Podcast: Play in new window | Download
…and if that is so, the job is to wipe away the intellectual plaque… emotions
I had a very unique experience on Thursday. I was on a coaching call. I shared one of difficulties with my business.
The coach: vibration 220, IQ: 130, spent 40 minutes, talking back and forth. He taught something that I had never heard, a way of business that I could not even fathom, and it was amazing. I immediately saw how I can use it, how I have been making mistakes not knowing what he was teaching.
It was a zoom call with everyone on camera, and I could observe, connect to, and muscletest the people on the call. What was most striking to me: the degree they weren’t getting the teaching.
Every person on the call had an IQ of 100. In a world where the average is 70, that is pretty good… they are all entrepreneurs able to afford the price of the coaching program. running a business of sorts.
Every person on the call had 200 vibration.
And, although above the average, none of the people on the call could put and connect the dots of the strategy that was shared, connect the dots what it would be like in their own businesses… My problem wasn’t anything special: we all have a similar problem in selling our programs or products.
I started to share the whole thing with my partner this morning… but unfortunately we were interrupted, so I could only share about half of what I had to say in the Distinctions podcast.
This could have been the end of the story, but it wasn’t. I could have thought: I am so smart… smarter than anyone… lol… But I didn’t… or not longer than a moment…
While I waited for my partner to return to the call I read an email where Ben, another coach shard what he was learning from Robert Greene’s 33 Strategies of War.
I went and bought the book to see what he was so happy about and I got really worried… but then I connected yet other dots and I realized that given the low level of vibration of most people, the chances of them putting those EVIL schemes in the 33 strategies book into action is between zero and none.
And the ones that can… they are already doing it. Like my coaches… I myself haven’t…
Don’t be mistaken, the falling apart of democracy, the widespread hate and argumentativeness, all find their roots in those 33 strategies of war… and even with the freefalling of the average IQ, there are still enough people with relatively high vibration to destroy life on the planet.
The distribution of IQ and vibration is no longer a bell curve… it is more like a hockey stick… 99% of humanity is low vibration/low IQ, and only 1% is now on the acceptable/high IQ domain.
IQ is easier to measure… vibration is tricky… it has morality, ethical view embedded.
The second coach’s vibration is 100, while his IQ is 120. Bad combination.
The rest, the 99%: sheep and unaware of it.
So what makes you sheep? Is it attitude? I say it is a combination of low vibration and low IQ.
Neither can be high enough with all the emotional baggage, emotional reactivity you carry.
If this is true, then ’emotional intelligence’ is to have no emotions, and to act without being guided by your emotions. That makes you happy, effective, available to be smart, loving, caring, and living a good life, while emotions, any kind, will render you either evil, or just plain ineffective and unhappy.
Emotions also block your ability to see reality, hear reality, hear what is being said.
I measure in the Starting Point Measurements how much of what is being said is actually transferring to you, gets through to you.
Interesting numbers with yesterday’s coaching call: the coach got 30% of what I said. I got 70% of he said… ready to implement. The people on the call got 7%. The second coach can get 10% of what is being said… he is too f-ing emotional. That is why his vibration only 100. Angry and doesn’t even know that his anger makes him sheep.
7% is high in the world, and yet it is like nothing… if you had a vehicle with that little efficiency turning fuel into kinetic energy, you would be walking faster than that vehicle…
Similar are the numbers in my own courses and workshops… the highest is 10%, the lowest is 1%.
Tragic if you ask me.
This is exactly the reason I can’t charge much for my stuff: if you only get 10%, why would I charge you for what you didn’t get?
So I charge for what you get… through that plugged up, like your arteries, intellect.
Emotions for the intellect are like cholesterol for the arteries.
While the average intelligence of the world is declining, my intelligence is going through the roof. How?
I’ll tell you after you buy my method. Why not now? Because more than half of you would say… nah, it doesn’t work… Which attitude will render you stupid, and not buying, not even giving it a shot.
And because stupid is as stupid does, I won’t tell you ahead of time.
I can tell you just a little bit: it restores the innocence of the proverbial Garden of Eden, much like what Pam Ragland promised but could not deliver back in 2007… ‘quantum mind sweeping’ I think she called it… but the thing swept the emotions under the rug… didn’t remove them totally. I connected to her intention… and it was pure… her delivery lacked power.
Same with the Healing Codes… the idea is great, but it leaves the delivery to the user… and guess what, it doesn’t reliably do what it promises.
This technique is irresistible. It uses Source’s power… And I can tell you, Source is eager for you to wipe yourself innocent.
Don’t trust me? Good. Go away. I am here to help those who help themselves…
https://yourvibration.thrivecart.com/secret/
PS: I am trying to read Robert Greene’s The 33 Laws of War…
I haven’t gotten much past the introduction.
The introduction says everything you need to learn about life.
I’ll copy it here: Read it if you can. Please know that you’ll get very little from what you read… For the reasons I shared above: emotions are like cholesterol (plaque) for the intellect.
Introduction to the 33 strategies of war
We live in a culture that promotes democratic values of being fair to one and all, the importance of fitting into a group, and knowing how to cooperate with other people. We are taught early on in life that those who are outwardly combative and aggressive pay a social price: unpopularity and isolation. These values of harmony and cooperation are perpetuated in subtle and not-so-subtle ways—through books on how to be successful in life; through the pleasant, peaceful exteriors that those who have gotten ahead in the world present to the public; through notions of correctness that saturate the public space. The problem for us is that we are trained and prepared for peace, and we are not at all prepared for what confronts us in the real world—war.
Let him who wants peace prepare for war. Much like: if you want to know good, get to know evil…
This war exists on several levels. Most obviously, we have our rivals on the other side. The world has become increasingly competitive and nasty. In politics, business, even the arts, we face opponents who will do almost anything to gain an edge. More troubling and complex, however, are the battles we face with those who are supposedly on our side. There are those who outwardly play the team game, who act very friendly and agreeable, but who sabotage us behind the scenes, use the group to promote their own agenda. Others, more difficult to spot, play subtle games of passive aggression, offering help that never comes, instilling guilt as a secret weapon. On the surface everything seems peaceful enough, but just below it, it is every man and woman for him-or herself, this dynamic infecting even families and relationships. The culture may deny this reality and promote a gentler picture, but we know it and feel it, in our battle scars.
It is not that we and our colleagues are ignoble creatures who fail to live up to ideals of peace and selflessness, but that we cannot help the way we are. We have aggressive impulses that are impossible to ignore or repress. In the past, individuals could expect a group–the state, an extended family, a company—to take care of them, but this is no longer the case, and in this uncaring world we have to think first and foremost of ourselves and our interests. What we need are not impossible and inhuman ideals of peace and cooperation to live up to, and the confusion that brings us, but rather practical knowledge on how to deal with conflict and the daily battles we face. And this knowledge is not about how to be more forceful in getting what we want or defending ourselves but rather how to be more rational and strategic when it comes to conflict, channeling our aggressive impulses instead of denying or repressing them. If there is an ideal to aim for, it should be that of the strategic warrior, the man or woman who manages difficult situations and people through deft and intelligent maneuver.
Many psychologists and sociologists have argued that it is through conflict that problems are often solved and real differences reconciled. Our successes and failures in life can be traced to how well or how badly we deal with the inevitable conflicts that confront us in society. The common ways that people deal with them—trying to avoid all conflict, getting emotional and lashing out, turning sly and manipulative—are all counterproductive in the long run, because they are not under conscious and rational control and often make the situation worse. Strategic warriors operate much differently. They think ahead toward their long-term goals, decide which fights to avoid and which are inevitable, know how to control and channel their emotions. When forced to fight, they do so with indirection and subtle maneuver, making their manipulations hard to trace.
In this way they can maintain the peaceful exterior so cherished in these political times.
This ideal of fighting rationally comes to us from organized warfare, where the art of strategy was invented and refined. In the beginning, war was not at all strategic. Battles between tribes were fought in a brutal manner, a kind of ritual of violence in which individuals could display their heroism. But as tribes expanded and evolved into states, it became all too apparent that war had too many hidden costs, that waging it blindly often led to exhaustion and self-destruction, even for the victor. Somehow wars had to be fought more rationally.
The word “strategy” comes from the ancient Greek word strategos, meaning literally “the leader of the army.” Strategy in this sense was the art of generalship, of commanding the entire war effort, deciding what formations to deploy, what terrain to fight on, what maneuvers to use to gain an edge. And as this knowledge progressed, military leaders discovered that the more they thought and planned ahead, the more possibilities they had for success. Novel strategies could allow them to defeat much larger armies, as Alexander the Great did in his victories over the Persians. In facing savvy opponents who were also using strategy, there developed an upward pressure: to gain an advantage, a general had to be even more strategic, more indirect and clever, than the other side. Over time the arts of generalship became steadily more sophisticated, as more strategies were invented.
Although the word “strategy” itself is Greek in origin, the concept appears in all cultures, in all periods. Solid principles on how to deal with the inevitable accidents of war, how to craft the ultimate plan, how to best organize the army—all of this can be found in war manuals from ancient China to modern Europe. The counterattack, the flanking or enveloping maneuver, and the arts of deception are common to the armies of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and the Zulu king Shaka. As a whole, these principles and strategies indicate a kind of universal military wisdom, a set of adaptable patterns that can increase the chances for victory.
Perhaps the greatest strategist of them all was Sun-tzu, author of the ancient Chinese classic The Art of War. In his book, written probably the fourth century B.C., can be found traces of almost all the strategic patterns and principles later developed over the course of centuries. But what connects them, in fact what constitutes the art of war itself in Sun-Tzu’s eyes, is the ideal of winning without bloodshed. By playing on the psychological weaknesses of the opponent, by maneuvering him into precarious positions, by inducing feelings of frustration and confusion, a strategist can get the other side to break down mentally before surrendering physically. In this way victory can be had at a much lower cost. And the state that wins wars with few lives lost and resources squandered is the state that can thrive over greater periods of time. Certainly most wars are not waged so rationally, but those campaigns in history that have followed this principle (Scipio Africanus in Spain, Napoleon at Ulm, T. E. Lawrence in the desert campaigns of World War I) stand out above the rest and serve as the ideal.
War is not some separate realm divorced from the rest of society. It is an eminently human arena, full of the best and the worst of our nature. War also reflects trends in society. The evolution toward more unconventional, dirtier strategies—guerrilla warfare, terrorism—mirrors a similar evolution in society, where almost anything goes. The strategies that succeed in war, whether conventional or unconventional, are based on timeless psychology, and great military failures have much to teach us about human stupidity and the limits of force in any arena. The strategic ideal in war—being supremely rational and emotionally balanced, striving to win with minimum bloodshed and loss of resources—has infinite application and relevance to our daily battles.
Inculcated with the values of our times, many will argue that organized war is inherently barbaric—a relic of man’s violent past and something to be overcome for good. To promote the arts of warfare in a social setting, they will say, is to stand in the way of progress and to encourage conflict and dissension. Isn’t there enough of that in the world? This argument is very seductive, but not at all reasonable. There will always be those in society and in the world at large who are more aggressive than we are, who find ways to get what they want, by hook or by crook. We must be vigilant and must know how to defend ourselves against such types. Civilized values are not furthered if we are forced to surrender to those who are crafty and strong. In fact, being pacifists in the face of such wolves is the source of endless tragedy.
The self is the friend of a man who masters himself through the self, but for a man without self-mastery, the self is like an enemy at war. THE BHAGAVAD GITA, INDIA, CIRCA A.D. FIRST CENTURY
Mahatma Gandhi, who elevated nonviolence into a great weapon for social change, had one simple goal later on in his life: to rid India of the British overlords who had crippled it for so many centuries. The British were clever rulers. Gandhi understood that if nonviolence were to work, it would have to be extremely strategic, demanding much thought and planning. He went so far as to call nonviolence a new way of waging war. To promote any value, even peace and pacifism, you must be willing to fight for it and to aim at results—not simply the good, warm feeling that expressing such ideas might bring you. The moment you aim for results, you are in the realm of strategy. War and strategy have an inexorable logic: if you want or desire anything, you must be ready and able to fight for it.
Others will argue that war and strategy are primarily matters that concern men, particularly those who are aggressive or among the power elite. The study of war and strategy, they will say, is a masculine, elitist, and repressive pursuit, a way for power to perpetuate itself. Such an argument is dangerous nonsense. In the beginning, strategy indeed belonged to a select few—a general, his staff, the king, a handful of courtiers. Soldiers were not taught strategy, for that would not have helped them on the battlefield. Besides, it was unwise to arm one’s soldiers with the kind of practical knowledge that could help them to organize a mutiny or rebellion. The era of colonialism took this principle further: the indigenous peoples of Europe’s colonies were conscripted into the Western armies and did much of the police work, but even those who rose to the upper echelons were rigorously kept ignorant of knowledge of strategy, which was considered far too dangerous for them to know. To maintain strategy and the arts of war as a branch of specialized knowledge is actually to play into the hands of the elites and repressive powers, who like to divide and conquer. If strategy is the art of getting results, of putting ideas into practice, then it should be spread far and wide, particularly among those who have been traditionally kept ignorant of it, including women. In the mythologies of almost all cultures, the great gods of war are women, including Athena of ancient Greece. A woman’s lack of interest in strategy and war is not biological but social and perhaps political.
Instead of resisting the pull of strategy and the virtues of rational warfare or imagining that it is beneath you, it is far better to confront its necessity. Mastering the art will only make your life more peaceful and productive in the long run, for you will know how to play the game and win without violence. Ignoring it will lead to a life of endless confusion and defeat.
The following are six fundamental ideals you should aim for in transforming yourself into a strategic warrior in daily life.
- Look at things as they are, not as your emotions color them.
- In strategy you must see your emotional responses to events as a kind of disease that must be remedied.
- Fear will make you overestimate the enemy and act too defensively.
- Anger and impatience will draw you into rash actions that will cut off your options.
- Overconfidence, particularly as a result of success, will make you go too far.
- Love and affection will blind you to the treacherous maneuvers of those apparently on your side. Even the subtlest gradations of these emotions can color the way you look at events.
- The only remedy is to be aware that the pull of emotion is inevitable, to notice it when it is happening, and to compensate for it.
- When you have success, be extra wary.
- When you are angry, take no action.
- When you are fearful, know you are going to exaggerate the dangers you face.
- War demands the utmost in realism, seeing things as they are.
- The more you can limit or compensate for your emotional responses, the closer you will come to this ideal.
Judge people by their actions. The brilliance of warfare is that no amount of eloquence or talk can explain away a failure on the battlefield. A general has led his troops to defeat, lives have been wasted, and that is how history will judge him. You must strive to apply this ruthless standard in your daily life, judging people by the results of their actions, the deeds that can be seen and measured, the maneuvers they have used to gain power. What people say about themselves does not matter; people will say anything. Look at what they have done; deeds do not lie. You must also apply this logic to yourself. In looking back at a defeat, you must identify the things you could have done differently. It is your own bad strategies, not the unfair opponent, that are to blame for your failures. You are responsible for the good and bad in your life. As a corollary to this, look at everything other people do as a strategic maneuver, an attempt to gain victory. People who accuse you of being unfair, for example, who try to make you feel guilty, who talk about justice and morality, are trying to gain an advantage on the chessboard.
Depend on your own arms. In the search for success in life, people tend to rely on things that seem simple and easy or that have worked before. This could mean accumulating wealth, resources, a large number of allies, or the latest technology and the advantage it brings. This is being materialistic and mechanical. But true strategy is psychological—a matter of intelligence, not material force. Everything in life can be taken away from you and generally will be at some point. Your wealth vanishes, the latest gadgetry suddenly becomes passe, your allies desert you. But if your mind is armed with the art of war, there is no power that can take that away. In the middle of a crisis, your mind will find its way to the right solution. Having superior strategies at your fingertips will give your maneuvers irresistible force. As Sun-tzu says, “Being unconquerable lies with yourself.”
Worship Athena, not Ares. In the mythology of ancient Greece, the cleverest immortal of them all was the goddess Metis. To prevent her from outwitting and destroying him, Zeus married her, then swallowed her whole, hoping to incorporate her wisdom in the process. But Metis was pregnant with Zeus’s child, the goddess Athena, who was subsequently born from his forehead. As befitting her lineage, she was blessed with the craftiness of Metis and the warrior mentality of Zeus. She was deemed by the Greeks to be the goddess of strategic warfare, her favorite mortal and acolyte being the crafty Odysseus. Ares was the god of war in its direct and brutal form. The Greeks despised Ares and worshipped Athena, who always fought with the utmost intelligence and subtlety. Your interest in war is not the violence, the brutality, the waste of lives and resources, but the rationality and pragmatism it forces on us and the ideal of winning without bloodshed. The Ares figures of the world are actually quite stupid and easily misled. Using the wisdom of Athena, your goal is to turn the violence and aggression of such types against them, making their brutality the cause of their downfall. Like Athena, you are always one step ahead, making your moves more indirect. Your goal is to blend philosophy and war, wisdom and battle, into an unbeatable blend.
Elevate yourself above the battlefield. In war, strategy is the art of commanding the entire military operation. Tactics, on the other hand, is the skill of forming up the army for battle itself and dealing with the immediate needs of the battlefield. Most of us in life are tacticians, not strategists. We become so enmeshed in the conflicts we face that we can think only of how to get what we want in the battle we are currently facing. To think strategically is difficult and unnatural. You may imagine you are being strategic, but in all likelihood you are merely being tactical. To have the power that only strategy can bring, you must be able to elevate yourself above the battlefield, to focus on your long-term objectives, to craft an entire campaign, to get out of the reactive mode that so many battles in life lock you into. Keeping your overall goals in mind, it becomes much easier to decide when to fight and when to walk away. That makes the tactical decisions of daily life much simpler and more rational. Tactical people are heavy and stuck in the ground; strategists are light on their feet and can see far and wide.
Spiritualize your warfare. Every day you face battles—that is the reality for all creatures in their struggle to survive. But the greatest battle of all is with yourself—your weaknesses, your emotions, your lack of resolution in seeing things through to the end. You must declare unceasing war on yourself. As a warrior in life, you welcome combat and conflict as ways to prove yourself, to better your skills, to gain courage, confidence, and experience. Instead of repressing your doubts and fears, you must face them down, do battle with them. You want more challenges, and you invite more war. You are forging the warrior’s spirit, and only constant practice will lead you there.
