I'll start off by saying that there is a lot of overlap with sex and politics. In a way, both are matters of persuasion. Both require a level of taking counter-intuitive steps to achieve your goals.
There are some very easy to remember expressions here on TRP that serve as simple mental shortcuts which help beginners when they find themselves in tough situations. Like "nexting," "hold frame," and "agree-and-amplify" for "shit tests."
These aren't hard rules, but shortcuts for those who have yet to build their own mental framework where game and frame have become second nature. The goal in embracing these ideas is that you will ultimately change the way you think, to start taking these counter-intuitive steps intuitively because you understand cause and effect and you can feel predictions of outcomes in your gut. And your gut will start to be right for the first time in your life.
In essence, what we teach here is to ignore the voice in your head that has lead you astray and slowly retrain it until you can take off your training wheels.
There is much of the same behavior in politics. But I think some of the newer faces here need to understand some of the differences.
The mental shortcuts we provide are not hard rules for life. They require some nuance.
When a young college kid approaches me and asks what to do to finally win over his oneitis crush of 5 years, the default answer is "next." Not because he couldn't win her over if he played every card right, but that it's the wrong frame of mind to be in. It comes from a position of scarcity and inevitably his feelings will leak into his behaviors and self-sabotage. This is incredibly difficult to control. When your head is in the wrong space, you make mistakes.
But sometimes I see kids preaching the very same shortcut to somebody beyond this problem.
Let's say you are past oneitis, and you have an abundance mentality. For some, there is a pleasure and challenge in achieving a particular goal. For these situations the shortcut "next" simply does not fix the problem because "next" addresses the scarcity mentality. It doesn't actually help you get laid if you've got your sights on somebody and want the challenge.
If you are beyond scarcity and oneitis, you know which consessions not to make. You can focus on an individual without your weak frame of mind leaking through and poisoning your behaviors.
Now, the truth is, it's easy to slip back into the blue pill mentality. Which is why keeping to the shortcuts rigidly will probably do very little damage but help a lot in the long run. But once you enter the right headspace, every action you take is now your choice. You can experiment with how you will interact with others around you.
Nexting should not be your copout to actual challenge.
The reason I bring this up is because I see people apply these shortcuts rigidly in their advice in non-sexual circumstances.
In a lot of cases, things like holding frame really help in a lot of scenarios- professionally, socially, and sexually.
But sometimes the advice makes absolutely no sense to somebody who is not operating from a frame of scarcity, but instead one of challenge.
Enter: The Machiavellian.
This is a topic brought up quite a bit but I rarely see anybody merge Machiavellian strategy with the worldview of our shortcuts. When you are no longer in the headspace of scarcity and oneitis, you have the tools to understand that counter-intuitive behaviors can sometimes lead to favorable outcomes. This means that you can bend or even break the rules on your own terms.
In politics (much like sex), that's known as playing the game.
The biggest difference in politics verses sexual strategy is knowing who your audience is.
Political moves (be they career or social) often involve multiple participants, unlike sexual strategy which is usually just you and her. The target of your goals may or may not be the direct target of your pursuasion. Sometimes the indirect play is convincing others of something in order to build your leverage on a topic.
Politics uses the same basis as sexual persuasion but is infinitely more complex due to the number of moving pieces. I think ultimately anybody relatively fluent in red pill technique should eventually embrace persuasion in all parts of life.
Here are some examples of political plays that are not what they appear:
In a political debate, each participant is not actually trying to argue or debunk the other members. Instead they are trying to speak (and pursuade) directly to their audience (the voters). This is why often times you'll notice rebuttals don't address their opponents points, sometimes not even on the same topic at all.
When somebody is trying to undermine the status of somebody else, even when speaking directly with the target the intended audience is onlookers. This means sometimes playing stupid to points you know clearly. Sometimes it means trying to get somebody to talk more (giving them enough rope, etc).
Sometimes when you're on the losing side of something, the appearance of a fight isn't to win but to strengthen their position in the eyes of fence sitters.
Sometimes when you want something accomplished, you must plant the idea in their head and make them think they had the idea on their own. Sometimes that means making an obvious mistake or exposing a weak spot for others to attack. (See Trump Twitter)
These are often counter-intuitive which cause one-dimensional thinkers to think what the heck is he doing?
When you don't understand what the purpose of a political move is, ask yourself: Who is the real audience for this? What might be the hidden agenda of this move (what side effects might happen from this move)?
As always, make sure you register on our site https://www.trp.red for future updates.