These maxims are observations and deductions I've made on strategy and human behaviour, this piece being a continuation of the maxims I published back in March.
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 29 (54 total) available on the blog. Enjoy!
You can find part 1 here: http://illimitablemen.com/2015/12/27/machiavellian-maxims/
And part 2 here: http://illimitablemen.com/2016/03/07/machiavellian-maxims-part-2/
-
– In matters of persuasion one should appeal to emotion, not reason. Where this fails, use sophistry.
-
– Logical fallacies double as effective Machiavellian power plays, for logic is antithetical to cunning.
-
– Anticipate your opponent’s moves, preempting where possible and implementing contingencies where not.
-
– An intellectual more than anybody must become Machiavellian, for it is this and this alone that will save them from predacious egos. [See More Here.]
-
– Delivery is more persuasive than substance, optimise appearance and strike when the time is right, for masterful delivery can make even the mundane into magic.
-
– In matters of defection it is more effective to offer revenge than money.
-
– It is foolish to sentimentally gauge the chance of betrayal, but rather, one should assess the incentive and capacity for doing so. Offer disincentives to maximise loyalty.
-
– Your most intimate enemies will admire you, copy you and take all your advice only to use it for an agenda that undermines yours.
-
– Each personality is a puzzle in which favour can be unlocked by demonstrating the traits desired by the personality, learn a personality and complement it to influence it.
-
– Apologies are oft ineffectual, for they stir up resentment and exacerbate matters by highlighting wrongdoing. A leader should not show regret, he should ignore, deny acknowledgement, or spin a negative into a positive. To regret is to show weakness and invite belittlement.
-
– Appear unappealing to those who don’t appeal to you, for it is better to be undesired than to be desired by the undesirable.
-
– To permit insolence from one is to court it from all; crush the insolent or deprive them a platform, lest you earn a reputation for timidity.
-
– The most terrible action can be bred from the best of intention. Be mindful of bad advice from the well intended, they may mean well but unintentional or not, their misinformation will destroy you.
-
– The power players have learned to harness the zealous delusions of their pawns to dress unvirtuous agendas in the clothing of nobility.
-
– Anybody who can conceive of evil can enact it.
-
– Conceal your intentions whilst ascertaining the competition’s, he who has the most correct data wins; always be mindful of misinformation.
-
– Most believe one should never be ruthless (because it’s evil) or that one should always be ruthless (because otherwise you’re weak). Both are wrong.
-
– Provocation is an invitation to act in a way that reduce’s one’s power; as such, ignoring is a skill any would-be Machiavellian would do well to master.
-
– Mastery of interpersonal psychology is micro Machiavellianism, mastery of military strategy is macro Machiavellianism and business strategy is both.
-
– Transactional analysis: Every time somebody asks you a question, they want you to give them value, or they’re looking to sabotage you. Be mindful of the blur between curiosity and inquisition.
-
– Strive for success but be cautious of it, for one who knows not how to handle it will be robbed of the qualities that made them great; rampant success introduces an overconfidence that diminishes reason and a complacency that destroys drive – do not be a victim of your success.
-
– The histrionic weaponises their storytelling talent on the slightest whim, for blackmail is how they obtain and chaos is how they indulge. Be wary the histrionic, for they take root and disrupt venomously like a toxin.
-
– Should you see the trifecta of: confrontation, dismissiveness and attention seeking – you have yourself a histrionic. Tread on their egg shells and succumb to aggressive sensitivity, or reject them by refusing to deign acknowledgement.
-
– Absence increases respect only when the absence is legitimate. If you ignore somebody but are observed by the ignored engaging others, you are not absent, and so elicit disrespect rather than respect. True absence is in disappearance, not observable silence.
- – It’s subtler to deprive than to inflict. Inflict to make a statement, deprive to attack with the stealth of plausible deniability.
FULL ARTICLE: https://illimitablemen.com/2016/04/30/machiavellian-maxims-part-3/
capt_behindsight 9y ago
Your observations are consistently astute.
I gotta ask how you would go about #1 and 2; weaponizing emotion is something that seems to fly in the face of stoicism and a lot of things talked about here, but it's effective. It's a big reason feminists appear to "win" arguments despite flawed logic.
RP men can't exactly play the victim card, but I like what you mention about staying hands off and ambivalent. can good logic and planning while wielding pathos alter the social landscape in a way to cause others to detonate on their own?
Kind of how trump plants the seed of incompetence in others and let's them fail to cope on their own.
memphisjohn 9y ago
Happy Birthday to Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli; 3 May 1469
[deleted] 9y ago
No offense. I like the intellectual feeling of your writing, but I feel like these are useless without examples and application. A lot of these are just empty witticisms. Machiavelli may be famous for some of his zingers, but he followed them up with concrete examples from history and his own personal experience. He didn't just sit in his arm chair and think of clever strings of words to put together that sound nice. Honestly, this would be a great post if it wasn't just a list of vague advice that sounds intellectually appealing. Bring examples to the table - from the media, from your personal life, from history.
[deleted]
IllimitableMan 9y ago
Cunning is not static. If you'd read the 48 laws you'd know some laws have reversals. These aren't so much rules as they are stratagems, it is up to the person to be sharp enough to realise when to use one stratagem and when to use another. Sometimes you want to crush, sometimes you want to ignore, you have to make the call if it's better to ignore or crush.
pridebrah 9y ago
Very, very interesting post and articles. I went back to part 1 and would like someone to elaborate on implementing this one in a real life setting with women if possible:
I can see how this might work in circles with men or in business, but I'm having a hard time grasping how you would actually implement something like this successfully with a woman (anything from plate to LTR). Seems like one could easily walk a fine line of blue pill here.
asymptotic_salvation 9y ago
Think of a short man dating a beautiful woman. In the heat of an argument, what is that woman likely to use as ammunition.
cleverley1986 9y ago
Think how B. Rabbit won all the freestyle raps at the end of 8 mile.
cops17 9y ago
Tyrion Lannister right there :D
nived321 9y ago
If you say something benign and she takes offense.
"I didn't mean it that way"
"whatever"
"why would I lie about that?"
Jaques_Fury 9y ago
I particularly like #2 and #35 due to their synergy:
I remember being young and falling for the trap that, by highlighting an opponent's logical fallacies, I would win arguments. Not true. Recognizing, explaining, and exposing a logical fallacy takes way more words to do without inevitably violating Maxim 35.
On top of that, people respond more powerfully to emotions than logic. So, in order to call out a logical fallacy, it'd require grounding one's argument on emotion anyway. Otherwise, whoever uses an appeal to emotion will beat an appeal to logic any day of the week.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 9y ago
Reddit is such a wonderful case study of that.
Of course we can populate the galaxy, there is no limit to what we can achieve when we put our minds to it!
First will get a couple thousand upvotes, second will end up around -10.
Telling people what they want to hear is also the best and most successful appeal to emotion.
morganmachine91 9y ago
I agree with your idea, but not your example. IF we survive as a race for long enough, I believe populating the Galaxy is achievable even if FTL travel isn't. It isn't inconceivable that in 1000 years we'll have the technology to build a craft that could sustain a large group of people for long enough to get to another star system. What about in 10000 years? 100000? A million? It's silly to put limits on what humans will be able to achieve based on our understanding of physics now, less than 150 years after we developed flight.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
QuantumFuantum 9y ago
He said he agreed with the idea.
But anyway, if what you say is true, about people not wanting to be told something is impossible, why is the meme of "whaaaaa, the deck is stacked against me I can never succeed because of white men!!" so prevalent today?
Is it because they say it's impossible now but if we take the white man down everything will be easy?
I'm trying to figure out how to flip that: "everything is hard today because of victimhood culture, if you just embrace your agency you'll have the world at your feet, man!!!"
morganmachine91 9y ago
I think you may have misread my tone haha. It's all good, I even said at the beginning of my comment that I agreed with the point he was trying to make but disagreed with his example. I just wanted to discuss it a little.
apachemd 9y ago
I'm confused. How do you "call out" a logical fallacy then?
[deleted] 9y ago
You dont. When it's time to get down and dirty with a pig, you don't do it logically. You hit at their core again and again. They're immune to logic but they're susceptible to getting their ego shattered just like we all do.
hva_vet 9y ago
More often than not, you do not call out logical fallacies. If you must, use the socratic method to lead the opponent to their own fallacy.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
QuantumFuantum 9y ago
No, those raging SJWs are a result of not enough Machiavellians in the world. Or at least, not enough moral Machiavellians. There are plenty of bad ones who use SJWs as pawns.
If SJWs were opposed by skilled manipulators there wouldn't be so many.
NietzscheExplosion 9y ago
SJW are employed by skilled manipulators.
[deleted]
captainofindustries 9y ago
For example by saying "the burden of proof lies with the accuser/proponent. This is how an argument should go. But more often people don't know this and will think you lack legitimacy.
QuantumFuantum 9y ago
I was arguing about Trump with someone
"Trump is a fascist and you're a fascist!!!" -ad hominem, no proof, etc..
I came back with: "What's wrong with social regulation? You want diversity, right?
The point is to take the frame away from the other person. Here, I changed the definition of "fascism" and took the bite out of it while at the same time putting the opponent on the defensive because he now has to prove himself that he supports diversity. This is the Socratic method incarnated.
Notice how I never said I wasn't a fascist. I didn't play into his frame. And I'm not a fascist lol I want 0 social regulation but I just took it like a champ because there are some battles that you just have to lose to win the big ones.
Jigsus 9y ago
That's the same as saying "prove it pussy!"
Crisis88 9y ago
This reads a lot like some of the points of The Art of War.
Pretty damned applicable inter-personally on both counts though.
Suprtrmp 9y ago
People like you make this sub valuable, your inteligence hands us, "normies" this jewel of wisdom perfectly dissected. Excelent writing Sr., Thank you!
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
Nycredpilldad 9y ago
I feel like Yoda is talking at me for most of these.
TNNRR 9y ago
Same. It feels like the author is trying to hard to have a pseudo-machiavellian voice. These are the only posts from illimitablemen that I don't like. Otherwise, there's a ton of stuff on that page that I find awesome, and will continue to read and visit. I'll have to take the bitter with the sweet, I guess.
Personally, I don't like the idea of boiling down Machiavelli's writing like this. It takes away context and historical reference. If someone isn't smart enough to read and digest the book, then they probably aren't smart enough to implement any of the tools successfully. But - if it helps some guys or inspires them to check the book out, then its a positive thing for the readers of this sub.
[deleted] 9y ago
Oh shit this makes so much sense
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
asymptotic_salvation 9y ago
The short answer is you don't. The best way to 'learn' is to keep coming back to them and reflect on your own, changing experiences at each revision.
seducer4real 9y ago
You're not supposed to remember all of them. Just note down the ones that resonate with your lifestyle and your mind. Make full use of those first, then move on to other new ones.
QuantumFuantum 9y ago
Associate each one with a memory of an experience you've had in your life where that maxim was enacted. Like, a simple one #10 don't apologize for messing up, I remember at work as a kid I would apologize for every little thing I did and lost a lot of respect that way. I imagine myself back in that moment with the knowledge of #10 and imagine how I should have acted.
So now I don't have to memorize #10, I just now know how to act in the situations I went over in my head.
Do that for every sentence to truly grasp the material. This means that you also need to go out and experience horrible shit in order to relate to this if you want to digest it. So go out, mess up fuck around so that you have something to attach this knowledge to.
IllimitableMan 9y ago
If you like simple stuff I don't recommend reading my blog.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
IllimitableMan 9y ago
If you like simple stuff I don't recommend reading my blog.
[deleted]
Il128 9y ago
The reasons to avoid marriage are clear. Divorce rape. Hypergaminous. And cuckholdery.
If you want to understand that women have no honor, no loyalty, and no shame, as a genetic trait. Look no further than war brides.
"Yes, these men killed my father, my brother, my boyfriend, my family, but who cares! He's hot! I'll fuck him and have his babies!"
TheRedPhillip 9y ago
One of the most important people in the Manosphere. Thanks again for a great post. ALL the maxims on IM need to be read, the Machiavellian, as well as the "50 shades of red" 3 part series. If you haven't yet, go through and read them all. Strong, poignant and highly valuable. Your frame will instantly attain stronger boundaries.
[deleted] 9y ago
I've never heard of "histrionic" before. The intro on its Wikipedia article makes it seem to me like narcissism. Is it not the same thing?
Anyway, reading the description reminded me of a girl I met before. She did a lot of damage.
IllimitableMan 9y ago
Histrionic = very theatrical, likes to create a show. Narcissists are often but not always histrionic, yes.
Big_Daddy_PDX 9y ago
A shared root w/ Hysterectomy - it's no surprise that you merely picture a woman in mid-emotional eruption to understand "histrionic".
[deleted]
[deleted]
rrggrr 9y ago
I feel duty bound to point out that Machiavelli didn't advocate these as virtues except to ingratiate himself with the Medici. Machiavellian virtue was actually described in his book, The Discourses, where he contradicted much of what he wrote in The Prince. I don't want to take away from OPs post, but do want to defend Machiavelli a bit.
[deleted] 9y ago
Meta-lesson: take everything you read with a grain of salt
IllimitableMan 9y ago
Ah, I mean Machiavellian as in Machiavellianism (of course named after Machiavelli) rather than "of Machiavelli"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism
It's a derivative word from a name, but in this context is not meant in relation to the person the term is derived from, but more for the reputation they are credited with having.
Of course I know the juxtaposition between the discourses and the prince is vast, but Machiavelli is not the topic here, cunning is, and cunning just so happens to have earned itself the name "Machiavellianism".
Hope that clears things up!
[deleted]
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
GainzdalfTheWhey 9y ago
I liked that one. It's just shows to he careful and not attract shit. Fugly women around you isn't preselection
deepthrill 9y ago
This applies more to other men who would waste your time. If you think spending your precious time with a worthless man isn't valuable, it's really going to take a good amount of time to get rid of him, compared to him not wanting to waste his time on you.
You have to take these maxims not necessarily with a grain of salt, but rather with context.
Think of a girl with a beta orbiter. If she actually didn't want him around it would be most efficient for him to just not desire her anymore.
NietzscheExplosion 9y ago
Exactly and this is probably the most valuable thing from this for most of us Peebs are are just trying to live our lives well (and not power play others).
Leechy people can drain you.
[deleted] 9y ago
Mitt's 47% comes to mind as sample context.
HearTheRaven 9y ago
I hear you, because #11 doesn't jive well with the concept of pre-selection. If the desirable see me being undesired by the undesirable, I can't see that ending well.
You want the undesirable to desire you, but to think you're so far out of their league that they never make a move.
Edit "Unapproachable". That's the word I'm thinking of. You want to be unapproachable, not undesirable
icecow 9y ago
Like another said, #11 has appropriate contexts. Imagine a, perhaps, dangerous bum roving a parking lot asking for money. You are in your car on your cell phone. You continue talking and don't make eye contact at all. The bum skips you because you made yourself 'unattractive', because if he if he approaches you you can act startled which publicly labels him as a nuisance. So he skips you to preserve his access to approach other people.
awalt_cupcake 9y ago
An HB2 crawling around your front door looks worse than no girl at all
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 9y ago
This doesn't happen though.
Very low SMV girls ignore the shit out of high SMV men. They have to.
[deleted]
livelearndiee 9y ago
Doesn't change the fact that they talk about Chad by the water cooler. I could be wrong, but I think this maxim acts a safety rule to guard your social proof from being rotted by the fat chick/geek who will be on you like stink on shit after being shown just a smidge of positive attention. I can name a few times from my high school days where that's happened, especially to Chad, though he was a fucking dick and put them on blast on Facebook. If this is the case with that maxim then I'd argue that it'd be better to not go out of your way to unappeal to them and stay neutral for as long as you may. Just sneak out of having to converse with them "fuck the beans are burning bye lol"
Something I could apply this to is a really low smv chick I met, friend of a friend, lives close. She's gonna inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably millions, that makes a good pawn does it not? Although that's surely exceptional, I'd like to bring up sexmachine9000's point above
All are ketchup bottles, who knows how much you can squeeze out.
awalt_cupcake 9y ago
It's an effective method but no one is forcing you to
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
awalt_cupcake 9y ago
pregnant girls for example are girls you don't want their attention
[deleted]
Gulti_ki_Choot 9y ago
"In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments." Hah the first one made me get confuzzled right away, still don't get wtf's sopishtree
vissil 9y ago
Why don't you start with looking up a definition.
sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving
hva_vet 9y ago
Rationalwiki has a better definition of sophistry.
IllimitableMan 9y ago
Sophistry is manipulating someone emotionally by using words that are superficially logical but irrational in substance.
[deleted] 9y ago
I get it now! Kind of like these 54 "maxims".