Law 33: Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew

Everyone has a weakness. It may be an insecurity, an emotional need or a secret pleasure. Whatever it is can be used to your advantage. Push the right buttons and voila, whatever you want, served to you in a silver platter, with the person totally unaware.

Napoleon didn’t apply that law in his invasion of Russia. He charged using his old war tactics which were dependent on the enemy’s terrain. Since Russia’s terrain didn’t match that of his old conquests, his modus operandi failed and they lost that war. Napoleon’s mistake was the assumption that what worked before would work again. He didn’t find out Russia’s weakness beforehand and that was a cause of his demise.

Contrary to Napoleon is Queen Catherine de’ Medici. She was the acting regent of her next son in line for the throne and so as not to relinquish her power, she formed her escadron volant (“flying squadron”) of young girls to keep the unsuspecting men in court at bay.

Queen Catherine had learned that distinguished men in court wanted to feel they could win a woman regardless of his status, which he just inherited. She sent members of her flying squadron to seduce the men in court and her girls would keep tabs on the men for her, and sway their decisions, if necessary. She used the men’s weakness to her advantage and she succeeded in remaining in power.

Weaknesses, although not openly expressed, can be seen through gestures and unconscious signals. As Freud said, “No mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” It makes you wonder: What have you given away so far?

Theresa Rosario Tan
Hi18-K

Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

The U.S Pacific Fleet was once considered as the most powerful and most crucial part of the American defense in the Pacific during WW2. For some of you who aren’t familiar with this fleet, this was the one bombarded and attacked by the aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy on the dawn of December 7, 1941 at the shores of Pearl Harbor. As a result of the bombing, more than two thousand lives were taken, including civilians, and more than a thousand were injured.

The ironic and sad thing about this tragedy is that the event that took place in Pearl Harbor wasn’t the unpredictable thing that happened. The unpredictable thing happened in the White House when the president at that time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, expressed “great relief” upon hearing the news that the Japanese had struck. He knew that there was an existing threat to their nation, even years before the attack happened, but he deliberately decided to ignore the warnings. He intentionally did so because he wanted to use this blow as a mean to use their power to take over the “enemy” (as discussed in numerous conspiracy theories).

I don’t know for you, but for me, I was surprised to have found out this other side of the story. Prior to this shocking revelation, I really thought that the Japanese were just plainly geniuses to have had pulled off a trick like this on one of the most powerful nations in the world (Thanks to the movie Pearl Harbor). But I guess they really didn’t make that much of a statement after all.

After reflecting on this event that took place more than sixty years ago, I can’t help but question myself on whether or not the event that took place on September 11, 2001 was a conspiracy as well. I have seen videos (thanks to Youtube) showing demolition bombs exploding before the towers plunged into the ground. I also can’t help but link the two. I mean, it both happened on American soil. The movie, Pearl Harbor, was released on 2001. It both involved planes. It resulted in a war which affected a lot of countries. And of course, their presidents (Bush? Oh yes HE can).

Now, just imagine if our own president decided to plot such scheme on our country. You may laugh at the idea of Rizal Park being hit by an airplane right now but hey, anything is possible. Besides, she is still the president, she has the power and she can also plot other schemes. We thought that EDSA 1 was enough but we already experienced 3 in less than two decades. Who knows when EDSA 4 will come into play?

As you can see, the unpredictable is really terrifying. You don’t know what to expect which makes you feel anxious and wary on what to do when placed in such situation. It’s like one’s fear of an earthquake. One fears it because one doesn’t know when it will strike.

Unpredictability may also cause harm which makes it even scarier. No matter how much you prepare for something important, a lot of things may happen. And if things don’t go your way, there’s a big chance that you might get too hurt that it would eventually affect your whole being. Therefore, you should never expect too much.

Expect the unexpected.

Tom Manahan
Hi 18 - K

Law # 18: Do not build fortresses to protect yourself – isolation is dangerous

Somehow, the security of a citadel overlooking an urban sprawl below seems to be the safest place for a sovereign leader to reside forever. On the contrary, it will prove to be his/her greatest mistake as it leaves him/her vulnerable, exposed and fixed at a single spot.

Cut off from everything, an isolationist risks the country from civil disorders. Without a firm hand to guide them, appointed ministers start to lose faith and establish their own fiefdoms. Townspeople look at the citadel as if it is the devil. Left alone, the isolationist starts to lose perspective, grace and communication – the very traits that should enable him to rule.

Qin Shi Huang united China from its past of warring states. That China has its many wonders and remarkable organization is attributed to him. However, he retired with himself in Hsien-yang with only a few subjects knowing his whereabouts. To add to his mistakes, he challenged the teachings of Confucius and retreated more in seclusion that instead, his eunuchs ruled the country. Even in death he was isolated.

Power is dependent on social structures and interaction. Therefore, isolation is no way to gain it. A prince needs to be permeable, floating from circle to circle and seeking information and contacts whenever possible. Mobility counters plotters. A strong visible leader captivates. Ladder-climbers are held in place by promises of later ascendancy. Conformity binds everyone to a central point.

Louis XIV made all the nobility stay with him in the palace of Versailles. His rule was that everything should revolve around him. Nobles were humbled because of conformity and fear of the Panopticon – a system of total surveillance. People are awed by the order and grace of the state. Because of this, he ruled 72 years, making France the dominant state in his time.

Other people that are successful because of this law are Cicero (born of a low nobility yet was able to climb up), Shakespeare (he knew the hearts of the people), Talleyrand (blending in different regimes) and Darius I (organization of satraps and “eyes of the king”).

We are then left with a dichotomy of the watchmen and the townspeople. If you are a townsperson, are you willing to subject yourself to a policy of the Panopticon – total control? If you are a leader faced with this quandary, will you choose to be the watchman?

Dylan Kemuel Maynigo Valerio
Hi 18-L

Law 42: Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter

Perhaps it is interesting to note that the law's title is also a well-known bible verse: "Strike the shepherd that the flock may be scattered" (Zechariah 13:7). In any social group, there may be one or several people who inevitably rise to prominence—presidents, monarchs, generals, even school group leaders who seem to take charge and "rule over" a certain social group. These rulers rise to prominence primarily because of their influence over others. The law suggests that to be able to garner influence over a certain group of people, or to assert power and superiority, you must target their rulers.

Before the Spanish colonization, indigenous Filipino communities were overseen and lead by religious leaders called babaylans. They functioned as the communities' shamans, philosophers, and healers. Their influence was so prominent that when early Spanish colonizers tried to spread Catholicism in the country that they chose to target and convert the babaylans of the communities first. Consequently, the rest of the indigenous peoples followed suit—without questioning their sudden shift of principles from polytheism to Catholicism. What the babaylans believed, the people followed. The babaylans were the "shepherds" of the indigenous communities—prominent leaders with influence over their people. The Spanish saw this and exploited this aspect to their advantages. They knew that in order to capture these indigenous peoples, they had to target their leaders first.

What the Spanish did was an example of gaining power over people by taking over the powerful through direct means. But there are also other ways to take over the powerful: a more covert, but equally powerful way is through isolation: separate the ruler from the ruled, and taking over will be an easy task. Isolating can be done via banishing a ruler (e.g. 6th century B.C. Athenian democracy), or by weakening a ruler's power through diminishing his influence.

While the law has definitely helped many great rulers in history to garner power over other rulers—and consequently, power over people, the law assumes that the ruled are powerless without their rulers. Are there instances when a struck down ruler actually benefited the ruled? Or is it a no-fail principle that the ruled is powerless without a ruler?

Chio Cebrero
Hi 18 L

Law #1: Never Outshine the Master

Nicolas Fouquet, in a bid for more power in France during Louis XIV’s reign, threw a grand party in his honor. Already an established favorite, Fouquet envisioned, for himself, unlimited power and authority throughout the kingdom if he is able to situate himself as Finance Minister. When the current finance minister died, he threw a grand party for His Majesty using all his connections, displaying his inventiveness, his unique cleverness. Fouquet intended to honor the king but succeeded only in overshadowing him.

After the party, Fouquet was arrested, tried for stealing from the national treasury, and made to spend the last years of his life in solitude.

He had broken the cardinal rule of power which holds that subjects of those empowered must take care not to inspire insecurity in their masters. The powerful are dangerous and, at times, extremely paranoid and distrustful of those who surround him. Who wouldn’t be? They have what everyone wants.

A display of power is threatening especially those who are Empowered. Therefore, those in the service of the Empowered should take care not to appear as a threat to power. Always leverage oneself into a relationship close to power and once privileged with a position, only time stands in the way of finally achieving it.

Power is the authority to bring about change – it is control. Society created the concept of power as a device for organization – to develop a hierarchy and as a way of arranging ourselves out of chaos and destruction. It is meant to be creative, not destructive.

Different kinds of societies – like the Egyptians -- seem to be dependent upon Power as a superstructure - which makes organization, development and, eventually, civilization, possible. Despite this, Power is equally able to create chaos, conflict and, ultimately, destruction. Power struggles -- rooted deep in our consciousness and help form the very base of our identity (including gender roles, etc) -- are manifested through politics, media wars.

The situation of power denotes domination and submission (in all their shades and gradients). Our dependence on Power begs the question: is society capable of existing without Power? If we are, can we consider a classless mass of humanity a society? How do we relate to each other in the absence of designated niches in society?

kyra ballesteros
hi18 K

Law 10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

Anne Boleyn was quite the seductress in England in the 1500s. She penetrated into the lives of the royal family, the family of King Henry the VIII. Because of Anne, the inevitable rift between the church and England had begun. Had King Henry the VIII avoided his entanglement with the Boleyn family, his life and that of his family would not have spiraled down.

The separation of the church and of England is a big deal in Christian history. This marked the beginning of a new branch of religion. Apart from that, the marriage of Henry and Catherine under the church was declared to be null and void. And Henry proceeded to marry Anne soon after.

As soon as Anne became Queen, many commoners despised King Henry’s decisions and often blamed these decisions on her. The King’s annulment to his marriage with Queen Catherine caused his excommunication from the church. Eventually, Anne’s tendency to argue and her tendency to stand up for herself were disapproved by the King. Thus, when Anne was not able to bear him a son, he found reason to have a new mistress and soon Anne was executed. Whatever force it was that drove Anne Boleyn to do what she did, be it for fame, for the money, or pure jealousy, everyone that she pulled into her circle was taken down with her, into her miserable life.

The only way to avoid being taken down along with the miserable people is simply, as the law says, to avoid them. Sometimes it may be too late. These people, who live in their misery, can still be helped, but if they don’t help themselves then it would be pointless. This law is easier said than done. Put yourself in the shoes of the miserable. Would you want to be left to your own misery, even by your own friends? Is it really your fault? Wouldn’t you rather be helped and brought out of your miserable life? would you help a friend in misery?

Anne Andrea Lacson
Hi18- K

Law 14: Pose as a friend, work as a spy.

‘No one sees the source of your power, and what they cannot see they cannot fight.’
The key to power and to success is foreknowledge. Great armies will lose if they went to battle knowing nothing about their enemies. Vietnam War ring a bell? The Americans stood no chance against the Vietnamese.

The trick here is to understand that espionage isn’t really limited to those spies you see on television. It’s something everyone is capable of. A simple conversation with your target can give you all the information you need: his strengths, weaknesses, secrets, everything. Be careful though, you don’t want them to know you’re fishing for information. It might backfire. The article mentions a French politician, Talleyrand. He had the ability to suppress himself in the conversation, to make others talk endlessly about themselves and inadvertently reveal their intentions and plans. He had a gift. People said he was a superb conversationalist yet he actually said very little.

There’s a trick you see, make them feel your worthy of their trust. Give them a fake confession and you might just get a real one. In conversations you must learn when to say the truth and when to tell lies. False information can and will protect you from practitioners of law 14. In fact you can both collect information and protect yourself in conversations. By planting information of your choice, you control the game.

‘While spying gives you a third eye, disinformation puts out one of your enemy’s eyes.’
We Filipinos are familiar with this law, we’ve even created a perfect term for these types of people. Plastic. It makes you wonder, who are your real friends? Or better yet, do you even have any?

Jaime Lizada
Hi18 K

Law #5: So Much Depends on Reputation - Guard It With Your Life.

Today it could be a brand, a rank, or maybe even a nickname (e.g. Bernard “The Executioner” Hopkins) but reputation still remains what it was a thousand years ago - someone else’s impression on oneself or, in other words, it’s what one is known for. And over the years, attention to one’s reputation has always been a top concern among politicians, entertainers, and leaders in general. Reputation, however, can be thought of as a double-edged sword, case-in-point - Ferdinand Magellan.
In the 16th century, Ferdinand Magellan discovered the Philippines through the Visayas. He then befriended the Cebuano natives and gained their trust. But just when things were starting to look up, here comes Lapu-lapu flashing his bolo and telling him “No.” Lapu-lapu shook his fist in defiance to the Spanish rule and spat at the idea of submission (much like Leonidas to Persian emissary in 300). Long story short, Magellan attacked and had his world rocked by none other than Lapu-lapu. For that time, Mactan bamboo triumphed over Toledo steel and Lapu-lapu had labeled himself as the Leonidas of 1521.
Being perhaps the only conquistador in history not to use natives against each other, Magellan has proved one point - that he was too arrogant for his own good. He had all the support of Cebu’s Rajah Humabon, yet relied solely on his troops - armed to the teeth with Spanish steel - one of the best in the world at the time. But what could have led to this conquistador's humiliating demise?
Perhaps he regarded the reputation of Spanish technology too highly, and forgot that their heavy armor disabled them in the mud. Perhaps he, being Portuguese, sought to construct a reputation of might and military prowess by defeating Lapu-lapu without the aid of natives to prove his worth before his new Queen. Either way we put it - reputation betrayed him, whether it was the reputation he thought he had or the reputation he sought to create. But can you blame him? Would you have done the same?

-Denis Andrew T. Flores
Hi 18-K