Battles are usually fought with adrenaline pumping through veins, fueling anger or whatever emotion it is pushing people to fight. But at the end of it all, when one realizes he is victorious, everything slows down. It is then that one is given the chance to finish off an enemy, in body or in spirit, and for one who wishes to preserve power this must be done. Throughout history, this law of power has been known. Some people have followed it and some people had to learn it the hard way, just as Bumpy Johnson in the 1940’s did.
Bumpy, then the Godfather of Harlem once took a boy named Flash in his care. Bumpy trusted Flash and made him do errands and business deals. Flash took this to his advantage, however, and started to steal from Bumpy. Soon enough Bumpy learned about this and beat up Flash in a public place. Flash was beat up to a pulp and Bumpy had a chance to kill him. He didn’t. Soon after, Flash framed Bumpy for crimes he didn’t commit and Bumpy was thrown in Alcatraz.
Enemies like these – enemies for life, are better finished off than left standing. Not doing so will only leave them even more willing to finish you off. Humiliation is not something people react positively to. If it doesn't fuel a fire, it starts one, and the only security you will have after defeating a foe is the thought that he can no longer hurt you. For one who desires power and a lasting victory, crushing enemies totally is the only choice.
Leo T. Zacarias
Hi18 - L
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
this law is slightly in contrast to the law (2?) where you should use your enemies instead of your friends.
I think that crushing your enemies totally is not nice at all since there is always the chance that those enemies you've shown mercy to will help you in the future. The law is right in that you won't have lasting or full security after letting go of your enemy BUT there's nothing wrong with showing mercy AS LONG AS you are vigilant about the movements of your enemy.
monica ang, L
in terms of crushing your enemies totally, there's more than one way to accomplish this law. it doesn't necessarily have to deal with killing them. after all, the operative word is crush, not kill.
you can establish friendships, succumb to them, strike an accord, compromise. the relationship required to have an enemy can be rearranged so that you do not have enemies -- there are dialogues, etc.
kyra ballesteros hi18K
the only problem i see in not having enemies is how you wont advance in anything as you just try to focus on stable relationships.
pretty much like in cIV, you need to pick a side else you'll be left hanging in the middle trading off all you have to keep the relationships pleased or friendly
miguel ignacio, L
to monica:
how do you know that the enemy you've shown mercy to will help you in the future? what if, in your enemy's mind, all he thinks about is how you tried to crush him, and that's it. chances are he will try to get back at you for revenge. and won't it leave a scary and uncomfortable feeling to you knowing that you let an enemy go? he could be anywhere, planning something for revenge. there will always be the possibility for danger. and crush does necessarily have to be synonymous to killing. it can mean a lot of things...
i would also like to make it clear that I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF VIOLENCE. i just wanted to point out those things that's all. hehe. :)
-Philip Albert T. Verde
Hi18 K
I personally think that crushing enemies totally for power and lasting victory is too much. Although crushing them would guarantee benefits and advantages for me, I'd rather work harder to get those benefits by other means.
Crushing them and giving them humiliation infront of a lot of people would affect not only their current career but might also affect their future. No matter what they did against you, I think it is too much to ruin somebody's life. They should be given a chance to regret, change, and live a new life.
I think the best way is reconciliation, although there are some cases wherein, this would not work.
Yu Chin Hong
Hi18-K
I completely agree with Kyra. Instead of killing your foes, why not just make peace with them? It obviously is hard to "kiss and make-up" with your enemies, but if it saves you from stress and the possibilities of being killed by your enemies, don't you think that it's something worth fixing?
Plus, you'll never really know when that former enemy of yours will come in handy to your disposal later on. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, they can make great allies too?
I am against violence but I'm just wondering how one could completely crush his/her enemy without killing that person.
One can't ultimately crush another person through humiliation or verbal abuse. We've already witnessed that in various shows. A perfect example would be the popular TV series "Gossip Girl". Almost all the characters in that show have fallen hard at the very bottom. Many of them have gone through excruciating moments of humiliation. But almost all of them managed to stand after an immense fall and some even got back at their adversary.
The point is, if someone is physically alive, he/she would still have the ability to get back at someone.
So in what specific instances could one be totally crushed without being killed?
Monica Copuyoc
Hi18-L
This law is a little extreme in a very literal sense. In my opinion, crushing your enemies does not exactly mean physically crushing them down. I believe that one could crush his enemy totally through other means. The point of this law is one of control and dominance.
This law revolves around the idea that if one doesn't crush his enemy completely, the enemy will get you back.
Richard Hahn
L
I am not in favor of violence either!! It is rude and merciless.
Why is it that some laws in the book are contradictory??? Just a thought..because a few minutes ago, I commented on a law that teaches you to use enemies to your advantage...to be "friends" with them.
And as i've commented on that law, the problem is that people are too close-minded of their enemies...They don't realize that they can be "beneficial" too.
That is exactly what is evident here.
Raizza Encinas
Hi18 Section L
Reminds me of those horror movies when you think the killer is dead but really, he’s still alive and he seems stronger than ever. It’s frustrating but I guess that’s what makes the movie more interesting. I don’t think it would still be interesting in real life.
I think that’s the point the author is trying to show. You have to make sure that you’ve settled things. That’s it. I agree with the others who commented. The violence also bothered me.
Mara Liboro
Hi18-K
This is exactly why I get pissed at whenever I watch movies wherein they allow the enemy to live, because the hero felt sorry or something. Come on, the battle was made for you to have won it and finishing off your enemy would be like putting the icing on top of the cake.
Remember the scene in the Lion King, when Mufasa was standing at the edge of a cliff and Scar was hanging for his dear life? We all know that Scar was the bad guy who tried to kill Mufasa even at the very start, but after everything that had happened, Mufasa still tried to save Scar because he was his brother. He didn't let him live. Because of what he did, Scar had the chance to kill him -- and he did. Scar pulled Mufasa off the cliff to die.
Once you let your enemy survive, the more he'd have the urge to plot a revenge against you. I agree that humiliation pushes them to do it, but the fact that they were given another chance boosts their initiative to actually get back at you and crush you.
Gliza Marasigan
Hi18-L
it's just like in the movies.. the bad guy gets beat up by the good guy and then the good guy doesn't kill the bad guy and then the good guy turns away and as soon as he turns away the bad guy tries to kill the good guy again.
I believe that you shouldn't crush your enemies totally but rather show them that whatever they do, they cannot defeat you.
As learned in class, the egyptians kept coming back to Meggido and showing them who is boss. they didn't completely kill all of them but showed them who's in control. it flourished. 18 years. haha. poor them
Raf Sobrepena Hi - K
...once an enemy, always an enemy...
thus you'll never be completely assured that your enemies will not be back...
After seeing Hannibal this morning, again allow me to allude.
The miraculous victory at Cannae. To the one-eyed general, moving further to annihilate the Italian capital was useless for Rome was "on its knees" already.
Indubitably, it was a poor decision. Like the law says, you only really win when you erase every single trace of your adversary. In a rare moment of sensibility, Hannibal instead issued the Romans terms for their surrender. But they didn't. And because of that, Carthage did not complete their revenge.
Hannibal should have had blog access back then.
Joey Palma
Hi18-K
This is really the law that'll send the guy who used Law 22: Use the surrender tactic, to flames. This just shows that in getting power, you should use the emotions of your opponents to your advantage, but at the same time not let your emotions get the best of you.
When I played civ 4 I used the Romans and just wiped out every other civ off the map when I bee-lined iron-working and got my praetorians. I took a few good (and close) cities but burned the rest. Sure it's a waste but it's better than the maintenance costs killing your empire slowly.
Alan Ortiz
HI18 K
at times it's better if, after you've beaten your enemy, you keep them alive or keep them hoping that they can somehow beat you somewhere down the road. by doing so, you deny them even the sweet feeling of being at peace with themselves by making them think that they can do more to somehow get to you. watching them do so gives you the satisfaction of knowing that they will "kill" or "destroy" themselves for you.
- Bjorn Umali, Hi18-L
People change don't they. Totally crushing them would seem unfair because your putting the last say on what they should really be. Power is not all the time achieved by demoralizing the opponent. Just play the game WITHOUT harming anyone.
Rhea Entuna
section L
To expound on what Joey Palma mentioned earlier, Hannibal really should've taken the opportunity to totally annihilate the Romans. Instead, he let his emotions get in the way, he failed to see the need to do so, and failed to deliver the final destructive blow to the Roman empire. If he had fulfilled his oath of being Rome's greatest enemy, so many cultures today would be incredibly different.
Elise Noelle Anne Lim
Hi18 Section L
I agree. Giving your opponents the time to recoup after you have just about annihilated them gives them the slightest chance of getting you back. Total victory, in my opinion, calls for the aggressor to have the balls to follow through and fully crush his adversary both in body and in spirit, assuring that the one he has knocked down stays down.
-Angelo Mendoza, His18-L
we just watched hannibal. i think we all know how his story exemplified this law.
from "156 Rules for Being and Evil Overlord":
6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.
7. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."
6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.
7. When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No."
13. All slain enemies will be cremated, or at least have several rounds of ammunition emptied into them, not left for dead at the bottom of the cliff. The announcement of their deaths, as well as any accompanying celebration, will be deferred until after the aforementioned disposal.
to phillip: in ancient warfare, enemies hardly ever helped each other after "being shown mercy". it's mercy if you're two almost equally strong, honorable warriors, like gilgamesh and enkidu. in the case of hannibal vs. rome, they didn't take it as mercy. they took it as an oppening. but they probably also took it as an insult. you don't kill thousands of men from an opposing army and then "show the rest of them mercy". it's insulting.
anyway...
READ THIS. IT'S LIKE THE 48 LAWS OF POWER, ONLY EASIER TO READ (NO OFFENSE MEANT THOUGH. HEY, WE'RE KIDS):
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4276871870184172363&postID=4853363071597335514
Du, L
True, enemies should be annihilated so they won’t have more chance to hurt you. But sometimes sparing people’s lives can leave them indebted to you. In the case of Bumpy and Flash, Bumpy humiliated Flash so he got really pissed of with Bumpy. But what if you weren’t humiliated? Then, it will appear like you just had a chance to kill your enemy but you decide not to take the chance – so it’s like you saved his life. For example, in most shows I’ve watched, when the hero doesn’t kill his rival when he had a chance to and spare his life, they usually become indebted to the hero and can even become allies of the hero. Wouldn’t they want to repay the hero? Or if not, they wouldn’t do something as lowly as what Flash did – they’d want to take the hero head on and prove they’re stronger.
So is it really that necessary to crush enemies totally?
Chris Macalinao
Hi18 – L
Unfortunately, this law requires that one be merciless in the battlefield. If one were to allow an enemy to live, he would have no guarantee that this enemy would be grateful and not retaliate. The enemy then becomes a liability, so this law requires that all enemies be annihilated to take absolute precaution.
Hannibal in his battle against Rome didn’t apply this law. When he actually won the battle of Cannae and left his enemies vulnerable, he decided not to attack. This was a move followed by sever regret. Rome soon recovered and extinguished the Carthaginians, those in Africa included. Had Hannibal crushed his enemies totally, our very history would have been very different.
Paolo Banaga
Hi 18-L
I wonder, why did Bumpy not finish Flash? There must be a reason, which is not said here.
Also, does crushing your enemies totally doesn't always mean killing? You mentioned in body OR spirit so I assume the answer to my question is a no. It would have been good if you could have shown this more; maybe in another example.
-Jan Leyson
Hi18 K
Crushing the enemy isn't something that we should take literally. We could crush an enemy not only by physical means, it could also be done emotionally and spiritually. A dishearted person will no longer be willing to fight against you. Crushing them mey also result to them giving in and deciding to help you and take your side.
Alysa Alberto
Hi18-L
I really love the example Paolo Banaga gave about Hannibal not crashing his enemies totally when he could have. But then this law strongly contradicts law 2, which is what I could relate to. I think that it's better to turn your enemy into an ally. I'm not saying that you have to trust them COMPLETELY. For as long as you keep an eye out for their every move, there should be good reason for you to use them to your advantage.
Chua Rojas, Serica
Hi 18 - L
When I first saw this law I thought that it seemed kind of harsh, and I'm not really that type of person. However, upon reading your example of Bumpy getting thrown into Alcatraz, I realized that it's actually a smart thing to do.
I remember watching a Mortal Kombat cartoon wherein I think it was Gordon, who was fighting with his brother in front of his father. Whoever won would be heir to the throne. Gordon fell off a cliff but was able to hang on. His brother then, realizing he was already victorious, helped Gordon get up onto the mountain again. Gordon's brother was about to celebrate his victory when Gordon pushed him off the cliff, when his brother reached out for help, Gordon kicked him and he fell off the cliff and died. Gordon looked at his father who was smiling and nodding approvingly.
Now this story is indeed extremely harsh, but in a way, I see the point of the characters. If you're going to be a militaristic leader, you have to know that your enemies can try to become your friends, then easily turn their backs on you. Just like in Civilization, you can sign a Right of Passage only to have it abused by another civilization.
Regina A. Yulo
Hi 18 L
I honestly believe that crushing the enemy is the best solution; because in away your making him out of your sight he is crushed he cant come back. its not killing him but crushing him either in his self esteem or anything else but crushing his spirit. on the other hand i also believe that practically its not the best option because time makes people grow stronger so he might really get back and literally crush you completely. why is that because people never forget insults they never forgive humiliations they can always grow stronger and come back since they are not killed LOL. I think in some circumstances when you become better in general and they could see that your so much better than they are, this crushes them and plus its better than battling with the person your whole life. just ignore, surpass and outstand
I think that in general, the different laws cater to different peopl. That is to say, while one person may not have the heart to crush his/her enemy totally, they might have a natural talent for using their enemy to get what they want, and vise versa. Not everyone is built the same, so we all might find certain laws for gaining power suitable, while others will just seem crazy.
A good example is at the work place.Once you attain the C.E.O status, there must have been some few enemies who you wouldnt compromise at any cost.They represented ideas/policies that you loath.So these few enemies are the ones that you will fire.Though I do not promote that but for example purposes, I find that a sufficient illustration.
From the in-depth study of the 48 Laws of Power, I came to an epiphany that almost half of the laws laid out and explained do contradict the other half. And in my opinion As Robert Greene was writing these laws, he had all people in mind.Were it for the laws to become rigid, then I think it would make people automatons, thats why he presents to the reader LAW #48:ASSUME FORMLESSNESS...in that one has to study all the laws and then put them at the back of their mind and then approach the situation at hand(With an open mind)...It is at that point that one will be able to apply a law depending on the circumstances at hand.
I think it just means to have complete follow through rather than resting on your laurels when victory is close
When a κey choіce manufacturer is active, a lot liκe
spruсing uр your hоusе for sale: you'll want to describe the pest, most insects business are unwanted pests that make their brand different.
Feel free to surf to my web-site - internet marketing plans
As with actual used car quotes, nitro RC used car quotes in that they don't fully understand. Whatever gasoline grade it says to use, intuitive designs which can control secondary car functions such as a bell but this is strictly voluntary. I would like to know if the car is not in a good shape. Data collected from the ground-breaking trip will be used to develop improved battery technology for the Smart ForTwo.
my homepage ... used cars buffalo
Post a Comment