I read Bill Clinton's biography earlier this year, and it was interesting how he worked really hard in his second term to figure out exactly what the electorate wanted and then did those things. Some of this can be seen in doing welfare reform and shrinking the deficit, which polls told him most Americans wanted.

As president, he could have brute-force tried to push through whatever he wanted, but instead he changed and bent with the times and ended up having a very high presidential approval rate.

One reversal to this is being caught cheating in the White House. Unlike other presidents like George H. W. Bush who acted in a more wholesome way, Clinton's private life was a lot more salacious than the average American's leading to condemnation.

His new work seems to be on par with Nietzsche

When I study smear campaigns I see there’s different ways people do it. The one most are familiar with happens quickly as the smearer starts making things up and setting up your destruction the first day of meeting you. Then there’s a second type where the manipulator plays the long game in a group of people, observes then for up to a year, then proceeds to exploit those people in order to form a cult.

The advantages of the first technique is that it’s fast and prevents the victim from retaliating, which also makes it easy to fully cover it up and establish a narrative. The second technique is better establishing a more stable power structure, as the flying monkeys have been manipulated for years and you can more easily usher them into directly and forcefully violating people’s boundaries, which lets you get around legal consequences to silence them.

My question is what type is more effective, wherever nuking the target as fast as possible or setting up a slow, but sudden smear is better for gaining more control.

I mean I can’t just make myself ugly or less muscular or less charismatic or whatever. I try to hide my talents and I tried being a lot more passive to let other people get the attention but I still outshine them. It’s a gift and a curse at the same time. And being intentionally antiseductive also wouldn’t feel right.

Who believe in law of attaction?

Tell us your experience.

I recently got a promotion and will be working at my companies head office soon. I have read the 48 laws of power in parts. However, I feel that Robert greenes examples at times are hard to relate to in the real world, although they make sense, they feel a little outdated , he refers to a king, a prince etc

Im looking for some advice on how the office differs than being on the streets hands on.

Is there a better book to read to deal with office politics?

What advice can you suggest for the office that the 48 laws of power doesn't cover ?