Understanding Machiavellianism
Illimitable Men | December 2, 2013 | by IM
-------------------------
_
[https://i0.wp.com/illimitablemen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/utilising-the-dark-triad-machiavellianism1.jpg?ssl=1]
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really
are.”_ – NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI

What is Machiavellianism? Machiavellianism is predominantly an art
form, keenness for strategy and personal characteristic. As
a psychological phenomenon, it is the strategy that takes place in
the realm of subtext, a label for the battleground on which psychic
warfare is conducted. Mental gymnastics, mind games, charm and
subliminal subtleties that alter and influence through the
psyche are all components of interpersonal Machiavellianism.

As a term, Machiavellianism is etymologically derived from
historic political philosopher and Italian statesman NICCOLO
MACHIAVELLI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli].
As such, for all intent and purpose Machiavellianism should be
interpreted as a synonym for cunning.

What machiavellianism does is create uncertainty, usually via the
utilisation of secrecy and selective honesty so once sufficiently
confused, the target of the manipulation can be controlled, influenced
or led to believe/disbelieve a specific element, an element which you
can then build upon, some people would call it “a seed” in order
to nurture your agenda, it can otherwise be used to give you wiggle
room by being non-committal
[http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-20-do-not-commit-to-anyone.html] to
any expectation people may try to place on you and thus not held to
any specific course of action.

Machiavellianism is the shit that you were hoping that crappy
psychology class would teach you at school, the ability to mind fuck
with and influence people, to walk like a king, talk like a king and
be respected like a king. Instead you found it was a weird
amalgamation between biology and sociology.

Let’s be honest, world governments don’t want to encourage
machiavellianism and foster its adoption en masse via training their
own populace’s to be more cunning, it’s not just powerful
knowledge but an indispensable tool, inherently academic and
vocational, machiavellianism is the weapon of choice and common domain
of the powerful and the elite so it’s “certainly not to be used by
peasants!”, the downtrodden and those otherwise required to maintain
the pyramid structure which essentially makes up the social class
system of each and every country on the planet (except in Scandinavia
where they rape you to death for taxes, but that’s an entirely
different tangent!) You can bet your ass any rags to riches tale you
know of which doesn’t involve some perverse unexpected 3rd cousin
inheritance (EG: 50 Cent) are individuals who possess great
machiavellianism to drive forward the rise in their quality of life
and had to influence the individuals standing in their way, along the
way, to make their ambitions a tangible reality.

Where there is uncertainty there is always an opportunity for a power
grab and convincingly rationalise post-power grab that the grab was a
necessary move, if people begin to doubt your new-found position you
pander to their whims by utilising your new position to reinforce the
belief that you’re right for said position.

For example, let’s say you just got promoted at work because the old
supervisor left, you’re the new supervisor now, however the group of
5 office bitches don’t respect you enough and are constantly
challenging your authority, making your job hard and wearing on your
psyche – if you let this continue you will probably lose your job or
get demoted as you’re not popular, so what do you do?

Firstly YOU NEED TO MAKE THEM (not request they) respect you, as
respect is inherently a choice, respect is always given by choice and
requesting it only makes one disrespect you more by symptom of your
tenacity to express entitlement to that which the person in question
has not deemed you to be worthy of yet, thus only serving to further
reduce your value in their eyes.

You don’t get respect by pleading to a persons “better side” you
earn a person’s respect by being powerful and being manipulative is
being powerful, they are synonymous. You need to control these women
and make them fall in to line so again, what do you do? You weaken
their power, you turn them against each other (divide and conquer) by
manipulating the fuck out of them until they all segregate themselves
for you thus removing the power vacuum they all maintain by bouncing
off one another and feeding into each others disrespect and bullshit
festering. Allow me to exemplify further on this:

Say in our hypothetical scenarios there’s 5 bitches, pick 2 of them,
make it the 2 hottest girls as the uglier girls will already have a
predisposition for being jealous of the hotter girls, so your
manipulation can buy into this insecurity of theirs and add further
fuel to the flames of jealousy. Tell each girl in private that they
could have a 10 minute longer break than the other girls, you’d say
something to each of them one-on-one, something like “_you’re a
woman that’s been doing a special job lately, so I’m going to let
you have an extra 10 minutes when you go for break, keep it hush,
don’t tell the other girls, because if they find out they’ll get
jealous of you and I won’t be able to keep letting you have these
longer breaks WHICH I FEEL YOU FRANKLY DESERVE._”

Notice how you’ve addressed her as a woman but all the other women
as girls, you’re basically informing her she’s the alpha woman of
the group, you’re feeding into the sense of entitlement that
feminist society has taught her she has by merit of being alive,
effectively you’re feeding her narcissism and its this which is
granting you power over her on a more personal level as she eats up
your validation; this is of course further amplified by the fact it
comes from a position of authority (you, by being higher in the
company) said women would most likely (in most cases, very few women
would ignore the opportunity to get ahead and fight for the reputation
of their colleagues) get incredibly fucking tingly off the validation
of a superior and would thus be more than happy to indulge in the
extra leisure time awarded to her by you, that’s the bait and the
silly self-interested bitches are going to take it. This is step 1 of
turning one of your office enemies into an instrumental peon.

The other women will begin to notice that the 2 hotter chicks keep
coming in late from their breaks unexplained without visible
punishment and would get upset quite quickly, however unless there is
one particular woman who is masculine in energy (usually old
non-sexual undesirable battle axes or ghetto chicks), it would take
them awhile to come forward and contest the covert privilege these
other 2 women are enjoying under the guise of what seems like
“favoritism” to the unprivileged but “an entitlement” to the
women enjoying said privilege, because hey you validated them as being
superior workers and so superior people deserve superior treatment,
right? I’ll bet my asshole in a gay bar that the women in this
hypothetical scenario would tend to think so, you can have the
rationalisation hamster do it’s work for you.

When any of the 3 girls you’re not giving longer breaks brings it to
your attention that these 2 chicks keep taking longer breaks and they
tell you that apparently “_it was ok with you._” not only are you
going to openly deny that, but there’s something for you to pay heed
to here.

The girls getting longer breaks shouldn’t have said “_it was ok
with the boss to take longer breaks_” to the girls not getting
longer breaks as you instructed their pretty little asses not to do so
(and to be less crude, it was a violation of your trust in them) as
you didn’t want to create discord through VISIBLE FAVOURITISM, so if
they used that as a defence to the “non-privileged chicks” in our
hypothetical scenario here, you’ve now as a side bonus learnt that
you cannot trust these specific women as they have essentially
betrayed you to defend the privileges that you gave them to begin with
– Maxim: _“DON’T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS.”_ Sure you had
motives behind “giving them a free lunch
[http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-40-despise-free-lunch.html]”
(if you’ll pardon the pun) but at the end of the day, you still gave
them freedom and privilege that their colleagues weren’t having and
they foolishly sold you out to try to save their own reputations,
rather than honour the agreement they had with you.

NEVER LET PEOPLE WHO DO THIS GET TOO MUCH POWER ON YOUR WATCH AND
PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR INDISCRETIONS HOW YOU SEE FIT, OVERTLY OR
COVERTLY, THE CHOICE IS YOURS TO MAKE. Relevant here is the 48 laws
maxim “Crush Your Enemy Totally
[http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-15-crush-your-enemy-totally.html]”

Anyhow, once confronted, you’d say to the chick(s) approaching you
who are not getting longer breaks that you didn’t authorise it,
otherwise by seeming openly unfair you’d earn their scorn and
they’d become a bigger social threat, which runs counter to what
your agenda is actually trying to establish, lowering the threat level
and earning the respect of your peons.

If you really wanted to crush the power of the female herd in your
office and break them up so they’re more manageable or even eating
out of your hand, you would always need to create a power imbalance
among the women, once they no longer see as each other as equals or as
“a team”, but as competitors (and women are generally naturally
competitive among each other and catty as fuck anyway) you can divide
and conquer them and run them more efficiently for the benefits of
your own sanity.

The best way to do this would be to actually subtly encourage the
power imbalance by means of a guiding hand, a further example of this
to exemplify this already very long example is that you would start
giving the 2 girls who both think they’re the individual
beneficiaries of the longer break their breaks together at the same
time, both taking the extra 10 minutes and both seeming to “come
back later” together at the same time to the other women, plus by
giving them their breaks at the same time they’re quite likely to
share the break together and thus become closer to each other.

The perceived privilege imbalance between the 3 girls getting standard
breaks and the 2 girls getting longer breaks would create segregation
and would cause the 2 girls to bond more closely and form their own
offshoot group as the other girls start to seem more hostile towards
them. You could encourage it by telling them both to go for their
breaks at the same time to really rub it in the face of the 3 girls on
standard breaks. This would covertly solidify your desire for the
other 2 girls to get on better and form their own group so that you
can thus have the group of 5 harpies split up into 2 smaller more
manageable groups. A 3 group and a 2 group who are not only a more
manageable size now due to less power, but may even weaken each others
power by attacking each other with catty snide remarks and defensive
body language, making themselves that much more manageable for you.

You’d think something so small wouldn’t piss off women or fuck up
their “relationships” however it does and it can, they’re
incredibly petty creatures and impulsive to the point of
self-sabotage, really they do a lot of the work for you once you’ve
planted the seeds of doubt and started guiding them in the direction
you want them to go in as long as they think they’re doing what
they’re doing for their own interest and not because they’re being
exploited.

Exploitation, real or imagined is synonymous with oppression to women
(feminism just changed the pimp from the husband to the CEO/store
manager), and this activates their victim card superpowers and
inherent inferiority complex that feminism has indoctrinated into
their collective mentality via years of social programming and
inculcation. Western women today tend to be very selfish,
self-centered and independence orientated so this is what you’re
buying into, their need to prove themselves to you by doing exactly
what you want because proving themselves to you is exactly what they
want to do for themselves, so they confuse proving themselves to you
as proving themselves to themselves – I hope that made fucking sense
to you – you may need a moment to get your head around that one.

Ironically the hypothetical women would end up doing a lot of the work
for you because they’re forced to work with the cards you’ve
handed them, if they think it’s for themselves and they think the
cards that are handed to them are for their benefit they’re more
than happy to instigate your agendas for you. It’s simple, you sell
what you delegate to them as being for their own personal benefit
(appeal to self-interest) and can do it with a reward (like the women
lapping up the longer breaks and “taking the free lunch
[http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-40-despise-free-lunch.html]“)
or as a punishment (you’re going to have to stay behind an extra 10
minutes, I’ve noticed lower productivity from you and I’m
concerned about your performance!) as long as you put some semblance
of benevolence into the delivery of your punishment, you can socially
ostracise a person without ostracising yourself thus removing the
target of their power and weakening their frame. Punishment in this
manner stops others devaluing their perception of you, although you
should use this sparingly. This is also a great thing to use on AMOGs,
backhanded compliments and devaluing them in the eyes of others by
essentially questioning their capabilities with faux concern, but
that’s a topic for another article!

If that’s enough, it’s enough. However if you’ve read The 48
Laws of Power and believe in Law 15, crushing your enemies totally
[http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-15-crush-your-enemy-totally.html],
then listen up, we’re now going to completely tear shit up here.

In our sensually hypothetical situation you’d eventually call a
staff meeting and address that there were some complaints about the 2
pretty girls getting longer breaks than everyone else (tell them in
private you didn’t really want to have to do this to them but the
other girls were kicking up a fuss – blame shift that shit, you’re
the good guy, it’s the girls fault for getting jealous of the hot
girls inherent superiority – those hot girls were entitled to that
longer break!) now you say to make up for this indiscretion, the 2
hottest chicks will stop getting longer breaks and this will be
justified “as only being fair” that 2 of the girls who didn’t
get longer breaks before should now enjoy longer breaks for the same
duration the original 2 did (in some perverse attempt at displaying
your love for equality and democracy, which will earn you brownie
points with all the angry leftists no less.)

What about the leftover chick you’re wondering? She’ll get her
longer breaks later, unfortunately you cannot allow 3 girls to all
have longer breaks as you wouldn’t get all the work needed done so
that forces that leftover girl in our hypothetical scenario to accept
this bullshit, pissed off as she is, she has no power to do anything
about it except walk out – if she walks out she’s an eliminated
threat. If she stays, she’s felt so isolated for so long that
she’s the most malleable out of all of them, she’ll do whatever it
takes just to feel accepted again.

What this will do is invert the jealousy, so now the 2 hotter chicks
are pissed off they lost their privilege whilst simultaneously envious
that 2 of the other girls are now enjoying it in their place, whilst
the girl who still hasn’t had longer breaks is jealous of fucking
everyone and by merit of that is feeling entirely excluded herself and
probably far more prone to cathartically bitch at random “well I
haven’t had any extended breaks yet!!!” I can already hear our
hypothetical loner proclaim.

You tell the 2 new girls on longer breaks that they are deserving of
it, one-on-one, to boost your own personal relationships with them,
you’re also a man of your word – you’re backing up your claim
that you think they deserve it because they are being rewarded,
they’ll see the immediate dynamic – not the bigger game at play
(abstract logic is not your forte ladies who may be reading!) so the
women in question see you as credible here as after all, you’re
following through.

Eventually the last girl gets her solitary break and everyone hates on
her for doing less work for a month or however long it was these
“longer break cycles” were lasting. Plus she was hating on
everyone beforehand because she felt left out. Voila. As if by magic,
you’ve completely culled the herds union, they’re nothing now and
they’ll all answer to your authority.

Divide and conquer bitches, this is shit governments and institutions
of any significant power use, we’re just applying it on a
micro-level here eg: in an office, not on an entire country or a
society. Of course in this example you already had company sanctioned
power, you were higher up the food chain than those you were
manipulating, when you are very low-level in the hierarchy the dynamic
is different as you don’t have your privilege of delegation to
sanction your agendas, in these situations you maintain popularity in
order to receive promotion so you can then gain access to the power to
delegate and thus cast influence with your personal agendas. Just like
a politician, you’re everyone’s friend who you never really cared
about for any reason at all other than their ability to lend you their
personal power out of admiration, then once you’re independently
empowered by their previous blessings and you win a majority you can
shit on everyone one by one with your poker face and do whatever the
fuck you like. Can’t stop you now, they shouldn’t have voted you
in! Bloody naive electorate! Ah, the flaws of democracy.

Example aside, and I really didn’t want it to take up so much space
because I wanted to discuss machiavellianism more in and of itself,
machiavellianism gets its etymological route from the man credited
with devising its tenets or at least, attempting to codify the art of
manipulation into literature, Mr. Niccolo Machiavelli
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli], a Florentine
politician and philosopher of prolific prestige from the renaissance
Italy period.

Every human has power to varying degrees, the potency of one’s power
is gauged by their value, value is discerned by material wealth,
genetic fitness (such as physical beauty and strength), “valuable
skills” (which can be subjective culture to culture) and specific
behavioural traits.

Skilled machiavellian’s are very good at creating the illusion of
being more powerful than they are and thus regardless of their actual
power, are usually perceived as more powerful/cunning than they are in
reality. They don’t just possess power but they project the image of
having power to those around them. A machiavellian will run rings
around the average person, to the uninitiated the machiavellian’s
grasp over psychology and their ability to wield manipulative
cognitive tools so effectively can seem almost esoteric due to the
amount of control it commands, but it’s like anything – if you can
stomach the inherent amoral nature of machiavellianism and apply your
intellect to study it and actualise it, you can ascertain it for
yourself, it is only beyond the grasp of the incredibly un-intelligent
and the morally indignant and self-righteous.

For a machiavellian, reputation maintenance means everything, and its
this illusion of amplifying your power so that it works for you which
is at the core of every Machiavellians agendas, examples of this are
people simply not even challenging you on things of a controversial
nature, or say groups of women wanting to have sex with a man because
they perceive said man as so incredibly high value within the social
circles they all frequent. This results in a positive feedback cycle
where the Machiavellian in question almost constantly has the
home-field advantage because of the insane amount of pre-selection he
or she enjoys from their environment. Constant validation, constantly
desired – it’s part of what fuels the narcissistic part of the
dark triad.

This however is not an active deployment of machiavellianism, it is
but a passive effect, a “rolling-on bonus” of a Machiavellians
power manifesting.

Under red pill philosophy the term “hamster” is used a lot, it
basically means “to allow people to fill in the blanks and come up
with their own rationalisation regardless of whether what their minds
filled the blanks in with is actually the truth or even logical” so
basically, you’re letting people assume shit about you without
revealing information, you guide their assumptions by being playful
but refusing to confirm something because “you don’t kiss and
tell” (if you’re gaming a chick) or if it’s a drug dealer on the
streets “you don’t snitch.”

A Machiavellian projects power by having some semblance of
credibility, but when questioned or tested deliberately allows a
certain space for speculation and error, people, out of ego, like to
believe their own conclusions more than they do other peoples because
it makes them feel valuable or with the extremely insecure even
“special” to get something right, so by allowing them to fill in
the blanks for you not only can they grant power to you but they can
validate themselves by proxy of discerning something about yourself.

If they fill in the blank with something that demonstrates high value
you can agree with it and because the person thought that in their own
mind, believing it’s their own device of thought, they are thus more
likely to believe the otherwise untrue notion. This also gives one
plausible deniability to rebuff any backlash _“it was your idea, not
mine.”_ Such is the power of ambiguity and mysteriousness, you can
activate the cerebral human hamster which is typically far more
profound in women.

Say in the example of gaming a chick, you can have her frame you as
being fuckable all by herself, simply as the Machiavellian, you’re
mentally guiding her into that direction and rejecting all and any
detrimental labels or shit tests she will inevitably subject you to
whilst affirming any ideas that she comes up with which raise your
value as being true; or at least, not denying/crushing them like you
did with the negative labels. This allows for further assumptions on
her part such  as: “_OMG you were with another girl that night
weren’t you?_” or an example from a situation I had a few weeks
back…

Her: “_You have money don’t you?!_”
Me: “_Yeah I do have money, £2.50 bitch_”
Her: _“OMG why won’t you just tell me?”_
Me: _“I’m deliberately mysterious, deal with it.”_

This phenomena inverses into what I’d term “egotistical
machiavellianism” if you’re willing to agree with someones
incorrect poorly reasoned conclusion not because you actually agree,
but because you want to appeal to their ego, win their validation or
have a sense of closeness with another. Reddit call this phenomena
“a circle jerk” but it happens in real life all the time EG:
delusional women all band together and go out to a restaurant together
to support each other in some irrationally insane session of
delusional approval seeking where everyone gives out copious amounts
of unwarranted and unsubstantiated validation in order to “Get
everything off their chests” which is more legitimately known as
“diffusing all personal responsibility onto third parties who
aren’t present” in order to gouge on and embellish a tidal wave
of simultaneous emotional catharsis and egotistical titillation.

If narcissism is the egotistical fuel which imbues machiavellianism
with its inherently risk-taking and audacious choice of delivered
behaviour, then machiavellianism is the computation of said behaviour,
the solidified strategy, the psychological chess-board incarnate.

Relevant reading material for budding Machiavellians:

Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and
Dirty Tricks by Oliver James – (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0091923948/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0091923948&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=VCO54HMN6TVOHR33]
– (UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00GOH4GK8/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=B00GOH4GK8&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21]

The 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene – (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143112783/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0143112783&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=ZFXE3GTQ7YDDMNN6]
– (UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1861979789/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1861979789&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21]

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene – (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140280197/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0140280197&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=3L3YY75VNRE34Y3I] –
(UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1861972784/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1861972784&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21]

The Art of War by Niccolo Machiavelli –  (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226500462/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226500462&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=7JS5TGVNRCXMQJYG]
– (UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0486445097/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0486445097&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21]

The Art of War by Sun Tzu – (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0857080091/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0857080091&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=7Y3DBDJM4PV2SYSD]
– (UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00GOH4GK8/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=B00GOH4GK8&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21] 
_(The __links for this book do not go to an original, but a superior
edition of the book which contains annotations to explain it, this is
an ancient text and thus requires academic clarification to be best
enjoyed and understood.)_

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli – (USA)
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140449159/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0140449159&linkCode=as2&tag=illimmen-20&linkId=ZDUCATGAWHXAQTYI]
– (UK)
[http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0140449159/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0140449159&linkCode=as2&tag=illimit-21]
 
-------------------------
Archived from https://theredarchive.com/blog/Illimitable-Men/understanding-machiavellianism.19102