In what way does "crush your enemy completely in body and spirit" not advocate violence?
Sometimes war happens. There is a way to deal with it, like anything else. A bully often won't learn to stay away unless you seal the deal once and for all. That's life.
The entire book is actually advocating psychological violence, which is arguably worse.
Actually it more advocates psychological finesse. Psychological violence would be.. like berating your kid or your employees or something. It doesn't advocate that. It maintains a realistic outlook, though - life is a (mostly) psychological battlefield, and to thrive you must fight.
FDG is right. If everyone applied these rules, genuine human relationships would become impossible. In fact, such strategies rely on the fact that most people do not operate this way. It's the same reason sociopaths often become successful: it's a parasite's charter. Parasites always require a host.
These laws can be used for good or bad.
Personally, I think it is time more good people start empowering themselves and stop feeling guilty and timid.
Also, neither you nor FDG have the slightest idea what it would be like if everyone applied these rules deftly. That argument is entirely hypothetical and invalid.
How does that answer the objection? It doesn't. It's still ruthless, it's just not unfounded.
Just my opinion, but sometimes it is necessary to be ruthless. If someone threatens my life or loved ones, I will be ruthless, period.
You can't use horror movies to justify a strategy for living unless you want people to think you are nuts. Horror movies play on our deepest fears and allow us to exorcise those fears in a safe, controlled environment - catharsis. They intentionally amplify the gap between fantasy and reality.
It's just a relatable example, but definitely not the only one. History is rife with examples of one side failing to crush the other side thoroughly enough and then having them come back and wreak havoc. Like off the top of my head, McClellan in the civil war. The prime example, really, is Hitler. He was obviously not dealt with thoroughly enough in the beginning, and as a result put the world through the worst nightmare in human history.
Using the laws requires finesse and maturity. Should you wake up in the morning wondering who to crush completely today? Probably not. It's about knowing the appropriate time, then taking the appropriate action, even if it is unpleasant.
"Projecting your own guilt" is a meaningless phrase. I really think Greene is suggesting that one ignore one's conscience. Corrupting your conscience is how monsters are created. It's how SS officers were trained. If you have false beliefs and fears that are holding you back in life, that's one thing, but if you are held back because you don't want to harm others, well, that's healthy. That's how empathy is supposed to work!!
Don't confuse conscience and emotions. Greene is absolutely suggesting that we transcend our emotions. Our emotions distort our perception of reality and can make us act hastily and ineffectively. To wield power can definitely require some tough decisions. Let's say you have a negative friend who is dragging you down. You've tried to help him, but he is still floundering in life, and he is hurting you as well. Your emotions might feel terrible for disconnecting from a person like that, but your higher rational mind would know that it is unpleasant, but ultimately the best outcome for the most people. Just a quick example, but I think it shows how following rationality rather than emotion can feel like lacking a conscience.
If you find any of these suggestions distasteful or morally questionable, there's a reason for that. If you do it anyway you diminish yourself as a person of integrity and you compromise your emotional and psychological health, not to mention your relationships with others. Can you really rationalize everything on the basis of "whatever works"? Do ends justify any means? Where do you draw the line?
There is no easy answer to this question, but it is an inescapable question whether you read and apply this book or not. Maybe sometimes they do, maybe sometimes they don't. Nothing is ever black and white, and even if there is one right answer, no one knows absolutely what it is.
If you find something distasteful, sure, there might be a reason for it, but it doesn't have to be a good one. A lot of the time people are offended by harmless things others say because of their own inner insecurities. If I had an abusive father (for example) and other people are talking about fond memories of their fathers, I might feel disturbed and offended. Rationality is about overcoming those emotions and thinking clearly about life. In other words, maybe
it's just you. In the end, we all reach a point in our lives where we are forced to either let our emotions define us and tear us down (because life is painful, unfair, and infuriating), or do our best to overcome them and make the most of what's here. To do that requires rationality, and yes, a little bit of distance or "alienation" from oneself.
The irony is, in applying yourself to someone else's definition of "mastery", in embracing their idea of "success", you just end up brainwashed and alienated from yourself. And a person alienated from himself cannot be happy. So all the superficial success in the world becomes meaningless and empty.
I think success and mastery are very well defined, fairly universal concepts, personally. Then again, I think a lot of people make excuses. When you aren't the most skilled or successful person, it becomes convenient to say you've defined those things for yourself and don't have to measure up to society's standard. It takes courage to acknowledge the standards of society, because virtually no one out there is at the tippy-top of success or mastery. That is humbling, but it can be gotten over and it gives you motivation to make the most of yourself possible.
Such questions of moral bankruptcy aside, this manifesto, or whatever it is, is not even consistent. For example, you say Miley Cyrus has become successful because of rule #6 - it's too early to say anything about her long-term success other than that she has certainly created a short-term buzz of scandal around herself, but she is definitely in danger of breaking rule #16 - overexposure leading to being perceived as cheap and worthless. If the self-same act both fulfils and breaks one of these rules, what then?
There is a subtle art to this. Many laws do seem to contradict, but you've got to think on your feet and read the circumstances you're in. Often times, politicians break rule #16 - especially in campaign season. By the time elections roll around, we pretty much hate them for having had them shoved in our face for months on end.
This stuff isn't easy. Again, the laws without context can contradict, but it's all about reading the situation.
I dislike that book too, but I think it's much less cynical than Greene's output.
Again, it is like a somewhat sugar coated version of laws 24 and 43. And yes, I've read it.