It can be said that the Human condition, even in the face of cellular phones, sweet perfume and utilitarian compassion, is nothing more than a giant competition in the name of evolution. Mankind, with the world oblivious to its actions, is merging and purging, melding and welding, gelling and selling its way to a better world order. There is no way to tell what that order will be, or to even recognize it when it first comes about. You’ll never see it coming; you’ll never know until it’s too late and you will never be able to stop it. But, you can take part in it, as powerless as you are. This is how to take over the world. Book One: The Rulers Chapter One: The Leader Every social body ultimately depends upon a leadership figure, one central to its organization. This is a simple consequence of the nature of ideology; every political, social, religious or scientific theory requires its icons, and every revolution depends on one. Caesar, Christ, Torquemada, Buddha, Washington, Reagan, Obama, Ghandi; all these and so many more represent a social movement which has impacted history in some fashion. These leaders arose for a myriad of reasons, each with their own tale and each with their own fate. The characteristics of the leader are naturally up for differential diagnosis; Bin Laden is a mad parasite that has earned tremendous following simply from seizing on a vein of hatred running through a religious body, while Martin Luther King Jr. came to the forefront of a movement through his refusal to commit atrocities to achieve what he desired. Stalin’s invulnerability came from his control over a secret police, while Joan of Arc’s might came from her apparent connection with God (or her delusions, if you must take the Atheistic vain, or her ability to con people if it is cynicism you seek.) All of these are lovely back-stories which proved the “who” part of the so-called “six W’s,” but the important question is always going to be “how.” In this case, how does the leader attain and retain power? The answer comes in the form of another question, “what makes a leader in the first place?” Firstly, every hero (for none may be seen as villains, lest their power be taken from them) must come to the forefront with a modicum of public applause. Even the worst dictators to grace the pages of a history book had attained what is loosely considered a “cult of personality.” While the degeneration of his support is the punishment for excess, the leader must nevertheless have enough popular respect in order to rise to the forefront to begin with. Attaining this notoriety is a matter of much effort, and ultimately will be dealt with later in this book, but achieving it is mandatory. Without popular support, without the base of the so-called pyramid, there is no chance that a leader – especially in today’s ‘checks-and-balances’ ridden governments – can attain power even over one nation, let alone the world. Secondly, every leader must be romanticized. This logically follows from the first part of our answer; when Winston Churchill is remembered by history, it is as the man who cried that Britain will fight on the beaches and on the shore, and not as the man who was responsible for the Battle of Gallipoli. Mao is remembered not as a man who stole land from the rich, but who gave it to the poor. Castro? He is a hero who fought first-hand in a war of liberation. So long as these heroes (again, none may ever be seen as villains!) are viewed as a necessary and respected governing figure, they may extend their power without reprisal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only U.S. President to have served four terms and he helped bring the U.S. through the worst depression and worst war in mankind’s history; he also fiddled with the number of justices on the Supreme Court, oversaw the overhaul of a large chunk of American domestic practices, and elected to work with Josef Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union. Were he to have been immortal, he would likely still be President of the United States, and for good reason. Leaders simply defy the conventional wisdom and appear “larger than life.” Looking back to the characteristics our leader must have, he must thirdly have the ability to ignore and, ideally, neutralize his opposition – preferably from the first moment. Returning to FDR, his opposition had the misfortune of being viewed (legitimately or not) as responsible for the Great Depression. It would take until Dwight Eisenhower – almost twenty years later! – for the long-dead FDR’s opposition to regain the foremost leadership role. Ronald Reagan had the ability to box his political enemies out of the arena for some time, and George W. Bush had two years to reside in an almost unquestionable position of power, one sadly squandered but nevertheless an opportunity. Fourth, the leader must have the appearance of an ear to the people he governs and, as importantly, those who are allowed to rule with him. If a leader ignores complaints, passes bucks when possible, and fires his advisors when put into political jeopardy, he will go from “hero” to “villain” and all will be lost. The leader cannot sit back and watch his people voice open dissent, nor can he solve all of his problems through political repression. Approval ratings matter; although the numbers themselves may be irrelevant, if the world feels a leader is unjust he will quickly be removed from power. Fifth and finally, and perhaps the most important, is that the leader must have good advisors. It sounds contrary to the whole concept of “ruling the world,” but there is physically no way that one leader can govern an entire state, let alone nation or world. His advisors will be dealt with in Chapter Two, but regardless they must be absolutely aware that they are almost, but not quite equal to the leader. To take advice from the film “Lucky Number Slevin,” if there are two men in the room, you can only look at one of them. A glance to another and a polite wave may be permissible, but an obedient stare is a sign of dissent. There are traits which may be considered by the presumptive leader, but they are all relatively meaningless in the face of the above five characteristics. Appearing “human” is often a public relations approach – letting the President be seen with his pet dog, or allowing the media to talk to his children. The willingness to use force to achieve one’s goals is ultimately necessary, but there are so many degrees and departments of brutality that it is assumed force of some kind will be used. It is assumed that a leader will be strong-willed yet flexible; if he wasn’t, he would fail at one of the five above criterion, say an inability to eradicate opposition due to arrogant stubbornness or allowing others to walk all over him. Having a great amount of financial resources sounds like a prerequisite, but in truth is only a step toward the position of leadership. There is, however, one caveat. All leaders have limits to what they can accomplish, even if those limits are temporary. FDR was unable to “pack the court,” Hitler was unable to cap his hungers, and Caesar failed to win the Senate’s mandate for any role greater than “pin cushion.” Those limits may change with time and effort, but they must be recognized and respected. When Roosevelt’s bill to pack the courts failed, he acquiesced and signed a version of it stripped of its dangerous underpinnings. In doing so, he preserved an appearance that he ruled for the people – and left open the possibility of returning with popular support should he be able to generate it. A leader who had forced the issue by vetoing the bill’s retooled form would have destroyed those alternative options and ultimately left himself with little to work with. The ultimate weakness for a leader, however, is mortality. Assuming no monumental breakthroughs in medical science arrive over the next century which happen to remove death from the picture, it is inevitable that all leaders will die. George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four addresses this topic by creating a figurehead in the legendary Big Brother, but Big Brother is ostensibly not a real person and thus not qualified in our conception of a leader. More pressingly, this isn’t Big Brother’s ascension to domination, it is yours, and therefore that hellishly brilliant novel is little more than a goalpost with which to measure yourself. You will never be immortal unless science advances so greatly and rapidly that a computer microchip may be used to take your ‘soul’ and put it into a machine – and even that is no guarantee. Leadership is only as functional as a lifespan is long; becoming the King of Earth and dying two weeks later serves your successor well and your legacy less so, but it serves you merely a high point to pass into the night on and not a dominion to govern. It may arise that leadership of the world becomes impossible or not worthwhile; at that point, you may either seek an alternative body to take power over, go out in a “blaze of glory,” press on in your conquests as Alexander would gladly have done, simply retire to the history books, or never even begin your pursuit. Regardless of what you, the leader, chooses to do, you will have to consider these traits well before even embarking on your journey. Chapter Two: The Advisors Earlier, the topic of advisors and councilors was discussed. Leadership is a heavy responsibility, and it is no surprise that even the most simplistic bureaucracy has multiple layers. Often, this system is painted as a tree; the leader is at the top, and his top council is one step below him. Below that is another council, and so on. Conversely, from the bottom-up, one may find village and town leaders who work with, though often on different wavelengths, county representatives. They in turn report to the state leadership, which – depending on your country of study – reports to a national body that many times will answer to some global entity. For the presumptive leader, this territory is extraordinarily dangerous. There is no way that one man (or woman!) can know everything about everything; a specialist in military arms may be completely flummoxed at the concept of managing an educational system, while a brilliant doctor will have little idea how global economics works. Add to this the intricacies of various layers of bureaucratic nonsense and one man becomes a drop in the bucket of legislative complexity; hardly an icon which can take charge of a world! Advisors and councilors therefore become a necessary evil to any who wish to lead. The key to advisors, however, is to make sure they know their role and do not want – nor see any way to get – more power than they already have. Yes; advisors must absolutely have power. They will be able to sign documents and pass bucks, but that is natural. The Julio-Claudians kept the Senate alive as a group of yes-men, the President has his cabinet and Stalin had scientists be in charge of the science, after all! Ultimately, their power will be unquestionably great; without it, they would be nothing more than worthless figureheads anyhow, and if their power is too low they may feel pressured into improving their station – at the leader’s expense. On the other hand, their power cannot ever be so great that they decide to advance themselves up the ladder of might. An “accidental” promotion, such as Truman’s ascension to the Presidency in the place of FDR, is acceptable; replacements are necessary, after all, and the price of refusing to create rules of succession may be a successor who the leader does not have any control over. Their power must certainly not be so great that it can overcome the leaders’ – it does little good to claim absolute authority and find yourself vetoed by a councilor who has little to do with the issue but wishes to draw attention to himself or dress down a rival. In fact, it may be said that the choice of an advisor will make or break the leader. Appointing a blundering fool to a crucial position will hurt one’s public relations standing – and heaven help you if you make an imbecile your media representative! Furthermore, an unruly and uncontrolled advisor is a threat to other advisors and oneself. This rogue agent might merely develop a rivalry with another advisor, but even this prospect is tragic as the leader will inevitably be forced to choose one side or the other, and will likely end up having to dismiss one or another. At worst, well, assassination attempts often come from those closest to the ruler, as Hitler discovered to his chagrin. In the same vein, advisors must never become indispensible. This situation can evolve through the amassing of a great deal of political power; even an absolutely loyal advisor is a great risk if everyone reporting to him is loyal to him and not the leader! The most dedicated servant can be inadvertently excluded from his role and ultimately abdicate through the aforementioned “rogue agent,” leading to a division within the leader’s organization and a guaranteed cataclysm as a result. Following this, the leader must be aware that his advisor will have advisors; the Secretary of State has a Deputy, and the Deputy has assistants, and so-on down the line, until Joe Average is reached. This chain of command is simply intrinsic; bear witness to the dozens of ranks in any military organization! It is, in fact, an ally of the leader’s if simply handled in an appropriate manner. The leader can’t know all of the advisor’s subjects, but can dedicate some time to identifying the most capable (and the most troublesome) workers in order to reward, ravage, or remediate the underling. If a superiorranked advisor is due for retirement, the capable subordinate may be promoted; if the subordinate is a complication, he may be asked to retire! In a sense, the leader becomes little more than the “high king” of old – the lord of lords, the maker of nations. From atop his pinnacle, the leader decides who will have what role in running the world, and can decide with nigh-impunity when someone’s usefulness has begun, altered, or ended. Provided he remains the “hero” and never becomes the “villain;” provided you are a just and fair dictator and not a psychopathic sycophant, you will find that your advisors do little more than the name entails – advise. They make your job easier, make it possible, and in return you make their power an unalterable actualization of reality: There is no hope for promotion without production, there is no penalty enforced without purpose, and there is no prayer for a purge of the pontiff of power. Chapter Three: The Middle-Men As mentioned earlier, the leader will have advisors who will in turn have advisors; all the way down to more localized department heads. If we are looking at the United States as an example, there is a Congress that serves as a (theoretically) direct connection between Joe Average and the leader himself. In some governmental systems, this parliament can be a tragic hindrance to a leader’s autonomy, as checks-and-balances systems are designed to keep absolute leaders from rising in the first place! In other systems, the middle-men (as we shall call them) are little more than figureheads, too divided and too cowed by the leader to resist his every whim. After choosing his advisors and approving their choices of their own, the leader absolutely must streamline the chain of command to report to him whenever possible. This cannot be an obvious move; if the President of the United States tried to dismiss the House of Representatives, revolution would not be far off (though, if played right, this may be a brilliant tool!). Instead, the same tactics as ensuring an advisor is loyal must be used; promotion for the deserving, dismissal for the problematic. If the leader can ensure that his political faction works according to simple, static rules, there is little hope that he will emerge from a meeting with his middle-men incapacitated and with less than he desired. The Nazi Party transformed democracy into tyranny not by a seizure of power, but by a manipulation of the approved political process; they simply walked out of votes they did not want to have. At first this was only a hindrance, but as their numbers grew the Weimar republic could not legally process any laws that the group walked away from, forcing the falling democracy to deal with them on the Nazi’s terms. All a leader has to do is ensure his middle-men are well disciplined, voting not along party lines but along his, and he has won. Unfortunately, this prospect is incredibly difficult to secure. People are by nature power-hungry (you are reading this book, correct?) and thus will naturally want to place terms and conditions upon their support. Perhaps Congressman Bob will support the leader’s resolution so long as he is promised a promotion to an advisory slot? Maybe Congresswoman Jane is anxious to see her district lavished with wealth before agreeing to make a decision in the leader’s favor? The exact nuance will at first seem random and often seem foolish, yet with time all such costs of compliance will become predictable, and thus an answer will become clear as to how to compensate for the complication. Bob wishes to be the leader himself; either make him feel as though he’s won without winning, or make sure a bus takes a wrong turn into his car – he will be a threat. Alternatively, Jane is simply good-natured and wants to make sure a children’s hospital is built and funded; this is a lovely opportunity to seem generous and to have your name on a building. The exact mechanic will be as diverse as the problem it solves, but ultimately the leader must pull together his coalition and ensure it does not buckle. Bear in mind, this is no easy process; the “hero to villain” transformation can doom a leader who handles this procedure wrong. Once you have secured your political base, the exclusion of your rivals’ middle-men can begin in earnest. The first step is in marginalizing the dangerous competitors; Stalin’s purge of Trotsky is a perfect, if violent example. Often, leaders in today’s world cannot simply resort to the pistol and must manage to handle things politically. Perhaps your rival has a habit of approaching senatorial pages? Perhaps he’s recently been caught meeting with a prostitute? Perhaps he’s simply easy to paint as wrong on one issue and it transforms into a pattern of mistaken ideology leading to a fall from grace! Once more, the exact mechanic is where the test in a leaders’ skill comes from. Nevertheless, your opponents must be removed in order to ensure that your middle-men become everyone’s middle-men. Now that you control Congress, the immediate temptation is to completely destroy the most wild and unlikely of your rivals – the Dennis Kuchinich and Pat Robinson, so to speak – while simultaneously passing the most drastic of your reform bills…Say, the one which abolishes term limits. This temptation is succulent and sweet, and a sure show of your superiority over your associates. It is also the fastest way to failure one could ferment! You, as the supreme leader, will always have an enemy that seems an easy target; and, if pushed, he will become your most dangerous threat. There will always be legislation you need to pass to secure your reign, but it cannot appear on the docket until you have paved the way for it. Take as a case study the proposition of Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court Justice. Ludicrous! It was shot down! And, if this was truly the President’s pick, than he was a fool. But, if it wasn’t, he certainly made his next choice seem much more profitable to the public! Restraint as a leader is absolutely necessary in the pursuit of prosperity in power. Without a calm and collected outlook, without self-constraint when it comes to consolidating your control, you will not only lose; you will lose badly. Once again, we return to the example of FDR packing the Supreme Court; he explained it well to the citizens, he had a mighty voting bloc in Congress, and he still failed to capitalize on his fantastic desire. He retreated when necessary and therefore spared himself an early retirement, but his limits had been made clear and he was, for the moment at least, thwarted. So, what does a leader do with his captive government? Nothing, at first. As all roads are rerouted to Rome, its Emperor sits on his laurels and reminds its residents of the reason he was requested to rule. The day-to-day rigors of leadership take time to adapt to, just as it takes time to master any job. Hopefully, the initial difficulties a leader faces are nothing short of simple; a trade dispute with a generally-subjugated neighbor is filled with its share of minefields, but is nothing compared to a hypothetical 9.3 earthquake in a major city. It may seem boring and even beneath the leader’s no-doubt-prodigious self image, but six months of handling nothing more difficult than sidelined legislation and never-had-a-chance disputes provides the leader, his advisors and his middle-men with the equivalent of a pre-season football game – A chance to find out who can (and who cannot) handle the difficulties that the consolidation of power presents. Advisors can be benched without public cries that a vital cog was removed from the machine just when it malfunctioned, middle-men can sink or swim depending on how their constituents swallow the leader’s agenda, and the leader himself can take a much needed vacation from his rise to power and spend it making a name for himself as competent. While it can be successfully argued that a major challenge early in the leader’s tenure can create an early impression that he is incredibly gifted at leadership, it can also spell his demise or, perhaps worse, his lingering malaise. Those who watched the Twin Towers fall saw a leader do, at first, what any leader should; lead! Yet, as time progressed, his later sins have rightly or wrongly led to an investigation of his initiative on that day, and seven minutes reading “My Pet Goat” tend to make a defining moment less definitive. In his defense, every leader will have weaknesses and every leader will have stumbling points where he ends up on the night-time talk shows as a punch-line; however, that time is never during a catastrophe that may have been averted had proper measures been taken, and certainly could have been mitigated. After setting the tone with simple, efficient strokes of success, the leader’s next step must certainly be to enter the phase where his select middle-men lay the groundwork not for his rise to power and not for the duration of his reign, but instead for the continuation of it. This is when you, as the leader, start examining ways that your legal tenure can be extended or your reach made so great that you rule despite not ruling. The best contemporary example is Vladimir Putin; legally unable to be President, he simply moved his office to another location, changed his job title, and appointed what may (or, against his hopes, may not…) be a patsy into his old position. In essence, this simple change of “leader” to “advisor” and “advisor” to “leader,” complete with the transplant of the ones filling the roles, is one way to guarantee a life-long leadership position. Another, as hinted at before, is the extension of term limits or the exploitation of a lack upon them. FDR is the only American President to have served for four terms, bucking a trend – but not a law! – created by George Washington. After his death and with some time for reflection, the nation’s laws were changed to match the old, once-broken trend. There remains, however, political recourse for these rules to be changed! This is why the middlemen are so important; their checks-and-balances only exist so long as the will to resist does, and with the leader in firm control of his middle-men, all it takes is the creation of a new position or the removal of old laws in order to secure a life-long reign. According to its own constitution, Adolf Hitler was elected to lead a democracy – without a vote ever being cast for him. It is worth noting once again that all of this is simply a first step; allowing a leader to rule for eternity is impossible, and it is extremely unlikely that (without some catalyst) the democratic process will be wholly removed from a leader’s mind. Gone are the days when kings could govern a manor without reproach, if ever they existed; instead, voters hold the ultimate tool of a leader’s defeat – revolution. Democracy is nothing more complicated than the substitution of the ballet box for the bazooka, and if the voting station is smashed by the leader’s minions, they too will be smashed by would-be voters, even if they would have supported his rule. The leader will have to remain ever vigilant that he does not alienate his subjects; however, he doesn’t need to pander to them. Instead of attempting to abolish the vote, he may try subvert it somehow. This is not a new practice, but it is one that must be constantly refreshed. However you slice it, nothing will make a better pie to feed the ego than a legitimate victory over a valiant but ran-in-vain opponent. Bill Clinton decimated Bob Dole in the 1996 elections, though Dole was a qualified and competent candidate; no more than the usual rigging or racketeering contributed to the win. The middle-men may serve a great capacity in enabling the leader’s rule, but they must always be watched and under control. If they fall out of line, they become the single greatest threat to a leader’s rule; they can recruit the masses under their purview into rebellion and can seduce a leader’s advisors into mutiny. More than one would-be ruler has lost his dominion due to a middle-man convincing his immediate supervisor that he could be the new leader, all for the small price of an advisory role in the new government. For reference, merely consider how Roman generals could march on the capital and overthrow the Emperor supposedly commanding them; the image is undeniable. On the other hand, as a tool for ascension… Chapter Four: The People; the Average Joes Wait. This is a book about taking over the world; a book that you are reading in order to put yourself above the very ones that this chapter is discussing. Your goal is nothing less than the conquest and domination of those very people who, if fortune smiles, might one day serve your every whim. If this is the case, why should you focus a minute on how to deal with those who you strive to place under your heel? Surely, they aren’t worth worrying about! If you ever had a hope of succeeding in the dream of global domination, you would know how foolish the above sentiments are. The people are the ultimate rulers of any domain, no matter how much power any one man, any one leader can attract to his throne. As was referenced earlier, the ballot box has replaced violence as a form of conflict resolution, but the destruction of the first leads to the initiation of the second. From Star Wars to the Molotov Cocktail, fiction and fact both dictate that resistance movements are both plausible and in fact likely. Also as referenced earlier, it is far preferable for the resistance to be laughable and inept than desperate and dangerous. Purges lead to the second, tolerated televangelism leads to the first. Keeping this in mind, there are a number of things which must be remembered when dealing with the Average Joe. First of all, it is a simple mathematical fact that 49.9% of all people are below average when it comes to intelligence. It follows, naturally, that 49.9% are therefore above average. In practical terms, one could extend the median intelligence to a range of 50% of the populace, and create a ratio whereby 25% of people are truly “intellectually advantaged,” 50% are average, and 25% are “intellectually disadvantaged.” The Stanford-Benet IQ test carries a similar line of thought; a score of 100 is “average,” a rating of 80 or less is considered a key sign of mental retardation, and a total above 120 signifies that the test taker is intellectually superior to the Average Joe. These numbers are naturally open to interpretation and prone to failure due to the nature of attempting to assess “intelligence,” but the underlying truth is derived from simple math and simple deductive reasoning – If there is such thing as a middle ground, some people have to be superior and some inferior. As a side note, this same theory applies itself to economic prosperity, ensuring that even if everyone is at a high standard of living, there will always be those who are comparatively poor. So, what does this have to do with the price of global domination on Earth? The second fact to remember is that most Average Joes will consider themselves somewhere in the higher rankings of intelligence. As the hallowed George Carlin once put it, every other driver on the road is either moving too fast or too slow, and almost all of them are simply terrible at it. If you do not consider yourself in the intellectually superior group, why are you even reading this book? (Though, it would be amusing to see someone rule precisely because he was unintelligent!) Democracy – no, most of modern liberalism is almost entirely based in this theory. Why is the freedom of speech important? Because everyone has the right to express their opinion, no matter how erroneous it might be! What about voting, why is democracy so powerful? Because everyone has the right to have their chance to pick their leader, even if that leader is wholly incompetent! This, in fact, brings us to the third consideration that a leader must have when dealing with the people. Average Joe has predominantly chosen the ballot box for his political arena, and most measures require a simple majority to pass in any given nation. A simple majority is a mere 51% of all participating voters; that is, all you need is one more than half the people voting to side with you, and you win! This isn’t a tremendous problem in the United States, which is a representative democracy and therefore has a thick layer of separation between the Average Joes and the advisors and leader, but it ultimately presents a great deal of concern for any leader attempting to get his middle men into the positions he needs them in! Furthermore, if one accepts that a representative democracy accurately portrays its subjects, the first and second point of this chapter remain just as true for the middle-men as for the Average Joes; some will be smart, some will be dumb, most will be middle-of-the-road. This is rarely the case, but is worth contemplating. Nevertheless, numbers matter; having a 15% approval rating is a sure way to ensure that anyone you are associated with is doomed to failure; and, naturally, a 90% approval rating is something most leaders strive to have. Fourth, one must always remember that people will produce role models that will indirectly rival the power a political leader holds. Movie stars, excellent athletes, and successful businessmen will always be cropping up no matter how you choose to run your nation. These figures, if riled up and annoyed, will prove major stumbling blocks to retaining power. Ronald Reagan proved more than a mere hurdle to another would-be leaders attempt to gain power! Inevitably, some of these denizens will grow disaffected and will dare to deal damage to your domain. Often enough, however, they will either serve as willing tools or the aforementioned laughable opposition. In the former account, they will contribute to your financial coffers and become public relations sponsors for your causes in exchange for small and easily granted favors that only sometimes present the simple risk of being beyond your scope of political authority – avoid this temptation and you have an easy to please ally. In the latter account, wealthy film stars crying foul about your administration’s lack of assistance to the poor tends to come off as disingenuous, so long as there is nothing less than an actor’s guild revolution on your hands. Simply paint them as rich people who are out of touch with reality and they are thwarted. Finally, one must remember that the mob, as some might call it, is fickle. It will embrace a cause as quickly as abandon it, and can be easily distracted by manufactured crises. It can often be rebuked – especially in the case of a foreign nation’s populace – but can never be ignored. It can sweep a leader into power or drag one out of his mansion to be basted with tar and covered in feathers. The Average Joes are a powerful force, one that must be mastered in order to be governed; yet, never patronized and made to feel insulted. It is easy to write people off as sedated by television, but in the event that they wake from their haze it would be a grave error of judgment to allow them to know you once felt that way of them. However, they are the ones you will rule over as the leader of everything, as your domain increases and your might grows; and they are the ones that must view you as a hero, not a villain. Chapter Five: Foreigners Ideally, at some point in your reign the notion of “foreigners” will officially be dissolved. On the other hand, in even small nations there are feelings of the exotic and the outlandish, and there is almost always a sense of ethnic inequality to overcome. To become the leader of the world, one must first lead a nation and then lead all other nations; hardly an easy task! However, if one’s ambitions are merely national, than this chapter is geared more toward your liking and needs. Barack Obama spent a week overseas and throughout Europe he was hailed as a hero; at home, newspapers printed articles discussing whether or not the foreign love for him might compromise his domestic duties to serve the people of the United States. Some people will appreciate his multinational bent, while others will paint him as un-American and therefore a dangerous selection to lead the nation. The debate will always wage on and will be different yet similar in every politician’s case. This unavoidable consequence of a globalized world leaves the prospective leader confounded as to how to please all people. The short answer is, you can’t; and, since you must make someone unhappy, it seems expedient to make the foreigner less happy than the citizen. This is fine for the leader of a nation, but the leader of the world cannot aspire to play favorites. He must, instead, be able to ensure that his policies make clear sense to those who scrutinize them at home and abroad. They must consider, but avoid predication based solely upon the impression that a foreign ally may have upon them. To create a hypothetical situation, yet one grounded partly in reality, is the best way to demonstrate: A new environmental bill is proposed through global channels. The bill may indeed weaken the leader’s domestic productivity on a gross level, but the scientific facts he has shows that a net decrease will manifest in five years if the bill is not signed due to, say, the depletion of fisheries. Domestic opposition exists primarily because the candidate will have to authorize a small number of job losses; on the other hand, foreign citizens stand clearly to gain them. Then, of course, there are those nations who have no intention of signing on in the first place for various reasons. What should the leader do? The simplest answer and one which provides the least room for challenge is to simply refuse to sign the bill. His people are kept happy in the short term, even if the long-term economic damage is going to be worse. The likelihood is that less people will challenge a decision that can provide direct, immediate, and tangible benefits as compared to one which will prevent far-away, vaporous phantoms from causing damage. However, a true leader will have already consolidated his power so sufficiently that the middlemen and advisors can weather the storm and implement legislation in favor of a long-term benefit. Yes, the Joe Averages will be angered, and a scant few middle-men may find themselves in (hopefully) mild amounts of easily diverted hot water, but as this book intonates the leader will be reigning for quite some time. In five years, those who signed this bill may indeed be viewed as heroes who bucked a conventional standard, put their political capital in jeopardy and ultimately won; valiant legislative warriors tend to find their approval ratings to be quite high when they turn out to be right. While cases such as the above allow both sides to win, sometimes there are situations when one simply cannot come up victorious and still allow their counterparts to do the same. A border or trade dispute, narcotics trade, and even such issues as terrorism and electronic security intrusions provide a clear “us versus them” condition in which the leader has only one legitimate option – defense of his people. Foreign politicians often try to assure a leader that by following the course the outsider suggests, he – if not his people! – will benefit. Selling one’s land to outside developers is a perfect example; it will give the leader a great amount of money, but when (not if) the Average Joes discover, they will wreak havoc on the middle-men and so on until the leader is overthrown. The most important thing that a leader can remember when dealing with foreigners is a twofold rule: Part one is simply that other leaders are only out for their own power and prestige and are, by virtue of being leaders, your ultimate rivals if you wish to be the top of the top. Secondly, the leader must always, and under all circumstances, pursue a course which he and he alone sets; if others choose to follow, they may, but there is no room for others to do anything more than offer suggestions. Demands are simply intolerable. This rule may appear, at first, to be in stark contrast to a multinational approach to governance. The President of the United States certainly can’t view the Prime Minister of Britain as an enemy, can he? Well, if the issue is trans-Atlantic trade, it’s quite probable that the British will have a different agenda, and slightly less possible that theirs will be incompatible with the American one. This is to be expected and even encouraged, and does not make compromise and cooperation impossible. It is frequently possible to enter a deliberation with (for instance) seven points on one’s agenda and to bargain off two of them which were unlikely to work (a reminder to always know one’s limits!) and quite possibly designed simply to be destroyed. If the acquiescence of these two pointless positions yields the acquisition of one profitable promise, the leader has succeeded in making almost everyone happy once again. Of course, there will always be hard-liners who refuse to give up something as trivial as a name and would rather not have something as vital as an extra vote in a council if it means their town’s name is no longer on the placard, but such pundits and their positions have already been painted as “laughable opposition,” no? In general, the foreign citizen’s approval of a leader is only relevant so long as there is a concept of foreign to adhere to. As a leader consolidates his control beyond that of his own borders, he will find that foreign opinion transforms into domestic. He will also find that old grudges die hard; the AustriaHungarian empire dealt well with this issue, and after its demise…Well, the term “Balkanized” had to come from somewhere, no? The presumptive world leader must de-balkanize the world, soothing old grudges and creating a system which works to make all people as happy as possible. Each new territorial acquisition will bring new challenges, and it is quite possible that a leader who was quite young when taking the reins of power might not have a long enough reign to unite the world under his shoulders. In this case, his successor may benefit greatly from his work; yet, the leader himself, now deceased, will pass into eternity (Whatever that may be!) as part of a history-defying evolution of national identities. It is in dealing with the myriad peoples under his rule that a leader finds trouble. Average Joe has thousands of counterparts; Average Yao, Average Malik, Average Quami, and Average Juan, to name a few. It may seem incredibly backward to discuss the difficulties that the unification of different ethnic groups will present; in fact, it may seem regressive to suggest that they should be unified at all! However, the opposite of order is chaos, and chaos is impossible to reign over by definition. Order is brought about by rule, and it is – despite what some will certainly argue – to rule over and unite people without invoking the scepter of racism. It will be infinitely hard for Average Joe, the “winner” of the world leader lottery, to accept that Average Juan has equal rights under the law and that he does not obtain a special asterisk on his citizenship papers as a result of being, well, whatever ethnicity the leader is. On the other hand, it may seem unthinkable to some that a law may be passed which restricts their ability to act, publicly, in a way which deters their ancient customs. To that end, it is a simple matter of making sure one’s middle men and advisors have their game faces on. There will be many more middle-men, and many more who have grudges against one another. There will be many advisors that must be added, specialists in the newly acquired territories, and some may not yet be “on board” with the leader’s rule. Then, of course, comes the would-be leaders who would love nothing more than to ride the coattails of the unifier and become the leader in his own right. It is not a task for the weak of heart, that is for certain; unifying and conquering the world through peaceful means is downright complicated, and is a task which even the greatest minds will stumble in approaching. No matter how much it may be tempting, the leader cannot rule by decree initially. With a major expansion of power comes the need to reconsolidate it. Imagine a deck of playing cards, with one card added atop another; the neat and steady stack quickly devolves into a convoluted pile of leaning plastic which has no order or stability. A reconsolidation is necessary to prevent it from collapsing, and that is exactly what the leader must do. Book Two: The Tools Literally speaking, a tool is something that a person uses to assist them in accomplishing a goal. Hammers are used to drive nails into boards in order to put a house together, so why would the world’s leader go without them? A tool, when it comes to leading, is nothing more than a venue for that leader to exercise and develop his power. With all tools comes a major risk, of course. Just as a buzz saw can speed the time it takes to saw a plank in half, it can easily remove a fingertip. Used well, these and other tools can assist a leader in his rise to power with drastic speed. Used poorly, they will damn him. Chapter Six: The Media The first obstacle any would-be leader must overcome is the fact that he is, put dramatically, rising from the obscurity of the masses. While this book’s lessons are just as good for the currentlyruling politicians as they are for the political neophyte, the latter is the more likely audience and is therefore a figure sitting about his living room without a mass of cameras in his face. The path to attaining media attention is crucial because without it, a leader will have nobody to vote for him when it comes time to initiate the first phase of his coup, but the phrase “media jackals” exists for legitimate reason. As with many aspects of the book, these pages can’t tell you how to get media attention. Oh, there are some ways that are more effective than others. Becoming a demagogue is excellent for rising to moderate fame in a political party, but the Al Sharptons and Bill O’Reillys of the world do not rule, they simply set some trends. There is little to no chance that they will ever do more than serve as grandiose heads of state, and for good reason. Their methodology for attaining political strength is, put lamely, the means of division rather than unity. Nevertheless, they have their purposes for our leader. Another path which is difficult to take is becoming part of the media, itself. Chris Matthews and Katie Couric wield considerable power when broadcast over the nation’s airwaves, but they do not lead the nation itself. True, if some media figures were to run for office they would hold a fair chance of winning and thus inserting themselves into the necessary path this book suggests must be taken; most, of course, would fail. One route to strength is to find a single issue and become a leader due to one’s presence on that stage. Carolyn McCarthy suffered a traumatic experience, but her dedication to preventing such tragedies from happening to others led to her ascension to a position of power. War veterans, their service bold and often well done, tend to make electable candidates for the simple reason that they have put their lives on the line for the country. Sadly, this type of media coverage can make for an easily contested selection process; simply attacking the candidate’s service can, if played well, destroy his chances for election. In all reality, the reality is nothing more than a self-interested machine. It can be depended on to promote its own agenda and to therefore print stories which it and it alone defines fit to print. That said, making sure it determines your stories fit and the other person’s not is a crucial determiner as to whether or not you win an election. For example, if your rival promotes a policy benefiting the east side of the nation as opposed to the west, a friend at the news desk can simply leave out its benefits and focus on its negatives. When your rival pulls off some form of successful venture, making sure that the media focuses on a celebrity’s wedding prevents him from being recognized by Joe Average as a victorious champion of his interests. The same thinking applies in reverse to the leaders’ policies. When he is right, the media needs to make sure everyone is aware. “Crime drops 17% in two years thanks to Leader” sounds lovely, even if some forms of crime have risen. On the other hand, when the leader has failed, the media needs to be counted on not to capitalize on it in order to make a quick buck. “Asbestos poisoning results from Leader’s decision” is often a difficult story to face down, though with time all things may be forgiven. So, how best to accomplish the task of controlling the media? Initially, one must work with them; make sure that you always offer them a friendly and polite interview, you inform them, and you remain free from easily-found aggression. If you seem “on the level” you will end up being able to give them the information they need to make a good article. If you must lie, do it tactfully and make sure that evidence cannot surface; if there is any risk, you must abort the lie if at all possible. If not, than you will suffer a public relations injury indeed. Once the leader’s rule is established, however, the media often seeks to make its money from him. Embarrassing photos, a focus on bad decisions and a focus on would-be rivals creates controversy; everyone loves an underdog and everyone loves to see those in power fall! While the leader consolidates his political power as outlined in Book One, he will also have to consolidate his media control. If the press is friendly to him, excellent; it can remain so and be left alone. If not, it is unlikely that laws passed to restrict the freedom of the press will be able to escape their notice. Therefore, the best thing to do while consolidating political power is to simply stay out of the limelight. Once more, a national emergency may serve as a useful tool, but otherwise it is best for the leader to allow his advisors to take the public heat that the Joe Averages may distribute. Provided said advisors are competent, they will never face true jeopardy and will easily keep the media from finding a single pincushion to make a profit from. If not, the firing of a fool will force the public to respect a leader’s fair hand. As a leader’s power in the nation becomes unmatched, a friendly approach to the media becomes less necessary; however, it still cannot be directly dominated or destroyed. Instead, the media must be made to either love the leader, or be despised by the populace. Many times, it will be infinitely simple to play one news source against another; simply allow Channel 1 to interview you and Channel 2 will want to. If Channel 2 wants such an honor, however, it may have to retract certain statements it made…True, or not. If Channel 2 doesn’t get the interview, that’s okay; Channel 1 will gladly broadcast a second interview which allows you, the leader, to directly refute what Channel 2 says. Perhaps, even, Channel 2 has violated some law which allows you to shut it down. Its advertisers than flock to Channel 1, and victory is assured – An unofficial state media has been established. Ahh, but what if Channel 1 in this case decides after getting its fair share of the profits that it, too, can control how the leader represents itself to the press. Again, if it is only mildly irritating, then it may be tolerated until later phases of dominance take place. If it is a danger, perhaps a friend can seek to establish a new outlet, Channel 3, and force Channel 1 back into competition for your attention and its own survival. Perhaps Channel 1 has also committed crimes and can be legally shut down. Or, perhaps, Channel 1’s attack on you was its last gasp before you shut it down, anyway. Once a dictatorship is established, its first task must be to control or eliminate the media. This much we already knew; but, if there is no media, how does information spread? Rumor is an unwelcome recourse – any fool with a conspiracy theory can tell you that the President is really an alien! So, instead, there must be a media network to make official statements. Does it have to be statecontrolled? No, but a state-sponsored media network may not be a terrible idea. If free-market competition exists, than one may simply have such a network be allowed limited authority in dealing with the other independent channels; at least, so long as such a situation serves the leaders’ interest. Ultimately, the equation balances at victory. Once the leader rules the world with an iron fist covered in velvet cloth, it matters little what the media says. Certainly an egregious abuse of power may lead to revolution or simple rebellion, but as long as the leader remembers that Joe Average can always drive a car into a building to express his anger and therefore doesn’t cripple his own agenda through cruel and unnecessary evils of administration, the media will have to serve as nothing greater than a mouthpiece for the leader’s ideas and for what he wants his citizens and subjects to know. Chapter Seven: Economics If it can be argued that there is any one fact which has led to warfare time and time again, it is the central concept of economics: There is unlimited demand but a limited supply. In some instances, warfare begins over a resource as simple and, to some parts of the world, plentiful as water. A drought can inspire widespread death and, to stave it off, one nation may invade another. Other times, it is something as meaningless as “living space” that leads to war – territorial acquisition with little rationale behind it. Whatever the reason for conflict, economic power is the end result of this struggle for resources, and it is a powerful force for a leader to master. It may seem cruel and unusual to intentionally starve a populace, or to willingly underfund a school district in order to ensure that its wealthy residents leave while its poor ones suffer, but demographic gerrymandering is a fact of political life. It is one of the harshest tools to use – children die because of economic disadvantage every day in every city in every country. It is also an incredibly risky tool to employ, as the dissidents who are impoverished will at best turn to crime (often violent) and at worst lead an uprising against the leader’s governing body. Lastly, it is a very imprecise weapon of political opportunity; “white flight” is uncontrolled and there is no easy way to determine what will fill the power vacuums. With that in mind, there is one golden rule to using economic warfare as a means to gain power: Those who are being exploited, disadvantaged, and damaged must feel not as though they are being starved, but as though they are being blessed for what little they do have. Modern-day consumerism has performed admirably to this goal. Television and radio bombard people with advertisements for cellular phones, denim jeans, video game consoles and myriad other indulgences of modern day society. Government programs exist to help the poor get food and water, and public education will always allow the best and brightest to have an escape route. (Provided they aren’t snuffed by a local criminal.) In the minds of many people, even those who are barely making it through day to day purchases, there is a prevailing sense that they are better off today than they were yesterday. Even better, this can only be proven false tomorrow, allowing leadership figures to blend one ‘day’ into another until all sense of dilapidation is eradicated. The first part of being able to manipulate economic forces in order to make a leader loved is to ensure that no matter what circumstances occur, the human essentials are taken care of. Would-be rulers often starve their populace into submission, but that is an ineffective and resentment-fermenting method for dealing with the problem. Instead, supplies must be simply stretched thin; prices must rise enough that it annoys, not enrages. Services must be intermittent, but never absent and always fixed in a timely fashion. Luxuries must be made available for those with the money, as money appears impartial even if it is dealt out in a partisan nature. The second part is that the leader can never be seen as the cause for the ineffective infrastructure, but instead must be seen as the cure. The leader’s entire mindset going into an action of economic warfare is to be seen, again, as a hero. Let’s study a hypothetical example. There is a district which the leader needs to vote for his candidate, but it isn’t looking good for the middle-man. That district has an aging (or, if not aging, “aging”) power grid. The first step is for the leader to ensure that the grid’s age is felt by all citizens; power outages are damaging as they prevent internet access, lead to food spoiling, and make the weather felt either through the deactivation of air conditioners or the deprivation of electric heaters. People will feel the power grid’s age, real or not. After creating the dilemma, the leader must swoop in and fix it. He can’t simply snap a finger and have the problem solved; there must be at least some occurrence of trouble in its solution. On the second or third try, however, and with the help of a close advisor and some middle men – primarily the one that needs to be elected! - The leader must cause the problem to disappear. Needless to say, with a quick and effective solution to a difficult problem, the leader’s candidate appears competent and electable. He has done the people a direct service, the leader’s political advantage is improved due to his involvement while his advisors and middle-men have put their skills to the test and won. Life has become easier for the leader, all thanks to an artificially created economic issue. Large-scale economics is much more risky and difficult to exploit. One example is the “brain drain” which occurs when an impoverished region’s best and brightest elect to leave the area and never look back. This is most often seen in “ghetto hoods,” where those who become wealthy and successful focus their life’s efforts on areas outside of the area from which they emerged. These policies are extremely risky as they create areas where little hope can be seen for quick, painless recovery should the leader wish to create an enterprising area out of a particular neighborhood. In one sense, this provides only another opportunity for him to prove himself – for who would mind seeing a gang-ridden ghetto cleaned up? But, the danger lies in the region’s violence and drug problems expanding to other reasons, instead. The bottom line is economic development and the granting or withholding of funding is a tool best left to those who have studied it and have no better recourse. If handled well, it can allow the leader an easy inroad to power. In the event it isn’t handled well, it will doom the leader’s bid for power, forever. Chapter Eight: Legalities Governments are often cited as being examples of the benefits of the “rule of law.” As far back as Hammurabi’s Code, governments have set laws and followed – or not followed – them. Laws exist primarily to protect interests from other interests, establishing the rules so that all people can know what they are, fair or not. Legalities, therefore, are an important weapon in the leader’s bid for power. There are two major facets of legal power which can be exploited. The first, as discussed in some depth earlier, is the legislating body itself. The middle-men, as explored previously, are often collected into a legislative body which is meant to check the leader’s decisions. Ironically, one of the first things the leader must do is subdue this balance, converting the body into nothing more than a multi-person rubber stamp. The laws that this body passes must be the will of the leader in spirit if not in letter. Following this, it is a matter of timing and planning for the leader to use laws to prevent opposition from fermenting. A gentle way of doing this is to graciously accept a popular demand for a law – if 70% of a nation wants a narcotic legalized, the leader has simply to oblige and ask his middlemen to do the “right” thing. His public opinion polls will, as one may have guessed, improve even as the nation’s drug addiction is made more socially acceptable. However, this book would be a sham if it didn’t point out some less-than-gentle means to employ the power it promises! Gerrymandering, the carving up of voting districts to help guarantee an incumbent will never be challenged, is a classic example of less-than-gentle persuasion, but another is simply an inverse of the gentle method. If it is known that a particular political opposition group has a penchant for a particular intoxicant, all the leader must do is see to it that the drug is made illegal overnight. A minor annoyance at first, addictions will ultimately prove hard to break and the sudden “drug busts” that the leader pulls off will both make him look like a defender of the people and will break up the opposition in a hurry. There is, however, a second and less subtle method for enforcing a leader’s will through legal restriction, and that is the enforcement agency itself. The DEA, FBI, CIA, and a dozen other bodies have at times been used by a leadership figure to perpetrate actions against a political opponent. The aforementioned “drug bust” is a lovely little number that sees a popular figure shamed into submission, but there are plenty of ways that selective and proactive law enforcement can cripple an enemy. Let us examine what happened to Senator Larry Craig – He was caught doing something that has absolutely no victims, simply soliciting another male partner for sexual intercourse. Two consenting adults having a sexual interaction is nothing terrible, but the fracas created by the arrest and the ambiguous associations in the atmosphere caused the affair to be blown out of proportion and to ultimately doom a political powerhouse. Of course, sometimes it isn’t so easy; sometimes, evidence is scant or nonexistent, and may therefore require manufacturing. This is far from a best-case scenario, but is easily surmounted provided two things are in place – firstly, a plausible scenario that works directly against the target’s professed ideologies; secondly, a clear and precise exit strategy in the event that the evidence does not stick and the public reacts against the persecution. Let us create a hypothetical scenario, once more. Senator Harrison is a middle-man who has gotten out of the leader’s control and needs to be removed from his position. He professes a strict antinarcotic stance, opposed even to Marijuana despite having never done it. This in itself is fine, however the police managing to get his fingerprints or his aides involved in a bag of dope is a very fitting end for his career. The crime itself may nationally be seen as meaningless – a Senator smoking weed is about as common as grass in the suburbs, at least in the minds of a cynical populace – but the fact that Senator Harrison was so staunchly opposed to the substance causes cracks to emerge in his political foundations. If he was involved in a drug deal, maybe he’s involved in prostitution – and, maybe, he’s involved in selling out his constituents, as well. However, it is always possible that the Senator will be exonerated of his involvement –the evidence may come up falsified, or too thin to lock him away. If so, the best way out is to simply acknowledge a mistake was made and to move on. Frequently, enough public doubt will be raised about him that the next scandal – real or recited, now that there are more eyes watching for flaws – will condemn him. Ideally, he won’t survive his next re-election, especially without the leader’s full backing in exchange for his wayward political ideology. Another perfectly legitimate line for consideration is the plight not of the victim, and not of the populace, but of the police officers themselves. Dirty work is hard on the human soul, and while elite military units might be a bit more hardened to the actualities of murder, civil servants such as the police often take their jobs because of a sense of right versus wrong. Oh, that’s not to say there’s no such thing as corruptibility – people, with time, can be made into willing pawns in the larger games of political dominance, such as taking money from the mafia or from a politician looking to cover up a crime. Instead, it is simply necessary to study the psychology of the police officer – interested in protecting his community from crime. Imagine Officer John of the Everytown Police Department. He finds a fourteen year old in possession of Marijuana. What will he do to best protect his community? Arrest the child and charge him as an adult? Of course not! Send him to juvenile hall? If the child was involved in another crime at the time, or had a prior record of such offenses, perhaps. Most likely, Officer John is going to confiscate the narcotic, ask the child where he got it, notify the youth’s parents and pursue the dealer – unless, of course, the child refuses to cooperate. This response is perfectly expected, and absolutely fitting for any leader to accept. Forcing Officer John to arrest the poor pothead would serve no purpose – the youth’s future would be ruined and the officer is likely to feel an incredible amount of guilt. Guilt can be a leader’s friend, as it leads good cops to darker persuasions and therefore lead to easier-to-coerce security officers; on the other hand, a leader must be a hero, and allowing a child a second chance is the best way to appear merciful and, thus, heroic. Officer John will firmly believe in his cause, even though it will be harder to get him to pummel a political opponent that deserves a pummeling should the time come. However the leader chooses to employ the legal proceedings of his nation on his subjects, he will have to do it with discretion. A police state is aptly named and easily recognized; in early years of his rule, it may cripple the leader’s ability to expand his borders as other nations array against his internal policies. The police must never be given a free, unrestrained hand to torment the innocent, or revolution will rise to overthrow the leader’s dominion. Chapter Nine: Education It is always worth remembering that the overwhelming majority of what a person knows has at some point been taught to them. From the languages they know to the subtle “body language” they posses, from the mathematics they use to balance their checkbooks to the histories they live believing, everything that a person knows has likely been taught to them in some sense. First, consider the subject of history – If a leader is to rule forever, it must seem as though history itself supports his domination, right? To an extent, the answer is yes. History books are written by historians, and if the historians can be made allies in a leader’s quest for power, it is all too easy to simply reshape the more debatable facts of historical process. It may be compelling to create a society where the leader has historically been present; simply imagine a Dali Lama type of situation where the leader is descended from a deity. However, the leader himself cannot hide his mortality forever, and some day succession will be an issue. If the leader cares at all for the future generations beyond his reign (often nice, but not necessary) he would avoid such a condition of leadership. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to amend history so that the leader’s rise to power coincides with a miraculous economic, military, or social recovery – even if no crisis existed before his rise. John Kennedy’s brilliant handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of an easily transformable historical incident; it would have been child’s play to alter the historical interpretation of the event to intrinsically tie Kennedy’s prowess and the nations’ success into one mere thought. Make the crisis appear worse and make Kennedy appear more commanding, and there you go; a leader who saved the nation and deserves its eternal reigns, for there would never be another like him. Mathematics is an extremely difficult subject to understand, let alone manipulate. It is possible for an educational system to intentionally mis-teach certain mathematical facts, but ultimately it serves the leader little purpose to tinker with the numbers behind his reign. It is far better to focus on the more vulnerable facets of the society than to intentionally harm a nation’s ability to do physics. Linguistic manipulation is a frequently discussed topic, from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four to the myriad debates about whether or not slang is an acceptable form of self-expression. Generally, it’s accepted that people think in words; at the very least, it’s virtually impossible to separate words from thought processes. It’s true that there are words which most people wouldn’t recognize; ubiquitous, capricious, and telemetry serve as perfect examples. Other words have had their meanings obscured through political usage; collateral damage is a term used to distract its listeners from the fact that it isn’t simply a non-harmful mistake, but innocent villagers being slain. Another way that education can be used and mis-used is for the leader to designate who receives proper information and when. It’s no secret that people who are looking to start families will buy a home in large part based on the school district it lies in. A good district will attract wealthier people who can afford the higher taxes; a bad one, the inverse. It was discussed earlier how educational gerrymandering can lead to the creation of “ghettos” and of wealthy enclaves; it is certainly worth a reiteration here, as well as an expansion. Once again, the leader must turn to the middle-men in order to create such an atmosphere. Perhaps there is one willing to play the “bad guy,” to be an intentionally sub-par academic administrator. His policies fail not just painfully, but spectacularly; graduation rates plummet, taxes rise, and good teachers find a fast way out of town. Wealthy residents soon follow, and new ones stop coming to live in the district. Naturally, as the tax base sinks, property values are not far behind and overall, the tax rates are low enough that lower-income people can afford to live there. Seeing as neighboring towns have all been bolstered by the wealthy choosing other locales to live in, the administrator has succeeded in creating a gaping hole where expectations are vastly lowered and therefore people of a certain economic (and, often following, political) bent can be deposited. While never foolproof, this process has the added bonus of being reasonably reversible and, as always, it is open to historical revision as discussed earlier in the chapter. Simply ask the aforementioned “bad guy” administrator to change some things about in his office and he will manage to lead a revitalization of the community. Some of its residents will be lifted from poverty and into middle-class suburbia, while others will simply move on to less fortunate prospects; after all, as the district improves and property values rise, they will be unable to afford the taxes of their former homes! Most importantly, with just a few minor shifts, an able administrator can make himself (and thus his superiors) look competent, look to have solved a crisis that could easily be pinned on alternate causes. Suddenly, the leadership has made a terrible problem for its own convenience, achieving its ends just in time to fix the failures of the educational system and appear heroic as a result. Perhaps it falls upon this chapter to discuss the internet. As a source of instantaneous information, it will constantly be a thorn in a leader’s side; unless transformed into an ally. Ultimately, people will constantly question their leadership, and a relatively harmless medium such as this is perfect for disposing of “youthful energies” that might otherwise be spent in physical protest lines. Remember that, while information may move at the speed of light on a fiber-optic cable, words on a screen will never physically bar a worker from entering a factory. So long as the internet is restricted to being used as a location for “venting” and not a repository for legitimate and illegal information – let alone a venue by which a foreign power or internal dissident may cause legitimate damage to the national infrastructure – it remains a useful little tool for a leader to monitor but not destroy. Once again, it falls to the leader to decide on how best to manipulate the education of the young to his whims. The Hitler Youth proved a brilliant stroke of genius, shaping and molding young men into nigh-suicidal footsoldiers for a desperate last stand against an invading, almost unbeatable enemy. The traditional Boy Scouts associations provide a great means for a leader to make forays into the manipulation of children’s minds; just as any other conceivable extracurricular activity could be. Today’s in-vogue high school organization is the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. It gathers young children of any and all race, creed and gender, places them in a position of promised authority – that is, once the program is completed, the solider will be an officer – and channels their efforts toward serving the state apparatus. It offers the soldier opportunity and advantages, while providing their peers with the subtlest of nudges that they, too, can share in the promise if they sign their name at the dotted line. As always, a true leader will invent his own ways of manipulating the world around him, and education is only one facet of that world. Chapter Ten: Warfare and Military Force Without a question, the bluntest instrument of a leader’s governing orchestra is the armed forces of his nation. Used properly, it can be a tool to build international acclaim while expanding one’s territory to encompass the entirety of the world. Used poorly, it will lead to the death of not just the leader, but his entire nation and its sovereignty. It certainly seems like a game of some sort; like Risk, a leader’s simplest option for expanding his territory is to use military force. Unfortunately, military conquest isn’t by any stretch a legitimate option in today’s world. Geopolitical balances of power are predicated on the concept of peoples having the right to choose their leaders, at least on paper. There are two primary motivations for this, both of which overlap. The first of these reasons is that it allows leaders to tell their citizens to rest easy, as the world at large is democratically elected and the people have the power. The second is the inclination of global powers to create “clubs” within which they may include those of a similar government; and, intricately intertwined, the ability to ostracize those who do not fit in – or are not wanted for whatever reason. To examine it in more depth, citizens find it easy to rally around an enemy that has opposite views than they do. The Soviet Union was easy not just to hate, but to pity; their lack of “freedom” served as a contrast to America’s liberties, and while their leaders could be hated for their crimes against humanity, their citizens could be used as objects of sorrowful example as to why the Soviets could not be allowed to “win” the Cold War. Conversely, Average Joes enjoy hearing about and interacting with other “free” peoples, and having an abundance of peoples to consult with and exchange goods and services with allows the Average Joes to sleep soundly at night, certain that the prospect of world peace is indeed real. Consider the recent struggle over the nation (not state!) of Georgia. Georgia’s initial push to secure territory angered a neighbor that just happened to be a major world power, thus leading to Georgia’s territorial integrity being smashed. Georgia’s economic strengths, aspirations to joining NATO, military infrastructure and – perhaps most devastating of all – its civilian populace have all been assaulted by the Russian bear and have suffered tremendous damage. The nation itself has been effectively “set back” for a long time. On the other side of that coin, Russia may serve as the greatest loser. Political scientists have already assessed the situation to death, but on the most basic level, our Russian comrades have indeed shown the world that it is a power “to be reckoned with,” however in doing so it has ruffled the feathers of the European Union, America, and – perhaps most troublingly – the other former states it fully meant to intimidate. Ukraine is going to be forced from ambivalence into side-choosing, and many times those threatened into picking one side over another will often choose against the one who drew the sword of coercion. NATO membership becomes more than just a far-off thought, as Ukraine could use it to repulse a future Russian attack, while NATO might consider it simply to serve, ironically, as a buffer state against Russia. One of these facets, however, far outweighs the rest when it comes to conquest; the destruction of infrastructure. In many cases, one neighbor might conquer another in order to obtain a share of the financial pie which the wealthy resident next door might be having for dinner. That economic might comes, in today’s internet-laden, urbanized world, in the form of elaborate factories and complicated architecture. In order to produce, distribute, and profit from an iPod, a certain amount of money must be invested in machinery, supply networks, and shelf space. Warfare is never going to capture all three of these things intact; factories are destroyed, roads are bombed, and stores (not to mention their patrons) are closed. For this reason, a war of conquest in a so-called first-world region such as Western Europe is all but unthinkable. A military conquest of America would destroy perhaps the largest incentive to take it over – its economic might. On the other hand, there are plenty of other reasons why a leader might require a war of conquest; food and water being the first and foremost. Simply put, the needs of a leader’s nation must be met, and if a neighbor happens to have far more food available, well, trade might not always work. Force of arms, on the other hand, provides a two-fold solution – If the leader’s army is victorious, than his people will be fed! If, on the other hand, it fails, then the population as a whole has less mouths to feed, and thus there is less pressure on a leader to provide food he doesn’t have. Unfortunately, the world is not a vaccum, and as one might imagine the natural resources of the world are much envied. Invasion as an expansion tactic will draw international ire and, eventually, lead to repercussions so severe that the Average Joes decide that he is a danger to their very safety. Only the most adept of truth-twisters, such as Adolf Hitler, could inspire a nation almost to the point of committing suicide with him. Do we discard the military as a means for expansion? Absolutely not! It simply becomes the lead punch to a campaign of growth, rather than the knock-out blow. Consider; instead of the role of invader, the leader’s military serves as the defender of another nation. Not necessarily a “world police force,” but certainly a “helping hand” to those in need of defense. A well executed, well regulated campaign not directed to conquer a neighbor’s land but to defend it will lead to that neighbor’s appreciation. Trade deals are far easier to negotiate with a partner that knows you will defend their assets with military might in the event of an attack. These deals, tentative at first, lead to the entangling of two nations and, with time, the eventual marriage of them. The European Union is in many ways a conquest of many parties against many – all without shots being fired. Certain nations have obtained economic benefit, others have obtained a greater geopolitical importance, and still others have simply obtained friends on whom they may depend – all without firing a shot. In time, the European Union might develop into a single country under a single talented leader, one with an impressive amount of power on the world stage – exactly what this book is about. Of course, there will still be disputes which cannot be so easily rationalized into “good” or “evil.” There will be perfectly valid arguments from opposing nations as to why the leader’s nation is wrong to contribute troops to a cause. One man’s hero is another’s villain, and the late George Carlin was perfectly accurate in saying that one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist. Military force, even applied for reasons that the leader and his citizens, not to mention the vast majority of the world, can still attract problems without the sword’s only weakness; the pen. The leader must ensure that diplomacy, not destruction, is the key underpinning of his foreign policy when it comes to military force. A small nation might ask the leader to contribute troops to a “security force,” but if that small nation’s president is little more than a tyrant abusing his citizens, there is ample license for the leader to tailor make the terms of his armies’ stay in the tiny nation. For example, if the leader’s troops are to take part in a conflict, the leader may demand that the tyrannical president have sit-down meetings with his opponents. Another possibility is that the leader’s security forces may be able to accompany their allies on missions, ensuring that no human rights abuses occur and therefore furthering the prestige of the leader’s nation while simultaneously enhancing his allies’ stance to the world theatre. Every case of warfare, from the casus belli of a populace to the battlefield activities of the soldiers, will be strictly different and will present unique opportunities as well as pitfalls. Entering combat is something that can never be done lightly, for a nation can rebel if its army – its children - is misused. Above all other considerations, a leader must recall two infamous questions: First, the old “how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake,” as issued by John Kerry, but the second…”How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a cause?” Section Three: Threats To A Leader Every leader will come face to face with threats to his rule. Not all of those threats can be anticipated, but the majority of them will fall into one of five categories. Chapter Eleven: Arrogance This is perhaps the worst flaw a leader may face, for it truly comes from within him. In order to run a country, in order to organize a government, one must have a great deal of self-confidence and will have acquaintances constantly parroting how amazing he is. Imagine it; the President of the United States walking down a hallway, secret service all around, cameras behind that, cheering (hopefully not booing!) fans all around! How can a person not consider themselves to be something special and someone unique? The answer is – the leader isn’t. Admittedly, he is likely to be smarter than most people, and he wields incredible power. A single adversary is no match for him – in theory, murder is not outside of a leader’s reach as his police officers can easily forge evidence against an individual threat. With the majority of the citizenry behind him, a leader can avert bloodshed and simply shame a rival into submission. So, what makes him as mundane as the Average Joe? Because everything that is given can be take away, and with one false step the “hero” becomes the “villain” and is lucky to escape his former country alive. Take for example the case of Antony; a victorious leader who very well could have established himself as the first Roman Emperor, yet fell to distraction and pride. Consider the dreadful mistakes made by Adolf Hitler in overestimating his skill as a military commander; overriding one’s top generals tends to lead to a negative outcome. History is rife with examples of leaders who erred grievously due to hubris; Nero playing a fiddle while his capital burned to the ground is only another of the myriad of cases one could study. Instead of delving into these thousands of prior failures, perhaps it’s better to focus on the inherent drawbacks in arrogance itself. First and most insidiously, those who are arrogant often fail to realize it until it is too late. One man’s self-confident politician is another’s self-centered fool; as aforementioned, media pressure only adds to one’s bearing and therefore one’s risk of ignoring the proverbial house of cards that has become his ego. With the ability to write laws comes the convincing notion that one can evade them, as well; and will certainly be able to escape any traps they might pose. Bear witness to Charles Rangel, the New York Congressman who helped write the tax codes the U.S. abides by; yet managed to bungle his tax filings. It matters little whether this was an honest mistake or an attempt to buck the system, but such errors can bring the media – mentioned earlier as a necessary ally for any leader – into position to deliver a fatal blow. At this point, there is no recovery. The second reason why arrogance is so devastating a risk is not so much its ability to instantly undermine a leader’s authority so much as its penchant for slowly eroding a leader’s advisors. The problem of a rebellious subordinate will be dealt with in greater detail, naturally, but arrogance is one means by which a leader may find his staunchest supporters coming apart at the seams. The mere appearance of such overwhelming images of pride may in fact serve as a leader’s downfall with little substantial evidence; Julius Caesar, who had argued time and again against his presumed intention to be coroneted as the King of Rome, led to the demise of Rome’s leader and, with it, the tenuous peace it had grasped after the First Triumvirate. More evident displays of this particular deadly sin can end with similar results. Picture instead of Caesar the infamous junior high school bully who bludgeons those smaller than him on a daily basis: Oafish, perhaps pimpled, and certainly unlikely to remain the biggest and most irresistible brawler on the playground. As time goes on, less people cheer him on and more rise against him; the former champion is dragged down and forced to change to survive. If these reasons aren’t enough, when the arrogance becomes endemic and advisors begin to compete in order to flatter and appeal to the leader’s strengths in order to gain access to his ear, government collapses. This nightmarish régime takes the schoolyard bully analogy to an entirely traumatic level: instead of being deposed, he consolidates power and every person who wishes to buy lunch or sit at a table must first ask his permission. In order to obtain that golden lunch tray, however, an advisor must give the bully a cut of his lunch money, or is forced to pummel the bully’s favorite victim. Having to cowtow in order to gain a hearing with a leader quickly alienates a number of advisors and would-be allies, leaving power in the hands of the leader’s chosen clique. Is it any wonder that internal conflicts would arise in such a governing body, and that effective legislation could never be enacted? Such pathologically fatal political farces are far more devastating than simple alienation of an advisor or two – entire political parties form from parent groups as a result of such hubris, rather than isolated resignations or betrayals. Overreaching one’s abilities is bad; an irrational correlation between your skill and your selfimage can be a mild nuisance or an incapacitating weakness, depending on how ingrained you let it become. Letting your pride cause rifts between you and your colleagues is difficult to endure, but inevitable at times; rebels will always exist. Allowing hubris to overtake you, forcing subjects to offer tributes (or, in conventional terms, adhering to lobbyists) in order for you to consider their issues at any given time – that is fatal. So…How do you avoid being swamped in stubborn pride? The answer is surprisingly simple – retain a touch of common sense. Leaders are by nature political figures, but that does not mean they may not have friends, family, or fun. Running a country, running the world; difficult tasks, indeed! Yet, is it too much to ask for a half hour of television time a night, provided there is no crisis in place? Enjoyment of something lighthearted, something without a serious beat upon it, does not detract from a leader’s capability to govern. Tuning in to a televised comedian, be it something as “safe” as a late night TV talk show to a risqué, even raucous commentator (similar to George Carlin, for example!) can tune the leader in to how some people view the current affairs of his rule. Simple monologues and cliché but contextually sound jokes may occasionally embarrass the leader; but, if he can brush off the blush and smile through the slime, coming out on top to laugh and ensure that his policies reflect the peoples’ preference, he will prosper. Of course, for a naturally-arrogant leader, it may seem like an unnecessary concession to descend to such levels. As one can see on late night talk shows, a dose of humiliation can often be damaging to one’s psyche, not to mention one’s political aspirations. The wrong response to a factoid, or – heaven help you – the snubbing off a proud anchorman can lead to a character assassination taking place on national television. The obvious question is “why bother?” The similarly obvious answer is that one has to protect their political positioning from attack, and the best way to do that is to create false vulnerabilities. Barack Obama, in the face of a sea of red-herring questions about his origins, simply joked that he was from the Planet Krypton; John McCain redeemed himself for his indirect insult to David Letterman by appearing on his show and confessing that he’d “screwed up.” While it may have been too late to change his face, McCain’s lighthearted nature showed the man that could have run for office, instead of the man that did – Obama’s, on the other hand, reflected the cool-under-pressure attitude he’d become famous for, and helped defray questions that may have kept some people from voting for him.