Sounds trite.

It is original. You should read it and then you can give your opinion.

Wouldn't want to pay the guy, and increase his power, or mobility, particularly beyond the global average. Even just reading it, I'd have to consider his influence equal to any opposition, so it wouldn't matter.

People disagree about what counts as fair, and equality is in opposition to fairness. Fairness means that people get what they deserve, not the same. If we're both hired to do a job, and I sit there on my phone the whole time while you do it all, and get equally paid, then clearly that isn't fair. People only get the same, all things already being equal. That's a difficult thing to establish, particularly in the general and abstract. You'd need to solve real cases.

There is no meat on those bones, they're just fluffy words. Need to get attention with some content, not simply fluffy words.

It is about everything that has to do with power. From the view point to create a more fair and equal balance in power. Between people and nations. — Jeroen Roelfs

We're not going to go read it unless you give us a reason. Have you read it? Put some of its ideas out there for us to discuss.

It is my belief that your social position is largely determined by your brain structure. It is my belief that ruthless people are at the top of the social positions. And that people that are more kind have a lower social position. In my opinion everybody talks about ethics. But in reality ethics does not work.

The reason for this being: the pressure to conform is so great. Through for example: social pressure or coercion. These are ways in which people with power get others to conform. So in theory ethics sound great but in the reality and in the practicality people are unable to follow up on there principals and beliefs and there ethics. This is because the power to conform is so great, through social pressure and coercion.

So out of fear, for people with power. People will not follow up on what they belief in. Because if they follow up on their belief, they will be coerced. So in theory it is easy to have principals but in the reality out of fear, people will not follow up on there principals. So on paper ethics sounds great but in the reality it does not work.

And for this reason something as simple as bullying (on which everyone in theory agrees that bullying is bad), we are unable to get rid of. This is for several reason, but some of these reasons are: we follow ruthless people and we do not dare in reality to stop conforming.

And for this reason there is inequality between people based on there personality characteristics. And I belief this to be unfair. And I believe the inequality between people, that some are able to bully and others are being bullied (both based on there personality) to be an inequality and unfair.

Kindness is a grace. Charity, kindness, compassion, all are graces, reserved for those in need. They are not entitlements. They are freely given, and are good things, good for everyone involved. Incentivizing them, or demanding them out of entitlement destroys them. Transforms them into something else entirely.

There is a negotiation of ideals. We don't agree about who deserves what, and we all wish the world to be organized around our ideals, but it isn't, and wishing to force it, or even persuade it to be usually turns deceptive and coercive itself pretty damn fast.

I personally don't think that anyone deserves anything, and I think that very very few are fair, or reasonable. Changing the world is a tall order, and few ever gain the influence to revolutionize it in even the smallest lasting degrees on the smallest of scales, and when they do it isn't obvious that anything at all has ever gotten better -- just different.

It is my belief that people would demand kindness, charity, compassion out of each other. Especially from our leaders. I agree that it is somewhat coercive in it self to make people aware of this fact, but I believe that it is coercive because people want to see this change in others, and especially from those with power. It is coercive, in that our leader would be unable to abuse there power. Because people would be aware how leaders abuse their power.

When people become aware and know how leaders abuse their power. People would not tolerate abuse of power. Which I believe to be an improvement. For those being ruled over which is the majority, but is not in the interest of the ruler. Who is being coerced to not abuse his power.

It is my belief that when people become aware of the different ways they can be influenced. For example:

- aggression
- warmth

And when people become aware of these different ways of influencing. It becomes coercive in it self because no one would want to be influenced through aggression. Only by becoming aware of these different ways of influencing, the information would influence how people want to be treated. I do not think that there are a lot of people that want to be influenced through aggression instead of warmth when they are aware of these facts.

For example, people follow charismatic leaders. They follow them because of there charisma. However when people become aware that charisma does not have anything to do with strong policy (Hitler for example) they would stop following charismatic leaders, and follow the person with the strongest policy. Which would influence who people would follow based on the new information. Which would influence events (which looks somewhat like coercion).

Demanded kindness is called face, persona, facade. Demanded charity is called taxation. Demanded compassion is called community service. People want lots of stuff, but should we chuck out just moments ago espoused values, and ideals to the way side the moment they become an obstacle, or incongruent (red line under "incongruent"? my lexicon exceeds my browser's) with our aims, and desires? The higher moral ground was just a facade in that case, and it just becomes only about the change of power towards me, and the things I like.

"Power corrupts" is something everyone knows. It's dangerous to paint the world in terms of devious, purposeful villains, and innocent ignorant victims. The sheep and the wolves, with me as their knowing protector. In replacing the wolves, for these poor innocent fools, I'll not be preying and surviving on them, but protecting them!

I think that the reason, or aim matters more than the form. Someone kindly and warmly influencing you towards self-destruction, and nihilism is far worse than someone being angry with your lack of ambition, or evil intentions.

What about Hitler and the nazi regimes? Should they have been hugged into submission?

You have not understand it and your talking has nothing to do with my book

I do not believe we should follow leaders that play into our emotions and fears and that are seen as charismatic. I believe we should look at the policies that someone puts forth. And we should not follow someone because he is seen as charismatic. And I do not believe people should be able to get what they want because everybody is to afraid to stop obeying

Why did people vote for Hitler? Because of his strong policy? Or because of his charisma?

I don't think that it is generally true that people follow people just because they're charismatic, irrespective of policies. I think that pays far too little respect to people. Hitler was charismatic, but he also had enticing policies. It's far far more complex than that. People are mostly afraid to stop obeying, not because leaders are murderous, or something generally, the overwhelming vast majority aren't, but because they're complicit both in rewards, status and material, as well as share a vision.

We're all to blame. The reason that the system continues, rather than blissful ignorance or bullying (though maybe some of the latter) is the same reason you haven't done anything, besides attempt to sell a book. Because they feel helpless about it, and don't know what to do, can't even really cogently identify a problem, but they know that they're there. The fact that so many people feel like there's a problem means that there has to be.

Personally, I just try to maintain as much sanity and contentment as I can. I don't have the solution either, and definitely not a final solution to all our problems. Usually they end up sucking worse than the disease.

I disagree with your views.

- I do believe we follow people mostly based on charisma. And we should only look at who can execute the best policies.

- I agree that people keep obeying because of complicit because they would lose there reward, status and material. And because they would lose that they keep on obeying and don't follow there principals.

- And I am not to blame, I have written this book and done what I thought was best whether things got better or worse. But I gave it my best try.

- No book can solve all the worlds problems but I hope i can find out. Whether I can make an improvement.

Your view seems to be that there are two kinds of people, an evil charismatic cabal, and the ignorant masses taken in by them, and if only they were informed, they would all immediately agree with you. Presumably, if they didn't, they would also just be members of the evil cabal. Those are tribalistic, and vicious opinions.

yes indeed. More or less

I'm going to disobey the rule and judge your book by its cover.

Do people get power from a structure (here a pyramid of power) or do people who have power organize structures for their convenience? I think the latter.

Power doesn't exist as a disembodied force. It has to be produced, and the usual way of getting power is to gather material force (guns, votes, cash, etc.) through exploitation. Donald Trump exploited two resources to win election: cash (of which he had quite a bit to spend) and the discontent of many people (they were/are discontented by their collective situation in life). Hillary Clinton exploited the same resources.

Adolf Hitler exploited the dire post-WWI economic circumstances of Germany, the fairly deep well of anti-semitism, working class insecurity, the usual and customary greed of the bourgeoisie, and resentment towards the WWI settlement to gain power. He also had cash and brutality on hand. The Sturmabteilung and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aided his acquisition of power.

His power rested on three things: loyalty purchased with better economic conditions and repudiation of the Versailles Treaty, fear of punishment (through the good offices of the Gestapo, et al) and yes, charisma.

Hitler isn't an outlier. A lot of powerful leaders are at the top of the pyramid because they used the same methods as Adolf to get there.

First of all I do not believe they create structures that are convenient. I believe the power structures are already in place. Only Trump has to take the position of power from which he might want to expand his own power or the power of the state. But this does not have to be the case.

It is my firm belief that Trump was chosen based on his personality and Clinton lost based on her personality. Policies did not enter the arena, which I believe to be a mistake from Hillary. Because this would have given her a even bigger chance to win.

I completely agree with your assessment of Hitler, it is my belief that such leaders can get into a position of power, because most of the public is unaware. And I believe if the public knew how such leaders gain a position of power. They would resist and such leaders would be unable to gain a position of power. And a lot of damage can be prevented.

Of course slightly based on policy in my opinion but I believe for a large part based on his personality.

You know it was very close -- Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump luckily won the electoral college, which "trumps" the popular vote. Clinton should have polled better than she did in November. Comey's late announcement that the investigation into her e-mails was resuming (or something to that effect -- maybe hadn't ended...) was either deliberate sabotage or it was the result of tone-deaf advice. I suspect the former. Had she campaigned more in Wisconsin... but who knows.

I will admit that Trumps insouciant irreverence for good form has an appeal which I feel too. Bernie Sanders had a similar 'outsider' appeal. The overwhelming earnestness is stultifying.

First of all I do not believe they create structures that are convenient. I believe the power structures are already in place. — Jeroen Roelfs

That is certainly true in many cases. A new pope steps into a very old, rigid power structure. Most prime ministers step into structures and roles that are in place. Even if someone is not elected -- say, a top level adviser or aide-de-camp, there are usually clear limits to what they can get away with, unless they engage in illegal activities which sometimes happens.

But in some cases, one has to get power first then build up a structure to exercise it. This was true in the 1917 revolution, wasn't it? It was true in the American Revolution, too. Apple, Microsoft, Exxon (formerly Standard Oil) Google, Facebook, etc. all had to erect new structures. The corporate template was in place, but the enterprise and its structure -- the part that produced the cash and then the power, wasn't.

Criminal enterprises usually have to create structure from scratch -- there is no template for criminal cabals.

We might be debating a small point, not sure -- which comes first, the structure or the power. The bigger question is who gets their hands on the levers of power and what do they do with it.

It is my belief that a certain personality gains a position of power. And when such positions of power are in the hands of a different personality, then power corrupts and the result is the same. Now people that do not corrupt are very rare. So it is my belief that power is mostly used in a negative way. And it is my belief that those that are being ruled over: Should demand that power is used in a positive way. By making them aware of the different ways of how power can be used.