“The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it become rusty.” – Chinese Proverb
Contents:
1.) Justification is a Machiavellian Fallacy
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences
3.) The Logician’s Problem
4.) The Rational Machiavellian
4a.) Switching Between Logical & Machiavellian Cognitive Modalities
5.) Closing Remarks
6.) 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 most visceral instinct 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 Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Likewise, he who opts to prove, demonstrate and qualify himself 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. People have a propensity to distrust that which doesn’t embody an element of effortlessness.
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 they would feel no need to justify their position. Why? Well because their position would “be obvious” of course; 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 man of reason is oft deficient in the social realm, and therefore he does not fully comprehend the games that people play.
2.) Machiavellian Gender Differences:
The minds of rational men are attuned toward deduction and debate, not toward subtextual nuance and psychological warfare. This 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 innately, and are thus natural improvisers compelled to manage delicately how others perceive them. Women are sensitively attuned to their reputation in this way, uniquely so, whilst men on the other hand are less innately capable of such façades, finding the effort involved cumbersome and alien.
Rational but socially deficient men attempt foolishly to enhance their social standing with logic, knowledge and shows of intelligence (dare one say, intellectual narcissism) but this serves only to further repel the masses. 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, in which sex appeal is something women possess no short supply of.
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, and it is boring because it is bereft cunning. There is neither fun nor challenge to be had in the absence of mystique, for the cunning possess a propensity to seek perpetual psychological challenge.
Logic bores the playful Machiavellian, for it is too serious, too predictable and too bland for their social palate, and that which is bland by dismerit of transparency is accordingly disrespected. There are those (such as myself) who can switch between a Machiavellian and logical mode of communication, but this is atypical. Most people are firmly cunning (indirect and subtle), or transparently direct in their dominant mode of communication.
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 learned and practised, he can never hope to be half as cunning as the typical woman. Feminine cunning is a byproduct of female evolutionary development, and thus is oft subconscious rather than premeditated, ergo most women do not lack cunning, most men do.
A manipulative mentality is not a modus operandi for the average man like it is the average woman. Man was given biceps to impose his will, 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 their sole needs. When you are (physically) weaker than most of your predators and thus rely on 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. Remember, female economic independence is a fairly recent trend, for almost all of human history women have depended upon men for their resources.
Naturally, manipulation with and without its sexual connotation is the predominant purview of the feminine. Some men blindly dabble in Machiavellianism out of anger, frustration or a lust for power, but fewer yet vocationally refine their Machiavellian capacity to a degree beyond woman’s ability. Indeed, much the scope of Illimitable Men is aiding one in this endeavour. 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 it grants them the capacity to bear-faced lie with a seemingly pure conviction; this is something typical of the feminine, but deemed psychopathic in nature when depicted by the masculine.
In the greater manosphere, we refer to this phenomenon as “the rationalisation hamster”. The typical man thoroughly lacks the capacity to delude himself an entirely false narrative with such potency; therefore in the absence of such competently instinctual self-delusion, man must confront any moral concerns and rational tendencies head-on before he is able to embrace and exemplify the Machiavellian mindset.
3.) The Logician’s Problem:
The rational not only reduces his power by justifying himself, but likewise he alienates others by correcting their logical inconsistencies. Like an autist, the logician’s primary concern is veracity over finesse; naturally this offends, and thus in matters of persuasion is a grave 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, while 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 competent. 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, subdue the honest and mechanical thinking part of their brain, instead turning on their duplicitous social brain. Idiots have little thinking brain to turn off, they’re always in social mode. Women likewise thrive in social mode as socialising is their bread and butter, that is to say, women tend to be socially focused and group-orientated as they’re more dependant on “the group” than men are. In the ancestral environment where men could hunt and survive alone, a woman would almost certainly perish without tribe acceptance.
As I stated in a previous paragraph, historically women were dependent on men. You don’t survive if you’re a dependant and an introvert; hence it is my theoretical contention that women have evolved biologically to be more extroverted than men on the whole. Their inclination toward excess chatter, and preference for work which is social rather than solitary in nature is indicative of this. Regardless, I find it tangentially relevant at this point to stipulate that introverts have a tendency 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, 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 in the strictest sense, but all socialites are Machiavellian. When you are logical, you are easy to predict and lack the tools necessary to predict those of a less rational disposition.
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 duplicity.
As a logician, you are easy to understand because you do not selectively utilise chaos, your rationalism makes you easily read and predictable. The Machiavellian is harder to predict because where it suits him, he will disobey, distort and undermine logic with cunning and poise. The Machiavellian is adept in sophistry, whilst the logician is not.
4.) The Rational Machiavellian:
Machiavellianism is aligned with pragmatism and self-betterment, not truth or a set of ethics. 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 many circumstances, logic and fact are an obstruction to the Machiavellian motive; they expose duplicity by contradicting narrative with fact, and so the Machiavellian practices caution with the logical, for they are less easily duped.
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 blessed with high reasoning faculty, but adept in the ways of cunning, and as such, can switch between rational and Machiavellian modes of thought. Such ability is rare, other than myself, a figure who comes to mind that appears capable of this is journalist Milo Yiannopoulos. This ability is a binary cognitive modality that, in my view, all men looking to build or maintain power should embody.
The rational Machiavellian thinks 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 of your 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 (categorically deductive) because you are rational, rationalism makes you easy to predict because you will scarcely say something irrational and hence intellectually spontaneous.
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 social and political matters. Yet the rational Machiavellian also realises the logician is enslaved to logic, and that as such, his source of strength is likewise his most glaring weakness.
Inversely, the rational Machiavellian can weaponise logic where beneficial, he is not confined to the realm of rational thought whilst attempting to actualise his imperative. As such, he can influence the rational and irrational with equal measure, pandering to both the logician’s need to understand and the idiot’s need to belong.
The rational yet socially incompetent man has a mind that operates far differently from that of the common idiot. Yet it is not the intellectual that dictates the rules of the social game, it is the socially Machiavellian, the charmers and the hucksters.
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 opinions, then said justification is strength, virtuous even. To the rational, an inability to support one’s opinions and choices with a traceable succession of chain reasoning is weakness.
Indeed, an inability to support one’s opinion with cogent reason is incompetently fallacious, but this alone is insufficient. 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 of course is conflating logical supremacy with social victory, women for example are of inferior logic, yet they often beat men in arguments. In the social game, being correct does not guarantee you victory, if your opponent is incorrect but more cunning, they will win. Irrationalism wielded correctly is its own strength.
You see, you can be indubitably wrong about all manner of things, you can be unfair, and you can have shitty token reasons for the 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 in social matters, but rather 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 arousedly angered ex-girlfriend of mine.
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 presentation. Instead, the underhandedness of Machiavellianism and its emotional rhetoric peddling is utilised. Rhetoric is convincing in its persuasion because the majority of people are primarily governed by emotion rather than reason; hence when certain emotive responses are triggered, such people are sucked into the asserted viewpoint no matter how factually incorrect it may be.
4a.) Switching Between Logical & Machiavellian Cognitive Modalities:
People will shit test you to gauge whether you’re worthy of respect, before even deigning to address your logic. If you can’t hold frame, the socially powerful (who are often stubborn) won’t even get to the stage of disputing your reason. To dispute your reason, one must respect you enough as a person to engage intellectually, therefore those who disrespect you will not dispute your reason, but rather, your character.
Most people argue with logic, or underhanded social Machiavellianism. The best debaters (eg: Milo Yiannopoulos) calibrate to the seriousness of their opponent; if the opponent is being obtuse and offensive, the debater will undermine and ridicule, if the opponent is at least attempting to make a reasoned argument, it will be refuted with cogent counterargument.
Those who use social dominance rather than reason to win their battles will not be taken seriously by the reasonable. If you are autistically logical, people will humiliate you, you will seem clueless, and your appeal will be damaged as you appear socially incompetent. As such, one must be socially (and manipulatively) intelligent enough to pass shit tests, as well as possess cogent reason for formulating an argument that can hold up to scrutiny.
Improper debate such as taunting and reputation smearing almost always precede proper debate. Proper debate is the transparent disputation of theory or decision-making via assertion and counterargument. Although not so deliberately outrageous as Milo Yiannopoulos, another person who achieves the balance of social competence and logical rigour in my opinion would be British politician Nigel Farage.
Argumental effectiveness thus lies in mode-switching between duplicitous and logical communication. It is only through the embodiment of this duality that people looking to see someone get burned will give your reasoning the time it deserves, whilst the nerdy relish in the observation of logic triumphing over dogma.
One must be competently cunning, as well as logical in order to defend their reputation and deliver effective arguments. As one is exposed when unable to sufficiently handle another’s insults, they will likewise meet eventual exposure if all they do is insult absent a capacity to form cogent arguments. If you are not very good in either capacity, you are easy to ridicule/refute; if you are good in one aspect but not the other, you’re an average debater; if you’re good in both aspects, you’re difficult to humiliate or refute with reason and hence a powerful debater.
Of course as institutions of learning do not overtly teach Machiavellianism, most people don’t tap into this vein of knowledge. And those like Milo Yiannoopoulos who instinctively understand and behave in accordance with this dynamic thus appear godlike to both idiots and intellectuals alike.
If you attend a debating society or something of the sort, you will come into contact with philosophical models, logical fallacies and the structure of argument. But knowledge pertaining to the rules of the social game, such as how to emotionally endure your opponent, humiliate them and leave the audience in awe is absent; the instruction of sophistry and rhetoric is limited, dominated almost exclusively by a small elite of aristocrats and political families.
In fact, the well-meaning yet foolish logicians who take centre position in logic and philosophy circles will discourage you from deploying effective Machiavellian social gambits. Effective methodologies for ridiculing the opposition and winning audience approval almost always take the form of logical fallacy. Deliberately misrepresenting them (straw man), insulting them (ad hominem) or pressure flipping (tu quoque) are effective because they shake the opponent’s resolve, but due to their fallacious nature will be penalised rather than encouraged in debating circles. This is the logician’s weakness, by being fixated on the logical incoherence of such manoeuvres he fails to perceive their Machiavellian utility.
Fallacies or not, these methods of sophistry are very effective, and one is wise to employ them where an otherwise sound debate is not possible. People are far more enamoured by the outrageousness of theatre than they are the monotonous recount of reason and statistic. Should you wish to deploy statistic and hit a home run with your argument, it is wise to dazzle your opponent first.
5.) Closing Remarks:
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 and often unconfident. The justification inherent of their job demands causes their peers to view them pathetically.
Justification no matter the circumstance 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, if the other is not on your wavelength you will be perceived as: “caring too much” and “trying too hard.” Social calibration is everything.
Social calibration consists of altering your behaviour based upon the level of respect your company has for you. 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 style of communication to reflect the disposition of your company, this will allow you to hold the upper hand and ensure you don’t get played.
6.) Relevant Reading:
Blog Material:
Everything in the Strategy, Power & War Hub – (There are numerous articles here)
How Women Argue
Solipsism, Emotion & Arguments
Book(s) on Machiavellianism:
Buy “The 33 Strategies of War”
Buy “The 48 Laws of Power”
Buy “The Craft of Power”
Buy “The Prince”