586
587
588

Red Pill TheoryIM's Machiavellian Maxims (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan

I dislike referring to myself in the third person (corny) but I think it makes for an apt description of what I'm sharing with you guys.

These maxims are observations and deductions I've made on strategy and human behaviour in the past year. Of course it's not EVERYTHING I've recorded within that time as this is an article not a book, but it's a fairly good chunk.

I think you guys will enjoy it, especially those who struggle to read my usual denser, lengthier prose. I'll leave 25 maxims here, with a further 33 (58 total) available on my blog. Enjoy!


  1. – Any and all weaknesses can be used against you, and in conflict, will be. As such, weaponise your weaknesses by making them known; hide them in plain sight. Wear your weaknesses like armour, flaunt them, and you deprive your opponents the use of ammunition that would otherwise discredit you.

  2. – If weakness is speculated, deny it. If weakness is known, spin it. If it is directly observed, dismiss it. Should it look profitable, leverage it for status in the victimhood hierarchy.

  3. – Justification can only exist in respectful exchanges. When you are disliked, justifications are deemed excuses, your guilt, pre-determined.

  4. – Do not defend against your attackers, attack them; justification is a Machiavellian fallacy. Do not justify, stipulate. [More Here]

  5. – People are like stocks, acquire assets, avoid/drop liabilities and ignore market rumours; acquire insider information wherever possible.

  6. – The only difference between the toxic and the unlucky is the unlucky bring you down inadvertently, avoid both.

  7. – Attacks reveal intent, defence reveals priority. You don’t defend the unimportant. You don’t attack allies unless it’s a decoy, this simple concept can be extrapolated to any situation.

  8. – The battle of the sexes is the only war where crushing the opposition isn’t victory. No, a man must avoid checkmate and stalemate, he must continuously put his woman in check. This and only this is victory for both sides.

  9. – Everything is war in a different set of clothing. Love, business, politics, wherever there are competing interests there is a battlefield, and wherever there is a battlefield, there is war.

  10. – When things fall apart, be ready for total war.

  11. – Don’t insult the king in the throne room. If you must insult him, do so only amongst those you are confident share a mutual disdain. Lèse-majesté is dangerous, in this context a king is anyone you rely on socially, politically, economically etc.

  12. – Lust of all kinds begets deceit, desire is good until it isn’t.

  13. – Machiavellianism is the art of wielding power, how it’s wielded is determined by the wielder’s morality or lack thereof. Don’t blame the strategy, blame the soul of its employer. [Read more here.]

  14. – Machiavellianism does not determine one’s morals, one’s morals determine the use of Machiavellianism. He who believes he is too moral for Machiavellianism is no more moral than he is an idiot.

  15. – When people don’t like you, their questions are attacks. Sometimes these attacks are disguised as concerns, other times they are blatant. Whenever you’re asked a question, judge the legitimacy of the question. Insincere questions must be met with insincere answers, if any answer at all.

  16. – Do not trust those who overwhelm you with questions. They may simply be very curious, but it is more likely they are searching for dents in your armour. The line between curiosity and interrogation is thin, and people do not wear uniforms.

  17. – Doubling down on your position or ignoring the challenge usually trumps an apology.

  18. – Ignore your ignorer. To ignore your ignorer is to enter a war of most silent attrition. Who will speak first when silence is golden? Whoever speaks first loses. Whoever speaks first admits they need the other more, no matter what plausible deniability they may retroactively invoke to disguise the fact.

  19. – Ignoring is a non-response response; no response is a neutral response. Lots of neutral responses hint at a negative underlying sentiment, for people who like you struggle to ignore you.

  20. – Where bullying fails, charm succeeds and where charm fails, bullying succeeds. One should substitute in hard power when soft power fails and vice versa.

  21. – People are enticed by the allure of circumvention, operating outside the rules carries its own thrill. People feel good when they get away with things.

  22. – The trick to dealing with psychopaths lies in possessing a full awareness of the conditionality of the transaction, for they are scant in sentiment.

  23. – Not knowing what a psychopath wants from you is equivalent to operating within a perpetually detonating flashbang. If you cannot discern what they want, cease dealings.

  24. – Being charming is the result of happiness or success, not of virtue. It is amusing that people oft fail to make this distinction, they conflate charm with virtue. As a matter of prudence, the more charming, the more dangerous.

  25. – Whether you realise it or not, the powerful are always testing, always evaluating. They yield milligrams of respect only to those who consistently pass their evaluations; a fluke of success will not earn you their respect, it’ll get you a glance.


FULL ARTICLE: http://illimitablemen.com/2015/12/27/machiavellian-maxims/


[–]Capt-n 41 points42 points  (1 child)

This is so very valuable. I have learnt a lot of this myself but some of these points don't hit home yet. I understand them logically but they're not ingrained yet. Not a part of me. I will have to try them out and experiment with them so the deeper meaning becomes ingrained and a natural thing I do without thinking.

[–]geppetto123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some real life examples would make each point clearer. I'm sure for every point there is a gold worthy Reddit story behind it.

Especially bc stories soak deep in your brain. I noted that once you fully understand a principle the "1 sentence summary" is logical and self explanatory, but it doesn't work the other way round if you only have the summary but no examples.

Hopefully the author would share it here, his blog or at least in the book.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (25 children)

Insincere answers to insincere questions is effective and is a display of power

[–]2awalt_cupcake 5 points6 points  (22 children)

Please give an example on insincere answers to insincere questions? I'm having difficulty coming up with an example.

[–]LukeMcFuckStick 13 points14 points  (17 children)

When someone acting snarky questions why you do something. It's all about tone and setting. An example would be "why do you workout so much?" You can tell if they are sincerely asking the question or they are just attempting to be a dick. If they aren't sincere don't reply with a sincere "it feels good and it's healthy" instead just ignore or reply with a snarky answer.

[–]Lashlarue123 14 points15 points  (7 children)

So i dont look like you of course

[–]killxorxbexkilled 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Perfect. I was once asked (in a shitty way) by a co-worker (younger, fat, wifed up with a cunt, paying for his kids and hers), about my drink I brought to work every day (apple cider vinegar, lemon juice, etc) and my response was a flat "I drink it to look more like me and less like you" and he was immediately bummed.

[–]xandel434 2 points3 points  (5 children)

What is the recipe for this drink you speak of, and what are the benefits? I only know vinegar to soften meat. I am really curious.

[–]killxorxbexkilled 2 points3 points  (3 children)

ACV is well known for its health benefits and I was looking for an easy drink recipe and this is the one that I use -

http://draxe.com/recipe/secret-detox-drink/

[–]xandel434 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Interesting. Might have to try it. Thanks for replying btw.

[–]killxorxbexkilled 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's good, bro, and good for you. Do some more hunting around on it - pretty interesting stuff.

[–]xandel434 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will research it further. It's sounds better than what I drink now which is mostly protein.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Gotcha. What's the example of a snarky answer? Like "because I'm a douchebag" with your eyes widened and shaking your head in a semi-mocking way?

[–]bjorgein 25 points26 points  (3 children)

I gotta workout double to make up for fatasses like yourself.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Ooooo My douche-o-meter is off the charts

Edit: everyone downvoting this, I support douchebaggery

[–]bjorgein 13 points14 points  (1 child)

If someone asks a disrespectful question, expect a disrespectful answer.

[–]2awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I loved it haha. And simply put "disrespectful question, get a disrespectful answer".

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (2 children)

"Because I am training to be an X rated porn star"

[–]2awalt_cupcake 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Okay so snarky is agree and amplify to absurdity.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its my way, yes.

[–]2rp_valiant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

basically, when someone's giving you attitude they're shit testing you. A&A, pressure flip and so on. A sarcastic/bitchy fake-question is a shit test. Shit tests can come from anyone.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

If my mother-in-law asked me:

"Is it appropriate for a married man to take a separate vacation from his wife?"

She isnt really looking for an answer. Its a shaming technique to guilt me into vacation with wife and kids at her house when id prefer to spend my free time doing something else....like....golf.

An insincere answer:

"No, its wildly inappropriate and almost always the sign of a deeply damaged relationship by a sick, narcissistic individual"

This works well in establishing that I am the sole judge of my behavior and cannot be easily manipulated.

Does that help?

Concern trolls often ask insincere questions here:

"Guys, alot of this makes sense but isnt it a bit misogynist?"

[–]sorceryofthetesticle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

One thing I've noticed, if the person asking those kinds of questions does not respect you, insincere answers do not work as well. Back before TRP, I would only sometimes give my ex-gf snarky answers to shit test-questions. At the beginning, it would usually shut her up, but as our relationship degraded (ie. i became more pussywhipped), she would just roll her eyes and keep testing until I'd relent.

Worded differently, it's worth considering that insincere answers are the right choice only if you're saying them from a position of relative strength (abundance, independence, absolute certainty in yourself etc). That way, they are a sign of your strength; they don't magically create the strength for you. Though inexperienced people won't be able to tell the difference for a while.

[–]AlphaMortal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could be understood as shit-testing the shit-tester...

[–]BrodinsOats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree and amplify to a shit test.

[–]AllOrDeath 1 point2 points  (1 child)

According to who? For me, any insincere conversation tactics used by another person either automatically or in a very short time downgrades their status harshly in my eyes. Either I throw them out of my life completely or, if I can't do that, treat them politely but like an object. How is a person that I choose to degrade to one of those 2 positions powerful?

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points  (12 children)

Ridiculous man. I had a thought. Like from the Matrix, when Neo gets the chip plugged in his head and instantly learns Kung Fu. I would like a chip called The Illimitableman's Philosophy on how to live life with a huge fucking competitive advantage. And boom, I know what you know. You're a fuckin' genius man. Way ahead of the times. Appreciate the blog. Keep it up.

[–]LukeMcFuckStick 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Rollo and IM are both legends

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted]  (7 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted]  (6 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]new_alpha 3 points4 points  (1 child)

          The people who get money teaching other people how to get money. And often the people teaching people how to get money say to their clients that the way to get money is teaching people how to get money.

          [–]2rp_valiant 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          it's called practising what you preach. I'm pretty sure I know what IM does for a living considering his interests, and if I'm correct then his knowledge of Machiavellianism would be extremely lucrative within that industry.

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            people usually use the "/s" as the end of their sentence.

            [–]Mithra9009 20 points21 points  (9 children)

            Ignoring is a non-response response; no response is a neutral response. Lots of neutral responses hint at a negative underlying sentiment, for people who like you struggle to ignore you.

            I really love this one. It's very therapeutic for me. Whenever I spend all this time on RP, reading up on machiavellianism, there's always this illusion that I keep falling into: That somehow, while we discuss it, we "stop" playing the game. Somehow, when we talk about the game, we transcend it or we enter some kind of bubble where it doesn't exist. Everything is a move in the game of power. Conversing about the game is still a tactic in the game. This is a topic where the meta-topic is still the topic itself. That raises a question for me: How does empowering us empower you?

            [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 37 points38 points  (2 children)

            How does empowering us empower you?

            I make money and I get to connect with people I otherwise wouldn't.

            [–]2rp_valiant 3 points4 points  (1 child)

            I'm sure I'd be impressed if I knew who visited TRP. I already know that at least a handful of scientists, lawyers and doctors are regulars here. I bet the business and industrialist members are pretty interesting and successful folks.

            [–]2awalt_cupcake 11 points12 points  (5 children)

            How does empowering us empower you?

            I'm mingling with winners and winners-to-be therefore have a higher chance of winning myself. On that same note, I get to experience a type of brother-hood I never got to experience IRL.

            [–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (4 children)

            This right here is why I will always advocate for both taking TRP beyond sexual strategy and forming in-person groups. We'd be unstoppable.

            [–]2awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (3 children)

            Ideally, that would be great. There's too much risk revealing ourselves at this point in history. Too much BP polluting our air.

            [–]2rp_valiant 0 points1 point  (2 children)

            I don't think it's something that could be easily organised in a "come meet up at X location" reddit post, but it could be done. For example, I'm guessing bsutansalt vetted people before meeting up to discuss the frat.

            [–]2awalt_cupcake 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            If it was pulled off, I'd imagine invitations would be made in secret. Preferably in person.

            [–]Gigandeth 15 points16 points  (4 children)

            Please write a fucking book. I will buy it.

            [–]Kingoffistycuffs 8 points9 points  (2 children)

            Do you mean in addition to the two he's written? Or IM easy to whip up brand of Machiavellinism just need to add an egg

            [–]rusmrp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Which exactly? I'd like to read them.

            [–]testonator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            What books have IM written?

            [–]seducer4real 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            He is.

            [–]1DaBaulz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Love the observations about ignoring. I have found purposeful non responses in conversation to be really powerful.

            Great posts as usual, thank you

            [–]shamer_of_whores 7 points8 points  (0 children)

            Hey brother, I absolutely loved this post, especially this bulletpoint:

            12. – Lust of all kinds begets deceit, desire is good until it isn’t.

            I think many of us forget this point but I can't help but be reminded of this fantastic passage from Herman Melville's Moby Dick. I think this pagaraph perfectly exemplifies your overarching point.

            The chief mate of the Pequod was Starbuck, a native of Nantucket, and a Quaker by descent. He was a long, earnest man, and though born on an icy coast, seemed well adapted to endure hot latitudes, his flesh being hard as twice-baked biscuit. Transported to the Indies, his live blood would not spoil like bottled ale. He must have been born in some time of general drought and famine, or upon one of those fast days for which his state is famous. Only some thirty arid summers had he seen; those summers had dried up all his physical superfluousness. But this, his thinness, so to speak, seemed no more the token of wasting anxieties and cares, than it seemed the indication of any bodily blight. It was merely the condensation of the man. He was by no means ill-looking; quite the contrary. His pure tight skin was an excellent fit; and closely wrapped up in it, and embalmed with inner health and strength, like a revivified Egyptian, this Starbuck seemed prepared to endure for long ages to come, and to endure always, as now; for be it Polar snow or torrid sun, like a patent chronometer, his interior vitality was warranted to do well in all climates. Looking into his eyes, you seemed to see there the yet lingering images of those thousand-fold perils he had calmly confronted through life. A staid, steadfast man, whose life for the most part was a telling pantomime of action, and not a tame chapter of sounds. Yet, for all his hardy sobriety and fortitude, there were certain qualities in him which at times affected, and in some cases seemed well nigh to overbalance all the rest. Uncommonly conscientious for a seaman, and endued with a deep natural reverence, the wild watery loneliness of his life did therefore strongly incline him to superstition; but to that sort of superstition, which in some organizations seems rather to spring, somehow, from intelligence than from ignorance. Outward portents and inward presentiments were his. And if at times these things bent the welded iron of his soul, much more did his far-away domestic memories of his young Cape wife and child, tend to bend him still more from the original ruggedness of his nature, and open him still further to those latent influences which, in some honest-hearted men, restrain the gush of dare-devil daring, so often evinced by others in the more perilous vicissitudes of the fishery. "I will have no man in my boat," said Starbuck, "who is not afraid of a whale." By this, he seemed to mean, not only that the most reliable and useful courage was that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril, but that an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward.

            Excellent post as always, IM!

            [–]karmaBerserk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Never show weakness

            I knew for years that this thing was a pure bs

            weaponise your weaknesses by making them known; Wear your weaknesses like armour, flaunt them, and you deprive your opponents the use of ammunition that would otherwise discredit you.

            that's is how you should handle your weaknesses

            [–]areshoe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            My thanks as I consider this and your particular this "maxims" style of presenting these rules to be dripping with value.

            [–]korben_manzarek 4 points5 points  (3 children)

            Aren't literally the first two on your list in direct contradiction? If I'm short, should I present myself as 'the short guy', or accuse others of being too tall?

            [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

            There's more than one way to skin a cat.

            Likewise, it depends on context.

            If you suspect your shortness will be used against you, self-deprecate "I'm that that annoying short guy insecure about his height" (you don't actually have to be insecure about it but appealing to people's negativity bias endears them to you - Milo Yiannopolis and Russell Brand do this all the time)

            So if you are in a conflict, yes, it's worth pointing out your weaknesses first. Absent conflict there is no point and people will wonder why you're mentioning it. Me? Short? I never noticed it.

            Like I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat, try each strategy for yourself and use what you find works best. Personally, to be less predictable, I'd use both stratagems with no pattern.

            [–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Powertalk is flexible. You can make a self-deprecating joke or you can sarcastically palm off a sniping comment in a number of ways, for example by sarcastically reacting to it as if you took it for an honest question/statement. "Ha, look at Mr Big Man over here" (i.e. "napoleon complex" reference), "actually, I'm pretty short". People pick flaws because they're after a defensive or flustered reaction - break the pattern that they expect and you come out on top.

            [–]LongElm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

            Like the 48 Laws of Power Superthread, I motion the same with IllimitableMan's Machiavellian's Maxims. You're doing me a solid man. Thank you.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I love posts like these, just what I needed.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            TIL what "put [person] in check" comes from.

            [–]savedarticles 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            "Do not trust those who overwhelm you with questions. They may simply be very curious, but it is more likely they are searching for dents in your armour. The line between curiosity and interrogation is thin, and people do not wear uniforms."

            This is a good one. At middle age I've come to be suspicious of basically anyone asking questions. There is really nothing they need to know about me unless it's strictly for whatever is at hand. Everyone is fishing. I've found that silence/ignoring is an incredibly powerful tool and my goto.

            On the other hand, it's amazing how much you can get out of people just shooting the shit over the watercooler. They will spill their weaknesses readily.

            [–]Senior Contributordeepthrill 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I'm late to the party here. But I have an example about using #1 and how important it is. When you're starting out in something, whether it's entrepreneurial, sales, engineering, pharmacy, legal, whatever it is you have to sell yourself or your ideas, and you're young, you can display it upfront. Saying, "look, I know I may be young for what I'm doing, but it means I was able to get here and I have a lot more enthusiasm and energy than you may get from someone else." To your potential target, it shows you're aware of a potential weakness and are using it to benefit them in some way. Something I've picked up on from talking to other small business owners about starting out.

            [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

            6,8,12, 19, 22, 23 do not sound like they are Machiavellian to me.

            6,8- Machiavelli in The Prince advocates his ruthlessness to avoid depending on fortune. He compares fortune to a woman and how you need to beat them. If you got unlucky or toxic people you get rid of them in Machiavellian thought

            12- is a tautology

            22,23- There was no such thing as a psychopath in Machiavellian thought. The traits are considered normal ruling behavior in his writings.

            I like the other points though, lots of good insights!

            For those interested I wrote an essay on Machiavelli for my blog which can be found here:

            https://awesomedrifter.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/the-prince-in-hellmachiavellis-legacy/

            [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Yeah, #13 stood out for me. And solid article on your blog.

            [–]IAMAwhitecismaleAMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            This is why I sort by controversial lol

            [–]SebastienMS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Ahh never more have I been so fond of Machiavellian theory, I suppose I should pick up The Prince again and brush up.

            [–]no_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Damn. This is just fantastic

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            AMAZING STUFF. Put into words some things that I've been thinking about:

            One of my "weaknesses" is I am the most moral, honest, and fair person that anybody knows. Often putting others before myself (I am Christian). I know this. Everybody else knows it. I know they know it.

            Therefore my word and position is often unassailable in a given situation. You better believe I fucking know that and use it. That doesn't mean I lie or anything. People need to realize that you can use these principles to achieve good outcomes in a "morally acceptable" (to you) way.

            That doesn't mean that, if you deserve it, I won't wreck you, turn your friends against you, freeze you out, forget you completely, expose you, publicly shame you, etc. as it suits my needs. If I think you deserve it.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I think you mean Christians are delusional. I'm talking about honest. One is lying to yourself, the other is lying to others.

              [–]PrinceBean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I was actually going to post something with similar conclusions, but wow, OP hit the nail on the head. These maxims should all be internalized just like the 48 Laws of Power. Great article.

              [–]Crimsonwind85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Hey illimitableman, thanks for these posts. Your insights into the manosphere is awesome.

              [–]Toxicbutt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Best ones:

              1. Machiavellianism is the art of wielding power, how it’s wielded is determined by the wielder’s morality or lack thereof. Don’t blame the strategy, blame the soul of its employer. [Read more here.]

              2. Machiavellianism does not determine one’s morals, one’s morals determine the use of Machiavellianism. He who believes he is too moral for Machiavellianism is no more moral than he is an idiot.

              3. When people don’t like you, their questions are attacks. Sometimes these attacks are disguised as concerns, other times they are blatant. Whenever you’re asked a question, judge the legitimacy of the question. Insincere questions must be met with insincere answers, if any answer at all.

              4. Real victims suffer in silence, posers pretending to be victims do so to gain money and status. Be wary of “loud victims” they are almost always playacting.

              5. Strong personalities hate the weak and distrust the strong. A man who considers himself a king rarely wants to share the room with another.

              6. We’re all players in a game. You’re a player or a piece on the board, you move or you’re moved. You play the game, or the game plays you.

              7. You can’t not play the game. You don’t beat the game by denying the game; death’s the only escape from the game. Until then, play well to live well.

              8. Legitimate concern is rare, more often than not displayed concern is a means to an end, a foot in the door to seize the moral high ground.

              9. You nearly always learn more about somebody in an informal setting than you would a formal one. Paranoia and thus mental defences are greater in formal settings, to truly get to know somebody you must mingle informally. Of course, as much as this opens them up, it opens you up too.

              10. Advice that wasn’t asked for is rarely appreciated, let alone followed. Don’t give advice that isn’t asked for, don’t advise everybody who asks for your insight, only advise those you think worthy. An “I don’t know” will keep things civil without forcing you to waste time.

              11. When you advise people you reveal more about yourself than you perhaps realise, after all, your advice reflects the core of who you are, it reveals the why and how rather than merely the what. What’s are easy to change, why’s and how’s aren’t, they’re more identifying.

              12. – The quickest way to gain people’s trust is to help them.

              13. – Be magnanimous to friends, civil to strangers and ruthless to foes; furthermore, know who’s who.

              Also knowing when to act and be patient is crucial. Glad someone took the time to write these out. Most of these become instinctive after they're witnessed and tested.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Lovely contributions.

              This reads akin to the powerful and profound insights of Marcus Aurelius and Confucius back in the day, though with a clearer Machiavellianist edge to it. So essentially... like Greene's 48 Laws.

              [–]AmputateYourHead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              This is great, thanks for spending the time to write it up and share it.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I like these IM's. I believe they come out of a lack of a shared way to behave. There are people who secretly want power and will take advantage of anyone who does not share their need for power to get what they feel is their due. However, power is a game that does not have to be terrible or evil, but is in fact rational and quite easily understandable with tips such as this and laws.

              [–]EntitledShitHead 0 points1 point  (3 children)

              Wear your weaknesses like armour, flaunt them, and you deprive your opponents the use of ammunition that would otherwise discredit you.

              This is so true. I have some short friends that wear like 3 inch boots, and they get red in the face and indignant when someone talks about their height. On the other hand, I have another friend that's 5'4, and he doesn't wear boots, and whenever someone makes fun of his height, he laughs about and says something along the line of: I can't even have a napoleon complex because he was taller than I am. Guess which one is succeeding professionally and dating more attractive women?

              If weakness is speculated, deny it. If weakness is known, spin it. If it is directly observed, dismiss it. Should it look profitable, leverage it for status in the victimhood hierarchy.

              Speculation: So if someone accuses you of being lazy deny it. Spin it: If someone accuses you of watching Youtube videos at work instead of working, accuse them of projection. If your manager accuses you of not being productive at work, say that you're not productive at work because you don't see the manager working hard and that is being pass off to you, but you really want to work hard, just don't know how to.

              When you are disliked, justifications are deemed excuses, your guilt, pre-determined.

              Does that mean that is a girl accuses you of something, you should just walk away?—You're not gonna change her mind and she probably doesn't respect you.

              Do not defend against your attackers, attack them; justification is a Machiavellian fallacy. Do not justify, stipulate.

              Would this be right?

              Other: [Aggressive tone] "You you even know what X is about?"

              I: [Get Aggressive and louder]: "Dafaq kind of question is that? Do you even know X. Answer me this one question: Do you Know what really X, its fine if you don't?"

              Other: "I do"

              I: "explain it"

              The battle of the sexes is the only war where crushing the opposition isn’t victory. No, a man must avoid checkmate and stalemate, he must continuously put his woman in check. This and only this is victory for both sides.

              Women say they want equal relationships, but they really don't. When they are in equal relationships, the girls use the guys or cheat on them because they are boring. Watch Cheaters---most of the women that cheat say they cheat because they boyfriend was boring.

              Everything is war in a different set of clothing. Love, business, politics, wherever there are competing interests there is a battlefield, and wherever there is a battlefield, there is war.

              Its no secret to us red pillers that every conversation has a power dynamic. its the way we are wired---we see the world as a hierarchy. If you're at the top of the spectrum, you will always have the upper hand and get what you want---e.g., when I go to some restaurants, I get free food sometimes. I'm a well dressed, fit, well groom, hot stud. They benefit more from having people like me being regulars at their place than not.

              Don’t insult the king in the throne room. If you must insult him, do so only amongst those you are confident share a mutual disdain. Lèse-majesté is dangerous, in this context a king is anyone you rely on socially, politically, economically etc.

              What if you're boss is attacking you or reprimanding you? You'd probably have bigger problems then, but what can you do?

              Lust of all kinds begets deceit, desire is good until it isn’t.

              People will do anything to get what they want. Once they get it though, they promises they made don't really matter any more. (e.g., pillow talk.)

              Whenever you’re asked a question, judge the legitimacy of the question. Insincere questions must be met with insincere answers, if any answer at all.

              Can someone elaborate on this? I don't understand it.

              Do not trust those who overwhelm you with questions. They may simply be very curious, but it is more likely they are searching for dents in your armour. The line between curiosity and interrogation is thin, and people do not wear uniforms.

              I'm an accounting intern. I ask my managers a shit ton of questions about accounting shit, and the company and other companies and our clients. None of the interns there ask as many questions as I do. I am not looking for any of their weakness, I just like learning about the industry. Should I stop doing that so they don't get the wrong idea?

              Doubling down on your position or ignoring the challenge usually trumps an apology.

              Never apologize. If you appear weak, you are done. This is a very good point, in negotiations, you always ask more, so that you can reach a compromise.

              Ignore your ignorer. To ignore your ignorer is to enter a war of most silent attrition. Who will speak first when silence is golden? Whoever speaks first loses. Whoever speaks first admits they need the other more, no matter what plausible deniability they may retroactively invoke to disguise the fact.

              Same reason that when on dates if you guys reach a silence, you should just look at her and wait for her to talk first.

              Where bullying fails, charm succeeds and where charm fails, bullying succeeds. One should substitute in hard power when soft power fails and vice versa.

              Where can I read up more on this? This sounds like the good cop bad cop phenomena.

              People are enticed by the allure of circumvention, operating outside the rules carries its own thrill. People feel good when they get away with things.

              Can someone elaborate or give an example of this? I don't think I understand it.

              Being charming is the result of happiness or success, not of virtue. It is amusing that people oft fail to make this distinction, they conflate charm with virtue. As a matter of prudence, the more charming, the more dangerous.

              I have never thought about that, but most of the charming people I know are rich, attractive, and succeed at everything they do. One of your other posts talks about how happiness is achieved by success and progress in what you do.

              [–]spatie1234 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Would this be right? [....]

              This is a very tricky situation, as you are reacting upon someone and give them the power, you are the one that is seeking affirmation. When you would go into explaining something, the other person could completely disregard that by saying you didn't understand the question or simply by saying it doesn't work like that in a lot of cases. If someone would have an angry tone and wants to go in a debate I would just stay calm, smile and flip the situation by for example saying: 'you also took an epistemology class online?', now the other person has to explain their behaviour and why the other person thinks he/she feels superior, then simply find the flaws in their logic and crush them. Even easier is to flip it by asking why the person is seeking affirmation in such a hostile manner. Most would act upon that and apologise for their behaviour and explain themselves, very often you don't even need to answer the question anymore and you can end it by saying it's all right to be angry or frustrated at times by other stuff happening in life and taking it out on you.

              [–]EntitledShitHead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              by saying you didn't understand the question or simply by saying it doesn't work like that in a lot of cases

              That is so true.

              If someone would have an angry tone and wants to go in a debate I would just stay calm, smile and flip the situation by for example saying: 'you also took an epistemology class online?', now the other person has to explain their behaviour and why the other person thinks he/she feels superior, then simply find the flaws in their logic and crush them.

              You sly dog, lol.

              [–]2awalt_cupcake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              #37 is me in life right now. Thanks for this. I need to pull back on my encroacher performance and let the friendship investments sink in. I'm moving too quick for reality to catch up.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              Thoughts on Sun Tzu's the Art of War Illimitableman? Lots of great quotes in there.

              [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Sun Tzu is essential reading, obviously being a military general he takes a military approach to Machiavellianism rather than a political/statescraft approach like Machiavelli. Nevertheless, military strategy translates to everything else pretty well. Being a short text, it's well worth a read, although I'd recommend getting an annotated copy because being translated from ancient Chinese some of the things may sound odd.

              [–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              One oft-overlooked important rule for reading both The Prince and Art of War is that you need to try to understand the mentality rather than the actual actions, too. Far too many people read these books and come away with a better understanding of basic military strategy or Renaissance era city-state diplomacy, but fail to see through the surface-level lesson to the mentality that is being wielded against the subject's opponents. I don't know whether that's hard for people who aren't naturally Machiavellian, but it doesn't often seem to be well-implemented.

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

              deleted What is this?

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                deleted What is this?

                [–]2rp_valiant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                it's difficult to find modern books that speak at such levels due to the political climate and the relative inanity of modern politics in general. On the military side, you'll find more books on asymmetric warfare than you will on conventional warfare, but they are well worth reading and some of the lessons of guerilla warfare can directly apply modern business and political "conflicts", especially dealing with a goliath. I've heard good things about this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asymmetric-Warfare-Threat-Response-Century/dp/074563365X

                [–]Linrraba 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                When youre verbaly attacked, which is the best approach? Trying a witty comeback even if it falls short or just flat out ignoring

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

                Depends on the context I would assume and who is attacking you. Can you give a more specific example. There was a great post by someone about "power plays" but I think the guy deleted it. I will try to find it.

                Edit: Here you go. Disarming Power Plays. The user deleted their profile, that's what it was, as I was messaging them at the time. But the post is still here. Hope this helps. I'm sure /u/illimitableman has something even better to offer as advice.

                [–]Linrraba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Not dealing with any specific situation. Just asked out of curiosity.

                [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                  Automod deletes posts containing links to within Reddit. It's to prevent brigading and vote manipulation. Use archive.is or similar to link to Reddit. It's gotten me a few times too.

                  [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                  [deleted]

                  [–]ThePacketSlinger 8 points9 points  (1 child)

                  Wanting anything badly enough can easily lead to you becoming undone by that thing. Desire will push you to be more than you are until you have too much of it, then it will make you weak and undo all of your efforts.

                  [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                  Great explanations from both you and /u/Mithra9009 here.

                  [–]Mithra9009 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                  I found it odd at first. It seems to imply that feeling desire will lead to you becoming a liar. It actually means that your desire itself will lie to you and tell you that it is good to fulfill it when it may in fact be leading you to your own ruination.

                  [–]RealRational 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                  Ignoring is a non-response response; no response is a neutral response. Lots of neutral responses hint at a negative underlying sentiment, for people who like you struggle to ignore you.

                  I'm with you until "hint at a negative underlying sentiment," then after that I'm not sure what you mean by "for people who like you struggle to ignore you". It's after a comma, how is that part of "Lots of neutral responses hint at a negative underlying sentiment?

                  [–]bobbothegod 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                  Substitute, the word "for" with the word "because", for in this context they are synonymous.

                  [–]RealRational 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  hm, I find it's the people who don't like you that really can't ignore you.

                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  No-one is self made. No one becomes a master without first being an apprentice.

                  Like you I look to Sun Tzu, Niccolò Machiavelli and dare I say the Marquis de Sade for philosophy, and guidance.

                  [–]Wokiip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Can someone ELI5 this one? Especially the part of "justification is a machiavellian fallacy" – Do not defend against your attackers, attack them; justification is a Machiavellian fallacy. Do not justify, stipulate. [More Here]

                  That link, english is pretty difficult to read.

                  [–]Frothyogreloins 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  Great post but the victory of the battle of the sexes is crushing your opponent if you know what I mean.

                  [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Hahahaha I think I know exactly what you mean, Christian Grey.

                  [–]_phoenix_king_ 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                  IllimitableMan,

                  I have a question regarding maxim #42 on your blog. The maxim is as follows ...

                  "Too much perception is threatening, even intimidating, people distrust you when they realise you are as perceptive as you are, even if you mean them no ill will. When people know you have the potential to destroy them, like nuclear material, they quarantine you."

                  Question: Do you think that this maxim applies to men and women equally?

                  [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  Question: Do you think that this maxim applies to men and women equally?

                  Yes, yes I do. Strategy is strategy, of course, a woman's beauty can cause men to miscalculate gambits, but in the big scheme of things, a threat is a threat whether it's male or female.

                  [–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  Women have been cultivating an air of innocent naivete since time immemorial. They're very cloak-and-dagger in their social interactions while maintaining a very innocent outward appearance - it's how they've managed to get away with hiding red pill truths for so long. Men have to learn this shit, but when we do we can apply it much more broadly. Women don't seem to have the capability to wield their deception in higher functions like business or politics very well.

                  [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  There is a time and place for everything.

                  In seduction, I prefer using piercing perception to completely mind-fuck a woman's mind.

                  After 2 minutes of knowing her and sizing her up, like no one has ever done, is powerful and instant.

                  In terms of business/war, arguably very similar, since you are dealing with other men. This holds very true. I have had to drastically reduce my perceived perception to those around me because it is very intimidating and ego destroying for most. It's best to appear like an average dude with a little edge. There will always come a time when you have to strike and you will blind-side everyone. It's sometimes even beneficial to letting yourself appear being deceived and letting it happen on small-scales to maintain a climate of humility. Others have to believe they can gain an edge over you.

                  [–]Temptationn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                  – Any and all weaknesses can be used against you, and in conflict, will be. As such, weaponise your weaknesses by making them known; hide them in plain sight. Wear your weaknesses like armour, flaunt them, and you deprive your opponents the use of ammunition that would otherwise discredit you.

                  Reminds me of 8 Mile when eminem rapped about all his weaknesses and left the other guy speechless as to what to say about him

                  [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  Yes, that's exactly how this maxim was used to grant Eminem victory, it's a very good example of it as well.

                  [–]PhantomOfTheIbra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Can someone explain #22 for me, thanks.

                  [–]higuisty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  I am a big fan of Machiavellian ideas, read multiple books (aside from the prince) about it

                  but in reality, one thing I am sure about is this: If you don't have something the people need, no matter how Machiavellian you are, you won't be powerful.

                  A lot of people who start reading about Machiavelli think that his ideas are the way to GET power, which isn't true, it's a way to manage the power you already have.

                  [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                  [removed]

                  [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                  [removed]

                    [–]diamondbutcher -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

                    – People are like stocks, acquire assets, avoid/drop liabilities and ignore market rumours; acquire insider information wherever possible.

                    da fuq? do you even stock cause this analogy makes as much sense as my sentence. 1) assets and liabilities go on the balance sheet and are more of corp finance/ibanking thing. 2) you're supposed to buy the rumor, not ignore it fuccboi, and sell on the news. 3) acquire inside info? smh

                    [–]2rp_valiant 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                    really?

                    1. In general a company wants to acquire assets and drop liabilities. Most companies want to improve their balance sheets unless they're trying to avoid a hostile takeover or are making a long-term bet.

                    2. You're obviously referring to day trading where IM is referring to investing - for value investing you should indeed ignore rumours and buy on value. Day trading is for scrubs.

                    3. As much as insider info is illegal, it's also big business and a tip-off can be worth a shit-ton of money if you can sneak it past the FCA/FSA. In a non-investing context the illegality is usually not there so it's simply profitable.

                    Try to be less dense.

                    [–]diamondbutcher -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

                    fuccboi you literally parroted & over generalized beginner concepts copy and pasted from investopedia... something a high-schooler does. FOH, childish ass can't even conceptualize yet. Red Piller pfft, go get your uni cheerleader skirt nancy

                    [–]2rp_valiant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    of course they're generalisations, we're talking about a metaphor IM was making. Jesus christ. I even said "in general" at the start. You need to work on your reading comprehension buddy.