sounds cruel at all. It's more of a necessity than anything. You can't expect to be a powerful leader if you're doing all the work yourself.
Building on what Pia said, i don't think things are so bad for your henchmen. They let themselves be used by you because of their loyalty. They're a bit like crusaders fighting for a cause.
So, is this law really effective? I believe so. It's just a matter of how you play it out.
i agree with this law and adding to what j.c. said, all original gangsters have their men who do their work for them. the perfect example is really the corleone family in The godfather, you will be able to see that the family becomes successful because of loyal workers and men. the quality of the men reflects the kind of leaders they have. I think that the "dirty" jobs is the main reason for argument. Indeed, workers and men will make you prosper but if you consitently command them to do "dirty" jobs, i believe that karma will eventually get back to you
marion adalia
bs mgt
O
I think this power has great possibilities.
But first, I would like to refute what Don or "Biks" said about being heartless. Who ever said that the 48 laws of power was about not being heartless? It is entitled 48 laws of POWER. If you do the dirty work for yourself, do you think that people will like you any more than letting others do it for you?
Secondly, at least you won't become the target of all those dirty works. Maybe, only some?
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
Don-What is the demarcation b/w weak and strong? The line seems to be relative and at times I guess manifestation through actions could not even justify the nature of strengthe and weakness, thus people see wekaness and strength according to perspective and in acquiring power(not the cheesy love thing but the poitical) the end justifies the means
vince suelto commented above
What reminds me of this law is the video "On the Canvas of the Society" (Sa Kambas ng Lipunan) of the famous painter Joey Velasco. There was a scene where he was washing his brushes that he used after an artwork. He seemingly said that in every artwork done, a painter washes his brushes and HIS HANDS.
It had become a NEED for one to do this. As what nico said, yes, the world has just loved clean hands. However, this is what makes the current scenario worst. We are all too clean to be true. We are all appearing too perfect that we INTEND to forget in a second every mistakes that we make. Doesn't the LAW 46 states not to appear too perfect at all? I believe then that a better leader need to admit his weaknesses and faults. Well, I perhaps will choose to work with people having uncleaned hands than people having pretentious ones.
:Joanne Atienza N
I agree with what camille had pointed out. Of course, this strategy is done out of necessity. For in acquiring power, one cannot only use his charm and abilities to do so, but also he has to engage in these kinds of matters, which would make him appear heartless.
Power is almost everytime equated with brutality. For this one, I believe that this law is very much applicable for anyone who dreams of acquiring real, and maybe even, absolute power.
Marie Dacquel
HI18-O
Dan Vitan said:
I mean how do you expect people to trust you if you keep putting the blame on them?
But then, you're missing the point of this law. You point the blame at them without them actually knowing that it's you who ensnared them into the trap in the first place!
Niko has a point in saying that no one really has clean hands, and the world wants clean hands. This can be seen in the political situation in the country today. Politicians let other people do the dirty task for them (remember Erap and Jose Pidal?) while they show a good image to the people, but then, if people do not have really clean hands, how sure you are you that the one you to do the dirty task for you will not blame you?
Think of the case of Erap. His men betrayed him putting him in jail. I guess when you opt to do this law, you must also know the rules of fooling people for them to follow you blindly.
But.. poor world.. will we really do anything for power?
Joan Medalla
Hi18 N
I agree with alan.
first most of us tend to argue about a law's moral issues. i think it all depends on it's utilization. i mean just because it looks and sounds like a particularly harsh law, it does not necessarily mean that it is limited only to accomplish harsh ends. It's like the sword of a samurai. looking at it's incredibly sharp blade, you will see that it's really meant to cut through armor and bite the flesh. But in Japan, it is not viewed as a simple and effective tool for killing. It's a symbol of honor, discipline, skill and virtue.
I dont think we should be naive enough to weigh these laws using morality's scales. I mean, think about it. Isn't the quest for power immoral in itself?
But in any case, morality considered, can we really say that ends justify the means?
Things cannot always be seen in shades of black and white. What if the means of utilizing a naturally cruel law, is a virtuous one? and it's all to achieve equally virtuous ends?
Can we really consider the natural "cruelty" of a law, as virtuous as well?
Like much of what we deal with in this world day to day, I guess it all depends on us, on how we want these laws to be.
Mark Bantayan
Hi18 N
There's a saying that the potter gets his hands dirty in order to create something of great beauty. Even the gardener has to sully his hands to grow the finest of plants.
Now... This whole under the table string pulling thing is pretty dirty. Powerful too, if played correctly. But once again, it's all dependent on why you played the card. Even the most virtuous leader has to deal the the lowest of scum for his cause...
I think it is rather cowardly to keep one's hands clean in doing work. Either you're hiding something wrong, or you're concerned too much on your reputation.
Besides. Being too clean does have its side effects. One can be distanced from others simply by being too clean. Also, wouldn't it be really difficult to keep cleaning your hands all the time? Eventually, the people whose hands are always dirty because of you will end up tired. Eventually, you yourself will get tired of washing your hands too frequently.
Eric Andres
Hi 18 Section N
this law is very effective! ... but inhumane. I think that people should not be treated as objects but come to think of it, it happens everyday.
Yup! Just like what Niko said, manipulation of others is the basis for power.
Post a Comment