The Untold Story Of Napoleon Hill – The Greatest Self-Help Scammer Of All Time

[Grapelander]

The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill – The Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time
The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill, the Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time

Hill’s most infamous claim was that he met and interviewed at length the industrialist Andrew Carnegie in 1908—the richest man in the world at the time. Hill said that Carnegie tasked him with interviewing the most successful men in business and learning the secrets to their success. But Hill only started making this claim long after Carnegie had died in 1919.

Hill was involved in countless scams over the years. One of his earliest involved buying lumber on credit, never paying his suppliers, and selling the lumber to others for cash at rates well below market value. This, as you can guess, didn’t last very long before Hill went on the run.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

A fascinating read. Thanks for posting.

I've been allergic to the writings and interviews of Tim Ferriss and Dave Asprey since coming across them some 7-8 years ago. Asprey referenced Hill in one of the first blog posts I read, stating that all he did (and anyone else needed to do) to earn his first quarter million, then full million, etc, was to abstain from ejaculation for increasingly long periods.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill – The Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time
The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill, the Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time

Hill’s most infamous claim was that he met and interviewed at length the industrialist Andrew Carnegie in 1908—the richest man in the world at the time. Hill said that Carnegie tasked him with interviewing the most successful men in business and learning the secrets to their success. But Hill only started making this claim long after Carnegie had died in 1919.

Hill was involved in countless scams over the years. One of his earliest involved buying lumber on credit, never paying his suppliers, and selling the lumber to others for cash at rates well below market value. This, as you can guess, didn’t last very long before Hill went on the run.

Always consider the source. The Kotaku/Jezebel/Gawker group wrote this.

Remember, Hulk Hogan sued these literal porn publishers for publishing extremely private images from a tape that was stolen, and may have even been made without his knowledge or consent. Massive invasion of privacy. For these confirmed degenerates to call anyone a scammer is rich, indeed.

This is some of the other "Hard Stories" Matt Novak has written-

39 Tattoos of Baby Yoda That Prove We're All Obsessed With The Mandalorian
30 Viral Fakes That Defined the 2010s
Elon Musk Dances Like Nobody's Watching at Tesla Event in China

 

[Grapelander]

Always consider the source. The Kotaku/Jezebel/Gawker group wrote this.

Remember, Hulk Hogan sued these literal porn publishers for publishing extremely private images from a tape that was stolen, and may have even been made without his knowledge or consent. Massive invasion of privacy. For these confirmed degenerates to call anyone a scammer is rich, indeed.

This is some of the other "Hard Stories" Matt Novak has written-

39 Tattoos of Baby Yoda That Prove We're All Obsessed With The Mandalorian
30 Viral Fakes That Defined the 2010s
Elon Musk Dances Like Nobody's Watching at Tesla Event in China

So what part of this is not true? He did not work for Carnegie and that is what fools everybody into reading his horrible books.
Carnegie sent him on a special mission to discover the secrets of success - give me a break. He would have picked a much better writer.
His writings are just a regurgitation of New Thought. Who wants to build their spiritual house on a bunch of lies.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Who wants to build their spiritual house on a bunch of lies.

You sound like my dad, in a good way :)

 

[tankasnowgod]

So what part of this is not true? He did not work for Carnegie and that is what fools everybody into reading his horrible books.
Carnegie sent him on a special mission to discover the secrets of success - give me a break. He would have picked a much better writer.
His writings are just a regurgitation of New Thought. Who wants to build their spiritual house on a bunch of lies.

More to the point.... even if the article is 100% true, which part of Novak's article in any way discredits Hill's work?

Here's the thing... Matt Novak doesn't even claim that Napoleon Hill DIDN'T meet Carnegie. He just claims that he "could find no evidence" that Hill and Carnegie met. Not surprising, given that Novak is a clickbait writer in 2016 trying to determine if a meeting occurred well over a century ago. It's true that you can't prove a negative, but in this case, the only convincing evidence is the idea that Novak tried for a few hours, but ultimately didn't find anything. The most noteworthy part of his research was apparently when Novak contacted one of the many people who have written a biography on Carnegie (Carnegie even has an autobiography), and that writer told him he didn't have any proof that Hill had met Carnegie. So, that's the evidence- two modern writers don't have any idea if a meeting happened over 100 years ago or not.

Most of the article doesn't even have anything to do with Hill. The entire section on the "cult?" Well, they liked his book, apparently. And Hill may have visited them at one point, and may have been named the godfather of the baby in said "cult" (no word on who named Hill that, nor if Hill was aware of it and/or accepted such a request). Other than that..... nothing. So, what's the point of even mentioning it?

The biggest issue I have is with the title, calling Hill a "Self Help Scammer." That, itself, implies that his work itself is a scam. But Novak does nothing to show that Hill's work, including Think and Grow Rich, The Laws of Success, and many other books, are themselves flawed or don't work. He instead describes other business ventures that didn't work out, and attributes them to "scams." Even if the buying and selling lumber idea was a "scam" and not just a failed business, that itself has nothing to do with Self Help. Hill himself gives his own account of his time working in a lumber concern in the "Failure" chapter of "The Laws of Success," where he admit's defeat, and how the business was destroyed and how Hill was relieved of every dollar he possessed. So he isn't revealing anything that Hill himself didn't write.

Bottom line, there is nothing truly damning against Hill in that article. It's simply written as confirmation bias for people who want to dismiss Hill's books and ideas. The article at least has a little success, in that regard.

As for your claim that Carnegie would have picked a better writer than Hill, I wonder which of Hill's works you have read (so that you can judge him as a writer) and what "better writer" you have in mind that Carnegie would have chosen.

 

[Ashoka]

“There are only so many times that a man can be arrested for the sale of unlicensed stock, altering checks, and outright theft, before you have to question the official history.”

If someone is putting forward a mystical secret to success and their life is potentially tied to lies, dubious claims, scandal, and failure - at the very least this would add another layer to interpretation to consider. In this case one’s work is not separate from one’s personal life. The article may not be entirely damning, but it’s obviously alarming and begs serious questions which appear to have been clearly glossed over by overly sympathetic believers. Perhaps the only reason it isn’t completely damning is it needs a more rigorous presentation and some better writing.

“Edith had gotten her baby back and filed for divorce, claiming that Napoleon was ‘a man of violent and ungovernable temper,’ and that he treated both her and their child with ‘disrespect and cruelty.’ This cruelty included periods of violence, when Napoleon would allegedly throw the toddler on the floor and bed and proceed to choke her. The elder Edith also alleged that she was constantly under the threat of violence and that Napoleon had at least once threatened to kill her on a street in broad daylight, claiming he would ‘blow her brains out.’ The testimony given at the divorce proceedings by Napoleon’s former business associates and friends also outlined many incidents of infidelity with prostitutes.”

“Hill’s ‘college’ was actually a way to get free labor for building cars. ‘Students’ were paying for the pleasure of producing Washington-brand cars for the Carter Motor Corporation in 1910 and 1911. The Carter company had struck a deal with Hill’s ‘school’ and got free labor from ‘students’ who were toiling away constructing vehicles in a Washington warehouse.”

 

[tankasnowgod]

“There are only so many times that a man can be arrested for the sale of unlicensed stock, altering checks, and outright theft, before you have to question the official history.”

If someone is putting forward a mystical secret to success and their life is potentially tied to lies, dubious claims, scandal, and failure - at the very least this would add another layer to interpretation to consider. In this case one’s work is not separate from one’s personal life. The article may not be entirely damning, but it’s obviously alarming and begs serious questions which appear to have been clearly glossed over by overly sympathetic believers. Perhaps the only reason it isn’t completely damning is it needs a more rigorous presentation and some better writing.

Well, Hill's defeats haven't been "glossed over" by Hill himself. He talks about his own setbacks and defeats (seven of them) in the "Failure" chapter of The Laws of Success, and in his other works. This is the main reason I don't think Novak's article is damning in the slightest. It's a lot of opinion, judgement, and conjecture about details that are very hard to come by some 100 years after they happened. And some of the events that Novak does bring up, Hill admits himself in his own works.

“Edith had gotten her baby back and filed for divorce, claiming that Napoleon was ‘a man of violent and ungovernable temper,’ and that he treated both her and their child with ‘disrespect and cruelty.’ This cruelty included periods of violence, when Napoleon would allegedly throw the toddler on the floor and bed and proceed to choke her. The elder Edith also alleged that she was constantly under the threat of violence and that Napoleon had at least once threatened to kill her on a street in broad daylight, claiming he would ‘blow her brains out.’ The testimony given at the divorce proceedings by Napoleon’s former business associates and friends also outlined many incidents of infidelity with prostitutes.”

These allegations were before Hill's meeting with Carnegie in 1908. Also, hard to say how credible these accusations are, given that they are over a century old, and everyone involved in the case is long since diseased.

“Hill’s ‘college’ was actually a way to get free labor for building cars. ‘Students’ were paying for the pleasure of producing Washington-brand cars for the Carter Motor Corporation in 1910 and 1911. The Carter company had struck a deal with Hill’s ‘school’ and got free labor from ‘students’ who were toiling away constructing vehicles in a Washington warehouse.”

In other words.... an internship. This practice is used by every college and university today. Students provide labor for no money in exchange for knowledge, experience and school credit. Which likely sprung out of the practice of being an apprentice, where one would work for nothing (or a serious discount) in order to gain knowledge and skill from a master craftsman.

 

[Ashoka]

Well, Hill's defeats haven't been "glossed over" by Hill himself. He talks about his own setbacks and defeats (seven of them) in the "Failure" chapter of The Laws of Success, and in his other works. This is the main reason I don't think Novak's article is damning in the slightest. It's a lot of opinion, judgement, and conjecture about details that are very hard to come by some 100 years after they happened. And some of the events that Novak does bring up, Hill admits himself in his own works.

These allegations were before Hill's meeting with Carnegie in 1908. Also, hard to say how credible these accusations are, given that they are over a century old, and everyone involved in the case is long since diseased.

Right, the meeting no one agrees actually took place. Also questionable he never kept any record of these meetings with such important people, which would seem a lack of shrewdness from a businessman. Of course accusations are hard to verify when so much time has passed. Which is why I stopped short of saying it’s ruinous of the value contained in his works. That being said, we don’t say the accusations mean absolutely nothing just because we can’t go back a century to verify. It should give one pause, especially as there’s a string of other such potentially reputation-scarring ventures he may have involved himself in.

In other words.... an internship. This practice is used by every college and university today. Students provide labor for no money in exchange for knowledge, experience and school credit. Which likely sprung out of the practice of being an apprentice, where one would work for nothing (or a serious discount) in order to gain knowledge and skill from a master craftsman.

I wouldn’t try make this look better than it is. It’s not a matter of whether this was par for the times he lived, or whether it matches the practices today. People aren’t exactly happy about unpaid internships and the obvious advantages it puts some students and workers (who can afford to do that) versus others. Those internships are broadly exploitative of labor. Is this what worldly success is based on, one’s ability to exploit one another best, given a certain historical circumstance?

Also, this is like one small thing mentioned in the piece. It also repeats later that he continued on practices like this.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Right, the meeting no one agrees actually took place. Also questionable he never kept any record of these meetings with such important people, which would seem a lack of shrewdness from a businessman. Of course accusations are hard to verify when so much time has passed. Which is why I stopped short of saying it’s ruinous of the value contained in his works. That being said, we don’t say the accusations mean absolutely nothing just because we can’t go back a century to verify. It should give one pause, especially as there’s a string of other such potentially reputation-scarring ventures he may have involved himself in.

Well, unproven allegations spread in tabloid newpapers and websites like Gizmodo generally don't "give me pause," or truly concern me in any way. The allegations were part of a court case, which is a much fairer way to judge someone than in a single, obviously biased article one century later. Hill isn't here to defend himself or explain any of the allegations in the article. Neither is the accuser, nor the judge nor the lawyers. And as I pointed out a few times, Hill has admitted his defeats and flaws several times in his work. He's never painted himself as perfect, so I am not concerned with any of Novak's unsourced allegations. For me, Hill's work stands on it's own.

I wouldn’t try make this look better than it is. It’s not a matter of whether this was par for the times he lived, or whether it matches the practices today. People aren’t exactly happy about unpaid internships and the obvious advantages it puts some students and workers (who can afford to do that) versus others. Those internships are broadly exploitative of labor. Is this what worldly success is based on, one’s ability to exploit one another best, given a certain historical circumstance?

Also, this is like one small thing mentioned in the piece. It also repeats later that he continued on practices like this.

You don't like the idea of internships? Fine, then don't do one. Fact is, it's one of the most effective ways to gain knowledge or skill of a trade. I don't see how incompetent labor can be exploited. The idea of the college is that you pay to learn a skill, and afterwards, can use that skill to make money. It's not exploitative, and if you aren't competent at the job you are doing, then it wouldn't be worth much to the company you would supposedly be working for.

I don't really see how any company can exploit incompetence or ignorance and be successful.

Personally, I have paid for career coaching in my professional life, and it was one of the best investments I ever made. I understand that others can see this sort of coaching as a waste of time and money, or even exploitative. It's not how I see it, and I made great strides in my career because of it.

 

[Ashoka]

Well, unproven allegations spread in tabloid newpapers and websites like Gizmodo generally don't "give me pause," or truly concern me in any way. The allegations were part of a court case, which is a much fairer way to judge someone than in a single, obviously biased article one century later. Hill isn't here to defend himself or explain any of the allegations in the article. Neither is the accuser, nor the judge nor the lawyers. And as I pointed out a few times, Hill has admitted his defeats and flaws several times in his work. He's never painted himself as perfect, so I am not concerned with any of Novak's unsourced allegations. For me, Hill's work stands on it's own.



You don't like the idea of internships? Fine, then don't do one. Fact is, it's one of the most effective ways to gain knowledge or skill of a trade. I don't see how incompetent labor can be exploited. The idea of the college is that you pay to learn a skill, and afterwards, can use that skill to make money. It's not exploitative, and if you aren't competent at the job you are doing, then it wouldn't be worth much to the company you would supposedly be working for.

I don't really see how any company can exploit incompetence or ignorance and be successful.

Personally, I have paid for career coaching in my professional life, and it was one of the best investments I ever made. I understand that others can see this sort of coaching as a waste of time and money, or even exploitative. It's not how I see it, and I made great strides in my career because of it.

We all have to be careful with everything we read. That being said, yes, that was from a court case, exactly. That was apparently part of her testimony of his character in the divorce proceedings. It’s a rather good albeit one-sided source, provided it’s accurate. If you only want to consider his actions after his supposed “conversion”, fair enough. But you might end up missing a pattern if you omit pieces of data.

The nature of his writing and anyone putting forward a key to success, for that matter, is that it will always put their life and biography under scrutiny. And that should happen. It has to also be considered in context of what they tried to communicate.

Whether the work they were doing was complex, monotonous, or valuable experience is also not clear - just that they were constructing cars. The article also portrayed it as if he had reinvented himself in the automotive industry after running from creditors, being new to that business. He was making people work on cars and it sounds like he needed a free pool of labor, so he picked students. Anyone else would have to be paid, because people have to actually live and you don’t eat or live in “experience”, especially back then. We don’t have to view it as a happy, reciprocal relationship just because both parties are involved somehow.

If their labor was so essentially unimportant, he wouldn’t build an entire business model around what we now call “interns” or basically indentured servants, who despite having their labor being in demand, at an entry-level are forced to accept nothing. Again, he probably wanted a reserve of free unskilled labor to construct vehicles.

This is not career coaching. This is just exploiting a population who will work for nothing, because they believe getting a foot in this imaginary door is more important. In the end they don’t get paid for the work they do, but Hill gets free labor in exchange for “experience” - whatever the hell that ends up meaning. It’s basically a sleight of hand. I really think you have this wrong if you think it’s in any way suggesting charitability. He just did what any capitalist would do.

 

[tankasnowgod]

We all have to be careful with everything we read. That being said, yes, that was from a court case, exactly. That was apparently part of her testimony of his character in the divorce proceedings. It’s a rather good albeit one-sided source, provided it’s accurate. If you only want to consider his actions after his supposed “conversion”, fair enough. But you might end up missing a pattern if you omit pieces of data.

Well, the part I bolded is exactly why I don't put much stock in it. It's one sided and we have no idea if it's accurate.

This is not career coaching. This is just exploiting a population who will work for nothing, because they believe getting a foot in this imaginary door is more important. In the end they don’t get paid for the work they do, but Hill gets free labor in exchange for “experience” - whatever the hell that ends up meaning. It’s basically a sleight of hand. I really think you have this wrong if you think it’s in any way suggesting charitability. He just did what any capitalist would do.

Even the article doesn't claim that Hill got free labor, but that they worked for a third party company. The exact quote from the article is-

"The Carter company had struck a deal with Hill’s “school” and got free labor from “students” who were toiling away constructing vehicles in a Washington warehouse."

This is the dictionary definition of an internship. It's clear that what Hill was offering was a trade school. I don't think it's slight of hand, nor do I think this is charity (honestly, I don't even know why you would bring that up). I also don't see how anyone was "forced" to do anything, nor how anyone was an "indentured servant." Students paid Hill's college to learn a skill, full stop. That is the offer. I fully agree that Hill is doing what any capitalist would do. Unlike you, I don't think it's wrong or immoral. I think both college and student are voluntarily entering into an agreement.

As to your points about student's having to live and eat, I don't even understand what your point is. Did you ever go to school in your life? Were you paid during that time to go to school? If not, how exactly did you eat and survive?

Beyond this, many people today go to college where they pay the school (or incur debt), and simultaneously don't earn any income. How do they eat and survive?

 

[Ashoka]

Even the article doesn't claim that Hill got free labor, but that they worked for a third party company. The exact quote from the article is-

“‘Students’ were paying for the pleasure of producing Washington-brand cars for the Carter Motor Corporation in 1910 and 1911.”

The article doesn’t have every single detail, but that’s what it says.

To be clear, nothing in the definition implies that an internship isn’t paid. I think it’s possibly used as a way to take advantage of people who don’t know any better, and depending on the circumstance, mainly in the interest of the people extracting the labor. They can often involve doing the grunt work and not truly learning any special skill - I’ve done it before. But hey, you get to put it on your resume afterward, and we’ve all come to accept that this is normal practice so.. that’s cool?

I incurred debt like most people, but at least I was guaranteed a decent education. Also everyone hates student debt lol. Getting a degree isn’t really “work” outside one’s ability being cultivated. The university doesn’t immediately appropriate my work and sell it, or alter my education to benefit its private interests. The university’s mission isn’t profit-making. So student debt sucks for different reasons, but it’s not exploitative in that way.

A lot of people don’t do unpaid internships because they can’t. They may go to school and get the debt, then be expected to be an unpaid intern. So the answer is people survive by not doing it. Or by using someone else’s resources, like their parents, to do it. At any rate, it benefits people with the means, then exploits them, while also keeping out people who are of a lower class background.

 

[tankasnowgod]

“‘Students’ were paying for the pleasure of producing Washington-brand cars for the Carter Motor Corporation in 1910 and 1911.”

The article doesn’t have every single detail, but that’s what it says.

Correct. And nowhere in the article does it suggest that Hill had a stake in the Carter Motor Corporation. So, students of a school can gain knowledge, experience and/or school credit by working for a third party company for no pay or at a discount. Novak can spin this any way he wants, but at the end of the day, this is basically an internship, and it was agreed upon by both parites.

 

[bk_]

I constantly heard Hill being promoted so I began to read his book years ago but a lot of it seemed fishy. Years ago after much research I was disappointed to find that Hill was a shady character with questionable ethics throughout his life which makes me questions his claims of doing work for Carnegie.

In fact recently there have been a ton of these look at me “I’m rich and I’ll tell you the secret to my success” con men on YouTube. After looking into the claims and backgrounds of a number of them they all came up with major red flags. Most if not all of them make money by pretending to be a success and then try to hook you into going to their insanely expensive workshops.

Do your own research and don’t fork over your hard-earned money to these clowns.