1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences
3.) The Logician’s Issue
4.) Closing Remarks
5.) Relevant Reading
1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy:
Justification is for the weak. In the game of power nobody respects he who justifies himself. Within a social fabric where the lowest common denominator prevails; where feelings triumph over logic, and likewise, grandiosity over humility, honesty is but a virtue bastardised. You see, it is the transparency of justification that makes it powerless. Regardless, many an intellectual man’s instinctual adherence to logical authoritarianism renders him incapable of determining this. Therefore, when he is tested, questioned, scrutinised and cross-examined his immediate response is to justify himself to his haranguing attacker. Woe befalls him.
Little does he know his challenger’s agenda is malicious, and their enquiry, insincere. Such a man haphazardly scrambles to explain himself by demonstrating his thought process. It is in this moment the Machiavellian knows they have won. With widening smile, such a rational yet foolish man can be gamed, intimidated, humiliated and berated. He will be kept on the defence with his own words, for it is they which will be weaponised against him. The more he speaks, the deeper his grave. As Queen Gertrude said in Shakespeare’s Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Likewise, he who opts to prove, demonstrate and qualify himself to another with merely and solely the spoken word is perceived to be dishonest, pathetic. The justification is not seen as transparent or helpful, but rather as persuasive, deceptive, false – even when it isn’t.
With both the playful Machiavellian and the dimwit a sentiment is shared: the more one protests, the more their guilt is assumed. It is thought if one were not guilty then they would feel no need to justify their position. Why? Well of course because their position would “be obvious.” Oh the subjective horror! To the idiot and the Machiavellian alike truth is self-evident; it is organic and therefore shows in one’s actions. The need to have to say anything about an aspect of one’s self, robs it of its naturalness and therefore to the devout Machiavellian, its charismatic credibility.
Honesty destroys mystery, and with it, the attraction of curiosity. The Machiavellian hates the duplicitous more than most, and yet, respectfully appreciates only the cunning. As such, Machiavellians tend to be in a constant flux of love-hate with their peers. When you are understood, you are unattractive. When you try to help people understand you, they lose respect for you. You’re making it too easy. People only value what they work for, be it wages or relationships. Of course, the rational man is often foolish in such social matters.
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences:
The minds of rational men are attuned toward deduction and debate, not toward subtextual nuance and psychological warfare. That is why so many men are undervalued if not completely absent in the social game. Superficial social popularity does not care how smart you are. Women know this; naturally, they can improvise pretence and manage how others perceive them. Women are sensitively attuned to their reputation whilst men tend to be less capable of such façades, finding the effort involved cumbersome, alien. Rational but socially uneducated men foolishly attempt to enhance their social standing with logic, knowledge and shows of intelligence (dare one say intellectual narcissism,) but in the social game it is rhetoric, humorous wit and good feeling that are valued above all. That, and of course matters of the flesh: sex appeal. Naturally, idiots care little for reason, for they cannot grasp it and as for Machiavellians, the transparency bores them. They despise it because it is boring, it is boring because it is absent of cunning. There is neither fun nor challenge to be had in the absence of mystique. Logic bores the playful Machiavellian, it is too serious, too predictable, too bland for their social palette. That which is bland is thus disrespected.
For man Machiavellianism is predominantly, a vocation learned. Few men are naturally equipped with Machiavellian tendency, let alone apt in employing its devices. Some are raised in challenging environments which imbue these traits from a young age, but rest assured, Machiavellianism is a female instinct and a male art form. If man does not pursue Machiavellianism as an art form, a vocation to be learnt and practised, he can never hope to be half as cunning as the typical woman. Female cunning is a product of their evolutionary biology and so often it is subconscious rather than premeditated. Subconsciously, Machiavellianism comes very naturally to women, this is not so for men. A manipulative mentality is not a modus operandi for man like it is women. Man was given biceps to impose his will whilst women received the gift of cunning. If man wants to become cunning he must thus go out of his way to become acquainted with the Machiavellian mode of thinking. In absence of such instinctual proclivity man must learn to integrate Machiavellian ideas through reading and social practice.
Throughout human existence, women have been the physically weaker sex. As such they have needed to evolve subconscious strategies to covertly manipulate men in ways that benefit her needs solely. For women, absent of physical prowess, Machiavellianism was nature’s way of ensuring their continued survival. When you are (physically) weaker than most of your predators and so need a man to protect and support you; you have to get good at exploiting male strength and reason to ensure you are protected and provided for. Naturally, manipulation with and without its sexual connotation is the predominant purview of the feminine. Some men blindly dabble in Machiavellianism out of a lust for power, anger, and frustration. Even fewer vocationally refine their Machiavellian capacity to a degree beyond that of the typical woman. Indeed, much of the scope of Illimitable Men is aiding one in this endeavour: to outsmart women at their own game. You see, the majority of men are effectively clueless in matters of Machiavellianism. Women on the other hand are Machiavellian as water is wet. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who isn’t Machiavellian. Female autists come to mind as a possible exception.
The idiotic man is limited most by morality, the intelligent man, by rationalism, and the woman, neither. For women Machiavellianism is the de facto status quo, her natural way of both conscious and subconscious interaction with the world. Things don’t have to “be logically or morally right” for women to believe in an idea or exhibit specific behaviour. Women have been observed to make noble, moral arguments, whilst surreptitiously behaving contrary to the repute of said opinion.
It is in all the “glory” of dissociation that women can easily manipulate themselves into believing falsehoods via pseudo-rationalisation. This makes them incredibly compelling as they bear-face lie with utter and seemingly pure conviction. In the greater manosphere, we refer to this phenomenon as “the rationalisation hamster.” The typical man thoroughly lacks the capacity to convincingly delude himself an entirely false narrative with such potency; therefore in the absence of such instinctual duplicity and competent self-delusion, man must confront any moral concerns and rational tendencies head-on before he is able embrace and exemplify the Machiavellian mindset. Each man has unique hurdles that pertain specifically to his psyche that he must overcome, and as such, an improvised generalisation in this article would not suffice as an adequate remedy.
3.) The Logician’s Issue:
The rational not only reduces his own power by justifying himself, but likewise he alienates others by correcting their logical inconsistencies. Like an autist, the logician’s primary concern is accuracy over social finesse. Naturally, this offends egos and in matters of charm and persuasion is a grave social faux pas. Indeed, it is more difficult for the rational intellectual to socialise and be liked for the fortitude of his character than it is the loveable idiot. For logic is charmless, challenging, and taxing for a largely illogical population. People oft feel threatened by that which they do not understand; intellect beyond their comprehension is of course no exception. Boundless fear pulsates through the veins of the ignorant and the egotistical, the ignorant fear the unknown and the strongest of egotists are inhabited by a paranoid loathing for anything that could remotely challenge their sense of supremacy. If you have ever been disrespected for sounding intelligent, you were on the brunt end of this. You made the mistake of thinking you were in fair and open-minded company, when indeed, you were not.
Unlike the logician, the idiot does not become pre-occupied with their thoughts. The intellectual on the other hand is often immersed deep in abstract thought and thus must “switch into another way of being” to be socially liked. The thought wavelength symptomatic of higher cognitive functions would appear to be incompatible with the social demands of the lower. As such, the logician must “turn their charm on,” that is to say, turn off the thinking part of their brain, honest and mechanical in its nature and instead, turn on their duplicitous social brain. Idiots have little thinking brain to turn off; they’re always in social mode. Women likewise thrive in social contexts because they needed to be social to survive.
Historically, women were dependent on men. You don’t survive if you’re dependent and an introvert; hence it is my theoretical contention that women have evolved biologically to be more social than men. The fact they speak more often than man is perhaps indicative of this. Regardless, I find it tangentially relevant at this point to mention that introverts tend to be more intellectual than extroverts. Introverts live to think and innovate, they prioritise solitude. Extroverts live to play and consume, they prioritise company. Naturally, the prior is more typical of man and the latter, that of women. The seasoned Machiavellian learns how to switch between his rational brain and his social brain so that he can interact as necessary. This is utilitarian ambiversion.
The merits and demerits of logic are so in-conflict with the merits and demerits of Machiavellian logic that the rational man’s primary mode of thought: “logical reasoning” impedes his ability to be socially effective. One cannot be socially effective without being sufficiently Machiavellian. Not all Machiavellians are strategists, but all socialites are Machiavellian. When you are logical, you are easy to predict and lack the tools necessary to predict those who do not think or behave rationally.
Instinctually, Machiavellian logic is counterintuitive to man’s sense of innate, natural logic. I believe this is one of the fundamental reasons many a man struggles to understand the feminine. You see, unlike “raw logic” Machiavellianism is an alternative system of logic; it is the logic of popularity, dominance and psychological conquest. Machiavellianism is most aligned with pragmatism and self-betterment. That is to say, Machiavellianism is most concerned with maximising one’s efficiency as far as power acquisition and personal well-being is concerned. You will scarcely find a Machiavellian who is not a pragmatist, but you will find plenty of “rational” idealists. In fact, in some circumstances, logic and fact are an obstruction to the Machiavellian motive. They expose duplicity via the contradiction of fact, and so the Machiavellian is wary of the logical, preferring the company of idiots for they are more exploitable, better managed. Now you know why so many people pretend to be stupid when indeed they are not.
People who understand logic but do not obey its authoritative confines will try to exploit your logic. They are what I refer to as “Rational Machiavellians.” They tend to be men born of high rational faculty who have schooled themselves in the way of Machiavelli, and as such, can switch between rational and Machiavellian modes of thought. Such a state-of-being is one I inhabit myself, and indeed, should be something that all men aiming to acquire power should aim for.
The rational Machiavellian thinks ahead logically about the challenge they are going to present to you. With their rationalism weaponised, they will predict your potential responses in correlation with what they know already about your personal character. Your potential responses are easily preconceived because running on the assumption you are rational, it is easy to lead to you to certain answers. Your answer will be X or Y in theme because you are rational. Your rationalism makes you easy to predict. You will never say something truly random or unsuspected. You are easy to understand because you do not selectively utilise chaos, your rationalism makes your mind ordered. A logician will often say X or Y to any conundrum. He has a “for or against mentality.” He does not think outside the box, unless thinking outside the box is an adjunct to position X or Y. While, for the sake of continuing to depict this metaphor: the Machiavellian will say Z. The Machiavellian is harder to predict because where it suits him, he will disobey logic.
Rational Machiavellians are logical only when necessary. They realise the rules of the social game, and that cunning’s success rate far surpasses logic’s when it comes to matters of victory. The logician can only use logic and that is his most emphatic flaw. The competent Machiavellian can weaponise logic where it is beneficial to do so. He is not confined to the realms of rational thought when engaging in the actualisation of his imperative. As such, he can influence the rational and irrational with equal measure, pandering to the logicians need to understand and likewise the idiots instinctual need to belong.
In absence of inherent ability, most men are not raised to pierce the veil of social subtext and so are blind to this prevailing truth. The rational yet socially incompetent man, his mind, it operates so differently from that of the common idiot. Yet it is not the intellectual that dictates the rules of the social game, it is the Machiavellians, socialites and populists. The rational thinks the strong justify, because there is strength in justification. The rational sees justification as a chain of reasoning, the rational believes logic is good. The rational therefore concludes if one can create a chain of reasoning conducive to their behavioural choices or opinions, then said justification is strength, virtuous even. To the rational, an inability to support your opinions or behavioural choices with a traceable succession of chain reasoning is weakness. It is incompetence; it is fallacious, because it does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, the ignorant rationalist, safe in the knowledge he is more logical than his opponent hastily deduces that he has the upper hand, that he is the superior and therefore, the victor; the fatal flaw in his reasoning? He confused “being technically right” with “winning the game.”
You see, you can be wrong, wrong as hell about all manner of things. You can be unfair. You can have shitty, token reasons for decisions you make. Yet, if you say it with charm, guile and the expressiveness of passion, with the correct gambits played it does not matter. You will win. Humans do not reward he who is most logical on matters of social principle, they reward he who is most impressive. Suffice to say, Machiavellian gambits and persuasive rhetoric often triumph over the autistic charmlessness of logic, fact and statistic. Who cares about the logicians or if they’re right?! “Fuck logic, it’s a nuisance!” – Words uttered by an angered and aroused ex-girlfriend of mine no less. Alas, in victory, where logic benefits one, one utilises it to improve the validity of their argument. Where logic opposes one’s desires, logic is conveniently ignored, omitted from mention. Instead, the underhandedness of Machiavellianism and its emotional game-playing rhetoric peddling is utilised. Rhetoric is convincing in its persuasion because the majority of people are primarily more emotional than they are rational; hence when certain emotive responses are triggered, such people are sucked into the asserted viewpoint no matter how factually incorrect it may be.
4.) Closing Remarks:
To conclude this article full-circle: when one works in a position where justification is expected, promoted, or part of the job description – it is still despised. This is why those low on the corporate totem pole are disrespected, often unconfident. The justification inherent of their job demands causes their peers to view them pathetically. Justification is seen as low value behaviour, an admission of guilt, a symptom of inferiority. Even when you are “simply doing your job” or merely wish to engage in an honest informational exchange, as all good intellectuals do; if the other is not on your wavelength you will perceived as: “caring too much” and “trying too hard.” Social calibration is everything. Social calibration consists of altering your behaviour based upon the individual you’re with and what you wish to achieve. If you’re with an idiot or irrational Machiavellian (this is most people, including women) downplay the importance of logic, duplicity dominates. When you are in open-minded and logical company, you can be less duplicitous. Adjust your communication style based upon the mental properties of the other, this will allow you to hold the social upper hand and not get played. This is how the Rational Mach manoeuvres.
5.) Relevant Reading:
Book(s) on Machiavellianism:
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the USA
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in the UK
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War” in Canada
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the USA
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in the UK
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power” in Canada
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the USA
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in the UK
Buy “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” in Canada
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the USA
Buy “The Craft of Power” in the UK
Buy “The Craft of Power” in Canada
Buy “The Prince” in the USA
Buy “The Prince” in the UK
Buy “The Prince” in Canada