Chaos Stratagems are strategies that can be used to achieve victory when a war enters a chaotic state. Unlike the previous three chapters, the latter three chapters include tactics that can be used when the flow of war is against you.
Stratagem 19: Remove the firewood from under the pot
This tactic teaches that one should attack the foundation of the enemy’s confidence to shake them. Also, there is a second meaning that teaches to cut off their supplies. No matter how strong the enemy is, they will be crushed easily without any food.
Stratagem 20: Disturb the water and catch a fish
If you disorder the enemy so that they have no idea what is happening, you can easily attain victory.
Stratagem 21: Slough off the cicada’s golden shell Make a change yet make it look like to the enemy that you have not. It is a strategy where you keep up a strong defence on the surface and exhibit a state of readiness to intimidate the enemy, while moving your forces to a different location.
Stratagem 22: Shut the door to catch the thief If you block the enemy’s movement and surround them, you can easily decimate them. However, if they are strong enough this plan may have the opposite effect and cause them to retaliate with more ferocity, thus you should only employ it when the enemy is weak.
Stratagem 23: Befriend a distant state while attacking a neighbour Countries that are close to you are bound to have many troubles and friction with you, therefore it is far wiser to use an ally who is further away to deal with your enemy.
Stratagem 24: Borrow a passage to strike Guo This means that you should expand your territory when the opportunity is right by manipulating the weak. If you use the resources of a weak ally to strike the enemy, you can reduce the costs to your army while destroying the enemy, essentially killing two birds with one stone.
Attacking Stratagems are tactics that can utilised during a battle with the enemy.
Stratagem 13: Stomp the grass to scare the snake
Kill the startled snake as it leaps out of the grass. By taunting or provoking the enemy, you can lead them to give away their locations and create chaos.
Stratagem 14: Borrow a corpse to resurrect the soul
Bring back something from the past that is believed to have no value and alter it so they have value.
Stratagem 15: Entice the tiger to leave its mountain lair
If you lure the enemy out of their heavily guarded camp and then attack, your chances of victory increase.
Stratagem 16: In order to capture, one must let loose
When capturing an enemy, do not corner them completely but open a small exit for them. A cornered enemy with no escape can attack with even more ferocity. Thus, if you allow them to escape and chase them until they run out of energy and the will to fight, you can capture the enemy with little sacrifice. Furthermore, if you set an ambush or trap for the enemy, you can easily decimate them.
Stratagem 17: Tossing out a brick to get a jade gem
This means to toss out something useless to gain something valuable. It is a tactic that utilises baiting the enemy. The point of the tactic is to throw out bait that does not seem like bait. On the other hand, it is important to have a keen sense of judgement to ensure you do not take the enemy’s bait. The ability to look past the immediate gain and see the long-term cost is a valuable skill.
Stratagem 18: Defeat the enemy by capturing their chief
This is a principle that states that if you kill the enemy’s leader or their key units, the rest will fall apart naturally. A group without a leader will run around like headless chickens until they are destroyed.
Enemy Dealing Stratagems are tactics you can use when you and the enemy have equal amount of forces. They can be used to increase your chance of winning in a close battle.
Stratagem 7: Create something from nothing
Even if you do not have something, make it look like you have it. Bluff by pretending you have a massive force to disorient the enemy and launch a surprise attack when they are off guard to achieve certain victory.
Stratagem 8: Sneak through Chencang without anyone knowing
Pretend to attack one place and launch a surprise attack some place else. If you hide your intention and deceive the enemy to avoid them, it is far more effective than facing them head on.
Stratagem 9: Watch the fire burn across the river
If there is internal unrest or threat within the enemy, do not attack them. Instead, wait and watch as they destroy themselves.
Stratagem 10: Hide a knife behind a smile
While setting the enemy at ease with a kind exterior, plan meticulously on the inside and wait for the right moment to destroy the enemy.
Stratagem 11: Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree
This means to sacrifice the plum tree by letting it take the pests that usually attack the peach tree. If you utilise allies and surrounding countries well, you can deflect the damage you would receive to them.
Stratagem 12: Take the opportunity to pilfer a sheep
Do not look over even the smallest of an enemy’s flaws. Aggressively seize even the smallest opportunities.
The Thirty-Six Stratagems is a book from ancient China that outlines 36 stratagems (a ruse to change the flow of battle or aide a victory). The author and the time of writing are unclear, but it incorporates much wisdom from The Art of War and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Regardless of who wrote it, the Thirty-Six Stratagems is a must-read text as it outlines tactics that are very useful in war (especially the harsh battlefield of life) in a way that is easy for anyone to understand and learn. The thirty-six stratagems are divided into six categories: Winning Stratagems, Enemy Dealing Stratagems, Attacking Stratagems, Chaos Stratagems, Proximate Stratagems and Desperate Stratagems. Let’s learn them chapter by chapter.
Winning Stratagems are tactics that you can employ when you have all the conditions for a victory. They are tactics that utilise meticulous planning and deception to confuse the enemy and make victory certain.
Stratagem 1: Deceive the heavens to cross the ocean People are not suspicious of things they have seen repeatedly. This is a perfect opportunity to seize. Give the enemy false reassurance through repeating a common act and strike when they are off guard.
Stratagem 2: Besiege Wei to rescue Zhao Instead of facing the enemy head on, detour around them to strike their main base. It is a tactic where you capture something the enemy holds dear and using it to control the enemy as you wish.
Stratagem 3: Kill with a borrowed knife Hide yourself while using a third party to bring harm to the enemy.
Stratagem 4: Leisurely await for the laboured If you camp and rest at a strategic spot and strike the enemy after they have tired from a long march, you can raise the chance of winning. Also, laying siege to the enemy when they are short of food and tiring them out is another way to bring victory.
Stratagem 5: Loot a burning house This means that you should strike when the enemy is in chaos when their base is on fire. In other words, take the opportunity when the enemy is in a tough spot and attack.
Stratagem 6: Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west Distract the enemy’s attention to a different place and attack from a completely unpredicted location so that the enemy is unprepared.
Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu dealt with the topic of spies extensively in his book The Art of War. He believed that information and intelligence determined the flow of war and spies were a vital element. Sun Tzu talked about five types of spies.
Local spies (鄕間): Use the enemy’s people
Internal spies (內間): Use the enemy’s officials (like a resident spy)
Double spies (反間): Use the enemy’s spies to feed the wrong information
Dead spies (死間): Has a possibility of betraying, so use them to spread misinformation, leading the enemy to persecute them
Living spies (生間): Use agents that can gather intelligence and return safely back to report their findings, the most useful type of spies
According to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, there are two ways to victory. The first is winning without fighting the enemy, the second is to win after battling the enemy. The former is the better, wiser option with the latter being the second best choice. Even if you win a hundred battles, it is not the idea victory. Achieving victory without a battle is the far better option. The best method is to predict the enemy’s movements and outwit them. The second best method is to sever the ties between the enemy nation and their close allies, isolating them. The third method is to engage in battle with the enemy and the worst method is to attack them using all means and resources.
To avoid a war and still achieve victory you must anticipate the enemy’s plans and to do this you must gather intelligence. Thus, whether you win or lose a war depends on whether you have the right intelligence. 지피지기 백전불태(知彼知己 百戰不殆, jipijigi baekjeonbultae): If you know the enemy and know yourself, even if you fight a hundred battles you are not in danger. If you fight only knowing your military capabilities and not the state of the enemy, the chances of victory is half-half. If you do not know the enemy’s or your own military’s capabilities, then you will lose every fight.
The following is an excerpt from the Analects by Confucius, titled The Secret of Politics:
Confucius’ disciple Zi-gong asked him: “What is politics?”
Confucius replied: “The key to politics is to make food plentiful(足食), keep enough soldiers(足兵) and earn the people’s trust(民信).”
Zi-gong thought about this, but decided it was too hard to do all three. He asked again: “If you had to give up one, which would you choose?”
Confucius replied: “I would give up the soldiers.”
Zi-gong asked again: “If you had to give up one more thing, which would you choose?”
Confucius thought for a minute and said: “I would give up food. If you believe, you can withstand hunger for a while and withstand the hardships of war, but if you lose trust you will immediately lose everything.”
The character 信 stands for trust, which is believing in another person. Of course there must be trust among the people, but Confucius teaches us that the trust between the people and their leaders is the most important. In fact, with trust and faith you can overcome anything. If you can respect and trust in your leaders, you can endure hunger and at times, even summon the strength to defeat your enemies with your bare hands.
An administration that has lost the hearts of the people will fail.
People take interest in ants for many reasons. Some people are fascinated by how ants have achieved what they deem a perfect totalitarian system. In fact, if you observe it from the outside, an ant nest appears to be completely harmonious as everyone works the same, everyone focuses on the good of the whole and everyone is prepared to sacrifice themselves. But humanity has failed in every attempt at totalitarianism up until now. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Persians, Chinese, French, British, Russians, Germans, Japanese and Americans all experienced an age of glory and appeared as if the world would be assimilated into them, but fortunately a tiny grain of sand would always fall and destroy their unified systems.
This is why there are people who try to imitate insects who live in hive societies (consider how Napoleon’s insignia was of a honeybee). If what unifies an ant nest’s thoughts into one is pheromones, then modern society’s worldwide media does the same function today. People always suggest something that they believe is good and expect others to follow it. They believe that this way, we will achieve a perfect human society one day. But this is not the way of the universe.
Nature, unlike what Darwin suggested, does not evolve so that the fittest survive and rule (and what standard could possible differentiate “fit” and “undesirable”?). Nature’s powers lie in variation. In nature, there are good, evil, insane, devastated, lively, ill, deformed, demented, happy, depressed, intelligent, foolish, selfish, generous people and big, small, black, yellow, red, white things etc. They must all exist. If there is one danger in nature, it is when one group is destroyed by another group.
If there is a field of corns and only the corns that have the “best” traits (i.e. require the least water, stand cold weather and produce juicy corn) are used to pollinate, then the entire crop can be wiped out by a single disease. Contrastingly, a wild crop with individual corns having unique traits with varied weaknesses and differences can survive diseases as the corns find a way to beat it among the many different traits.
Nature hates standardisation and loves diversity. It is through diversity that nature exerts its original abilities.
(from The Encyclopaedia of Relative and Absolute Knowledge by Bernard Werber)
How many friends can a person have? Believe it or not, science has solved this question. An anthropologist called Robin Dunbar studied various societies, tribes and primate groups to determine how many members a group can have to maintain stability. He discovered that the ideal size for a group of humans was about 150.
What happens if there are more than 150 people in a group? This is easily explained by the following thought experiment. Imagine that you have a friend called Mr. White. Add a personality to him – flesh him out as a person. Next, you make another friend called Mr. Red. Then Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. Maroon… At a certain point, you will no longer remember the name or personality of your “friend” and not even care about that person. This is the limit set by our brains – known as Dunbar’s number, or more colloquially the Monkeysphere.
Any person outside of this Monkeysphere is not of your concern. Once you saturate your brain with 150 relationships, the brain ceases to care about other people. Interestingly, the Monkeysphere is directly related to the size of the neocortex (the part of the brain responsible for higher order thinking). For example, most monkeys can only operate in troupes of 50 or so.
The Monkeysphere can be defined as the group of people that you conceptualise as “people”. Because of this limitation, we are physiologically incapable of caring about everyone in the world. For example, we are highly unlikely to be concerned about the welfare of the janitor at work compared to a loved one. As politically incorrect it may be, the brain sees the janitor as “the object that cleans the building” rather than a human being. You may “care” about the janitor in the sense that you greet him in the corridor, but there is a limit to this. This effect actually explains quite well why society is dysfunctional in general.
Because we do not see people outside the Monkeysphere as “people”, they mean less to us. Stalin once said that “one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic”. Similarly, the death of a family member is devastating but 10,000 people dying in a foreign country from war does not have the same emotional effect. Furthermore, if a stranger was to die in front of your eyes, you would still not be nearly as devastated as the death of someone you are close to.
Also, as we do not feel connected to these “outsiders”, we are much more prone to act rude or aggressively. For example, one may insult other drivers with the most colourful words on the road, but would (hopefully) never say those words to a friend.
This expands to a greater scale in the context of survival. We are wired to put the need of the members of our Monkeysphere ahead of those outside of it. Thus, we would not steal from our friends but openly evade taxes as we see the government and others as a cold, faceless body. It does not occur to us that through our actions, we are harming other human beings. The same applies to our view of corporations; despite being made up of real people, we only see them as heartless machines actively conspiring against us.
What if the scale was then expanded to countries? If we do not see a person on the other side of the road as a human being, it is extremely unlikely we would register a foreigner as one. This explains why racism and stereotyping is so common in human societies. Although liberal-minded people would like to believe that we should treat every human being like we treat our mothers, our brain is incapable of it. In fact, it is much more likely we would see those people as acting against our interests by “stealing jobs” and so forth. Thus, racism is a hard-wired behaviour to protect the best interest of our Monkeysphere.
We have established that it is impossible to worry about the seven billion strangers in this world. This brings us to an important point: it is just as impossible to make “them” interested in “you”. It is a cold, hard fact that if you are outside of their Monkeysphere, people will not care about you. Ergo, they treat you badly, put you down, steal from you and downright ignore you. In fact, cognitive dissonance means you are even less likely to care for people outside the Monkeysphere as your brain actively rejects people from getting closer to your Monkeysphere, exceeding the preset limit of 150 people. This is why propaganda always focusses on dehumanising the enemy and why people seeking votes and attention pull at sympathy strings – to try get as close to your Monkeysphere as possible.
Many people will lament how we are not monkeys and the Monkeysphere does not apply to us. We have laws, ethics and “humanity”. However, we cannot escape our primitive psychological behaviours and this is reflected in societies filled with crime, unhappiness and a general disinterest in people not related to yourself. This is why city-dwellers tend to be less friendly than villagers, as there are too many people to fit in one, happy Monkeysphere. In fact, monkeys may have more functional societies than us because they hardly ever exceed their own Monkeyspheres (which may also explain why they rarely have wars). The same can be said of tribes and villages of the past.
Ironically, the development of society has been based around working around the limitations of the Monkeysphere – a theoretically ideal society. By living in larger groups, humans can achieve greater feats such as industries and large-scale economies. Although we suffer the consequences of racism and crime, we have become very effective in survival.
Economics is based on the Monkeysphere too. As we only care about our Monkeysphere, there is no reason for us to be concerned about the needs of others. So when a system such as communism forces us to share our bananas, we become infuriated that we have to give up our bananas to people we do not know. But in capitalism, every individual can pick bananas for just ourselves and those we care about. The system thrives as each Monkeysphere acts dynamically and everyone is happy. This is the concept of the invisible hand that is the foundation of modern economics.
But still, the concept of countries means that we have to share the burden of millions of people we do not care about in the form of taxes and civil duties. This makes us unhappy. So what can we do?
Firstly, realise that you are to others what others are to you. If you find a certain person on television as annoying and irrational, chances are that someone else sees you in that light. You are limited to your Monkeysphere of 150 people and people outside of it are in their own Monkeyspheres.
Secondly, understand that no one is special. There are no heroes or perfect beings. Everyone is a human being and prone to making mistakes and acting “human”. Therefore, we cannot idolise people and be disappointed by their actions. This also means that you cannot judge another person and consider their words and actions as insignificant, as they are just as human as you.
Lastly, never simplify things. The world is not simple. It cannot be generalised as one happy village with everyone living happily in harmony. It is a composite of a massive number of different Monkeyspheres, all concerned with their own well-being and not caring about anything else.
Remember the words that Charles Darwin spoke to his assistant, Jeje Santiago: “Jeje, we are the monkeys”. As much as we would like to think that we are higher-order beings, we are simple creatures of habit and behaviour limited by our Monkeysphere.
Noblesse oblige is a French term that literally translates to “nobility obliges”, stating that those with wealth and power must also take responsibility of the society they lead. Also, it requires the nobles to show a high level of morality, acting out the duties of a citizen. The etymology of this term dates back to the 14th century in the French city of Calais during the Hundred Years’ War.
During the war, the city of Calais was under siege from the English army. They fought valiantly for a year but ultimately surrendered to the English. The English desired to execute every citizen for making them fight for so long, but considering the bad press they instead announced that they would let the citizens live on the condition that six people take responsibility for the battle and are executed for it. The citizens were in agony. Who would sacrifice their life to protect the lives and safety of the other citizens? At that moment, Calais’ wealthiest man, Saint Pierre, volunteered to be sacrificed. Following his brave act, five other bourgeois of Calais, including the rich, noble and lawyers, put up their hands and stated that they would gladly give up their lives for the city. Moved by this sacrificial spirit, the queen of England convinced Edward the Third (then English king) to cancel the execution and have mercy. This story became the foundation of the noblesse oblige spirit of “those who are noble should take responsibility first”.
Although it is a very touching story, it is also an uncommon one. Instead, it is much more common to hear stories of the upper class fleeing the country and protecting their own lives when their country is in peril. A true developed nation should have those who lead a wealthy life work harder for the country than regular citizens. We should not be following the social Darwinistic belief of survival of the fittest, but rather show harmonywhere the strong help out the weak. In the case of the Roman Empire, nobles believed that what set themselves apart from slaves was not their status, but their ability to carry out social duties, having great pride in practising noblesse oblige.
The most common example of noblesse oblige would be the rich giving money to charity, but there are other duties of a citizen other than paying taxes (a way of redistributing wealth). A citizen must respect and follow the law, vote to practise democracy, pay their taxes, receive education and much more (in some countries, conscription is a duty too).
When the Korean War broke out, the first chairman of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, sent his first son to participate in the war. After his son was killed in action and many people asked him why he sent his own son to war, he replied: “How could I as a leader ask my people to send away their sons to war when I am not willing to send my own son away?”.
The higher your social status, the more wealth and power you have, you should thoroughly upkeep your duties as a citizen and help out so that everyone can live happily.
(Les Bourgeois de Calais by Auguste Rodin, a sculpture depicting the six nobles of Calais who stepped up to be executed)
