Morality & Machiavellianism

Morality & Machiavellianism
“Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life so. Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.”  – Henry David Thoreau

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation
3.) Matters of Intelligence
4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality
5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal
6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary
7.) My Stance
8.) In Closing
9.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Morals are too emotional to be debated and agreed upon via consensus, rather ironically they must be imposed via a platonic noble lie such as religion. This of course is immoral in a number of ways, but nevertheless it is best characterised as deceit with an altruistic intention. It serves a “greater good,” and thus for those who value ethics or altruistic Machiavellianism, it can be reasonably justified.

Of course, religion is like any corporation or government; it can be co-opted and corrupted by those who do not wish to serve the public good by submitting to the purpose of the organisation – but who use their position to fulfil their own purposes in spite of the organisation. We call a betrayal of such systemic significance corruption. Corruption in a civilizational context is effectively the sabotage of societal infrastructure for self-gain; in spite of the fact that society is reliant upon such infrastructure, as indeed is the person exploiting it.

Very few want to be martyrs, and those up to the task would, in my cynicism, only be puppeted by those pretending to serve the public good whilst really serving themselves. Ironically, to do good, one must be very competent in the strategies commonly employed by “evil.” If “evil” has anything going for it, it is that it does not leave anything to chance. Such a thing is so rare with “the good” that a man of strong moral convictions adept in the strategies commonly associated with “evil” is scarcely encountered. Thus it is such that very few believe in the moral Machiavellian, although such a thing is not common and the business of power is inherently dirty, it is my contention that such men exist in small numbers.

Naturally, powerful knowledge carries a certain taint. The more you understand about the realm of cunning, the more likely you are to employ such things, for power is inherently irresistible. You probably sought such knowledge due to powerlessness in the first place, and often the powerless are more neurotic than the powerful, but when the powerful know not when to stop – this is incorrect.

Whether one uses their power for altruistic or sadistic purposes effectively defines whether the Machiavellian in question is moral or immoral in character, but as sadism reinforces narcissism, it is my thought that the latter is more typical. If one has guiding principles they consider superior to their ego, they can be considered a moral Machiavellian. Nevertheless, such people must guard such principles from public view, for these principles are the individual’s Achilles heel and will be exploited by those who do not share them.

2.) Individualism & Social Adaptation:

In terms of ethics, individualism is the root cause of all sadism, which in my view, is the purest form of immorality for it is more predatory than it is pragmatic. In a collectivist society, ignorant women fuck subpar males out of social pressure, this helps civilisation tick over as it incentivises men to produce.

Ignorant men, on the other hand, sacrifice for family and society because they know no better, they are just happy to have mating rights and a life purpose. Everyone sacrifices for the greater good, and the result is modern civilization. Without civilization, you have tribalism. Civilization was built upon the arched back of the nuclear family sweating and toiling, not individualism. Civilization itself is proof of the Aristotelian adage “the total is greater than the sum of its parts.”

In an individualist society, neither party cares for anything but themselves, and so a scarcity of cooperation causes civilization to socially regress until a point that civilization is no more. Whether this process is slow or quick varies. This is what we mean when we refer to “the decline.”

Individualism promotes Machiavellianism which almost inevitably leads to immorality on a macro-scale. The reason the collapse of the family is so bad for society is because it promotes individualism. This leads to Machiavellianism, which can lead to immorality, which leads to exploitation, sadism and sub-clinical psychopathy. Machiavellianism and Narcissism are socially maladaptive qualities. If you had a family that you cared about and who cared for you, any Machiavellian or Narcissistic quality you showed in spite of this compassion would be biological rather than socialised in its nature. A lack of tribe promotes these qualities, as maladaptive qualities aid survival in the absence of cooperation and loyalty.

Effectively, when one does not have people looking out for them, they feel they have to be more ruthless to be successful. Logically, this feeling makes sense. Those with zero or minimal trustworthy social ties have to be more effective individuals, for they have only themselves to rely on.

The adoption of Machiavellianism as a tool and personal philosophy is, therefore, a rational response to an uncertain world that did not supply the individual with a stable and compassionate family. We can bemoan these things, but we cannot help living in the time that we live. We live in this time, so we must adapt to it.

3.) Matters of Intelligence:

Only intelligent men can really discuss the nuance of ethics and thus, whatever their disposition, cognisantly find a balance between altruism and sadism, principle and incentive. Of course if one is innately sadistic, only the discipline of volition can suppress such a thing.

Stupid men are indoctrinated to be moral. When they see the indoctrination for the inauthenticity that it was, they typically go the complete opposite way and endeavour to become sadistic. There is an absence of mediating force and developed reasoning faculty to temper their decisions, rather, they are completely emotional driven. It takes a smarter man to balance the nuances of his morality in a society powerless to impose a collectively shared moral system.

The idiots value liberty, but they cannot handle it. They simply want the freedom to follow incentive and be sadistic without being called immoral for it. Being called immoral would lead to ostracisation, ostracisation would limit their effectiveness. This is why the immoral care about being called immoral and rather you refer to them as amoral. To make idiots productive in a paradigm where they have considerable liberty, you must impose morality onto them until altruism is their preference.

4.) Reputation Guarding & The Nihilism of Debating Morality:

Just because one is capable of great depravity, it does not mean one should engage in such depravity. And because we lack a collectively imposed and adhered to morality as of current, people will argue subjectivity, redefine meaning, and otherwise be completely disingenuous about these things. The need to “be correct” is greater than the need to adhere to any system of morality with such people.

The altruistic will sacrifice some element of freedom for the greater good, the sadistic will not unless enticed to do so through incentive or a glitch of volition. Hence there is a necessity that the noble lie is imposed, for most are incentive rather than principally driven without it. The noble lie keeps the sadist in check if he believes in it, if he doesn’t, the noble lie will cause such an individual to be ostracised by the majority who adhere to it.

In moral debates it is common to hear vague wishy-washy dissociative rationalisations that “everyone defines their own morals.” But only the people who know they behave sadistically care enough to debate the amoral root of immoral action. It’s as I said in my previous article on morality, just because cosmic mathematics and survival of the fittest are amoral, it does not mean the average man does not have a choice between altruism and sadism. This is a unique choice that you, as a human, possess.

Humans have a capacity for altruism in spite of the amoral root of existence. Blaming your sadism on social Darwinism is disingenuously absurd. Know what you are and accept it. If you don’t like it, change it. Arguing about it with those who are indoctrinated differently, or have a different genetic makeup for morality than you is ineffectually asinine. The noble lie is the closest thing to a moral consensus that can be achieved. Likewise, I didn’t write this article to convince anyone of anything, but rather because I find an exploration of the topic to be a worthy exercise.

5.) Sadistic Morality & Betrayal:

Free of religious/moral impositions people don’t define or create ethical systems, but rather they pick and choose when and how they will apply pre-established ethics and morals. Some people in peace time are innately sadistic, others are innately altruistic. Consider this a spectrum of personality with some overlap depending on context. For example in wartime, we must all be destructive to survive – all have a capacity for destruction. Necessity however does not constitute enjoyment. There is a difference between the man who is destructive when wartime comes, and the man who cannot wait for war to begin.

Soldiers often refer to the battlefield as being the eighth incarnation of hell, but note the eeriness of the man in the battalion who seemed to revel in the chaos. These are the sadists that embrace their true nature in a socially acceptable environment, where other than the battlefield would acts of barbarity be any better camouflaged?

The assumption of the “amoral” sadist is absurd, it is nought but a projection of one’s own morals (or lack thereof) on to those who are more altruistic in their nature. It is the notion that absent an implicit or explicit threat of force, others will enter your property, pillage it, and rape any vaginal commodity occupying said property should the opportunity present itself. It is the assumption that the only thing that prevents people from doing things which violate your rights is your power, not an altruistic aspect inherent to an individual’s natural volition. But then it is only logical a sadist would think this, for the sadist unknowingly projects, he thinks because he finds exploitation pleasurable than this is a human rather than individualised trait.

One must remember that like a woman the sadist only respects power, and thus has no frame of reference for innate altruism. It is because of this that the sadist completely disregards the notion that one may wish not to do depraved things, because they themselves would do those things if they could get away with them. Morally we are a diverse species, but in a turn of irony, much like the idiotic altruist indoctrinated by the noble lie, the sadist holds everyone to their own moral expectations without considering the nuance of individual differences.

On this tangent, there is an important lesson to be taught. Some people will betray you for lacking power, others will not. Women in matters of romantic relation invariably will, for this is how they are wired. Some men shall, but not all. When you meet a person you should try to ascertain whether they’re predisposed to altruism or sadism. Once you know this, you will be able to deduce whether they will betray you because it brings them pleasure, or would betray only if it were a last resort – eg: as a means to survive.

Sadists are a bad bet because one cannot rely on a sadist to cooperate out of altruistic volition, but rather, one must constantly outsmart the sadist to receive their cooperation. It is a high cost for cooperation, and many would better spend their time with individuals who are not so expensive to maintain an alliance with. As such it stands to reason that if you are a sadist, you are a bad bet to all who know you. In absence of a capacity to change such an element, a sadist will be forced to hide or otherwise suppress such sadism, sex notwithstanding. In fact, I recommend to every sadist that comes upon this text to confine this aspect of their nature to the bedroom. Naturally this is a recommendation, not a command, and ultimately the choice lies with the individual.

6.) Machiavellianism Is Necessary:

No matter your disposition, Machiavellianism is necessary. If you cannot impose an altruistic moral code on everybody, then thoughtless (rather than low risk) altruism is worthless. Note how easy it is to lead any man down a path of incentive, but how one must tell a noble lie to lead him to altruism if it does not come innately. It is because of this that Machiavellianism always comes up trumps, because no matter what morals people consent to, the power of psychology can be used to override their preferences by limiting their options and leveraging their biases.

Altruism is trumped by sadism in tactical matters and altruism only works so long as everyone is being altruistic. All it takes is one sadist to ruin everything and start game playing. Then all the altruists find out they were being played, want to learn how to do what the sadist did to play them, and risk becoming sadists themselves. Don’t be an altruistic idiot, ration your altruism, but don’t expect you will find salvation in unfettered sadism either.

To be frivolously ruthless is almost as inept as to be frivolously altruistic. Always cost-benefit, always analyse, always have a contingency, be altruistic when you can afford to be; it’s therapeutic and it’s great for your reputation.

7.) My Stance:

The altruistic are too easily exploited, the sadistic, too needlessly destructive in their exploitation. The plausible deniability in writing about such subjects lies in the possibility that such knowledge can be used for altruistic purposes in defence against the sadistic. The fact that the sadistic may use such knowledge more effectively than the altruistic is not my concern.

In a sense, you could say I am a psychological arms dealer. I don’t ask what you do with the arms, so invariably in matters of psychological warfare I will end up arming both sides.

Machiavellianism is not only power, but it is complicit with whatever ideological agenda you possess prior to reading here. I have men, women, Christians, Muslims, self-confessed psychopaths as well as hopeless moralists in the readership. The desire for power is universal, it is how that power is used and with what intent which varies. I do not expect you all to agree with my views, but likewise I do not expect you to read my writings should you prove unable to question your own viewpoint.

I put myself first, I enjoy writing and I enjoy Machiavellianism. So for me, this is a particularly profitable marriage. I don’t take responsibility for what my readers do due to my writings. So am I completely moral by the strictest standards, am I a paragon of virtue? Well no, I am far from perfectly virtuous, but then an absence of saintliness does not necessarily make one predatorily devilish, I’d see myself as somewhere in the middle.

8.) In Closing:

I don’t really like to talk about myself. I am a private man. I realise I have talked about myself more than I would typically, but this is with good reason. I make moral arguments now and again, and then I write about the dark triad. People are mesmerised by this seeming contradiction. I suppose most people are more binary in their morality, whereas I am more fluid. I consider fairly virtuous most of the time, but when I meet people who don’t value altruism, I detect this and suspend my altruism in their company.

Does that make me a sociopath? Those of the strictest morals would claim so, whilst those with the loosest would think the contrary. Perhaps rather simply, knowing what I know about the darker side of humanity means I will not allow myself to be exploited unfavourably. I believe in the balance of power, treat the sadistic sadistically, and the altruistic, altruistically.

9.) Relevant Reading:

If you missed it, read my rather polarising red pill focussed essay on morality.

To the guys who are “too altruistic,” you should read this, it’s a red pill favourite for reforming nice guys:

Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in the USA
Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in the UK
Buy “No More Mr Nice Guy” in Canada

To carry on with the philosophical book recommendations I made in the previous morality post, check out Schopenhauer’s take on ethics:

Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in the USA
Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in the UK
Buy “On The Basis of Morality” in Canada

The less savoury and more predatory amongst you will love the following book. I haven’t forgotten you. I recommend this book particularly to you. It won’t change your mind, but rather, it will reinforce what you already believe. It argues from a point of social Darwinism how strength is moral and weakness is immoral. In fact, the guys who are too altruistic would do well to read No More Mr Nice Guy, and then read this afterwards for a steroid top-up:

Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the USA
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in the UK
Buy “Might is Right or Survival of the Fittest” in Canada

And of course, the philosophy books recommended in the previous morality article are still as relevant as ever:

Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the USA
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in the UK
Buy “Beyond Good and Evil” in Canada
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the USA
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in the UK
Buy “On the Genealogy of Morals” in Canada

13 comments

  1. You advocate religious morality to be the foundation of civilization and it’s importance in the exponentially declining society; I agree. But this then also contradicts the argument that the dumbing down of the masses is a negative procedure, the degradation of society’s intellectual capacity also paves way for the spiritual facet to reduce.

    Intelligent and conscious individuals become aware that morality is just an abstract human creation, that religion is not true in the literal sense but also develop the understanding of why these things are important to stabilize the masses. The masses should be allowed to take religion on its literal application as long as they are not injurious, they should wholeheartedly practise moral supremacy but never should low-conscious individuals be welcomed to the notion that these things are abstracts.

    These, I shall call them ‘half-conscious’ or ‘teenage-smart’ people are introduced to such ideas and hence proceed to enforce their views on everyone within their vicinity. They believe they are intelligent, rational and truly intellectual because of course they are one of the atheist, open-minded people and most people are religious idiots. But, their ‘enlightenment’ is premature and crude, a teenager who thinks they know everything. These people never grow from such a state.

    The truly intelligent in a short amount of time realize that their notions were primitive and that they have only just scratched the surface of the mass amount of knowledge they can develop on. These people are mostly silent in their views. They know what they believe but realize it is a fool’s errand to try and propose such concepts to the idiots. Worse still is to introduce such notions to the half-conscious, for if such a thing was to happen – born would be another ‘open-minded’, unbelieving, advocate of ‘freedom’, atheism and rights for all. These people are more dangerous than their religious moral cousins as they truly believe they are intelligent and truly bathe in their lack of morality with no actual benefit to themselves or for advancement.

    My question is, is it beneficial to society if the masses are intelligent because of the vast information they have available (internet, books etc..) or if they are reduced to merely religious teachings?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Great post Manny, apologies for the delay in my response I must have overlooked this. As you said, the less intelligent should be religious, that’s what religion is for: to control the masses.

      As for the intelligent, I believe they can benefit from religion without being enslaved by its narrative for the holy books contain much wisdom.

      The teenage smart you allude to are most harmless when religious, that is not to say there is no such thing as religious fanatics or extremists, but that for the most part they will have strong moral values, pay taxes, reproduce and generally prop up civilization with their lifestyle.

      Stupid people need an ideology to follow, religion fills that void in the most harmless way possible. Atheism, feminism, communism, all these ideologies are inferior alternatives to religion that destabilise civilization domestically, much unlike religion. Love it or hate it, religion is a necessity for all, although as I said previous, an intellectual need not be consumed by it, total consumption is for the feeble of mind and the unintelligent.

      Like

      1. Came here after I saw your link to this post on Twitter. Knowing you’re agnostic helps to understand you better. I think people that don’t believe in God, yet are compelled to make sense of the world, are by default going to think more critically about their surroundings than otherwise. I’m suspicious of the basis on which their conclusions are made because I don’t believe humans are the origin of good or evil. We are under the influence and you are a keen observer of the fruits of those influences.

        I completely disagree with your reply to the previous poster that stupid people need a religious ideology to follow. Smart or dumb, we all need a good philosophy to live by. What that GOOD is, is up for debate…for now.

        Thank you for your work.

        Like

  2. This is a really good explaination of how I conducted myself, when I was a police officer(of 17 years).

    I could easily identify the altruist officer, as well as the Machavellian officer.

    I was odd in that I often vascillated from one to the other. This made both groups distrust/dislike me.

    I recognized that I had to be more evil and mean, when battling another evil perpetrator (my survival depended on it), but on the “good” side of the law/morality.

    Then when met with low resistance altruists, I could easily step into their mindset also.

    My fellow “brothers” we’re constantly confused, as they could not safely predict my actions in a given situation.

    My only motto was that many whom couldn’t stand to see my machevellian side, but enjoyed the outcome, we’re like people who like to eat sausage, but don’t like to see how it’s made.

    Your thoughts confirm to me and give me confidence that I Am actually a “moral Machavellian”.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Sadists are not consistently sadistic; there tends to be a reaction formation toward kindness in their public persona in order to conceal their nature. Also sadists are more caring than masochists; sadists want their victim to experience pain, they are focused on their victim’s feelings, whereas masochists are usually essentially narcissistic, caring only about their own feelings rather than anyone else’s. (Some masochists are narcissistic sadists, putting themselves in the position of their victim because to them no one else’s feelings can be real. This kink is structurally similar to autogynophilia.) The true sadist will treat the masochist kindly, “sadists” who want consenting partners are not real sadists but are paraphiliacs with a fixation on the paraphernalia and ritual that goes with BDSM. These latter types are often more self-absorbed than the true sadists.

    Public altruists tend to be narcissists and sadists trying to improve others’ opinions of them, and these are often Machiavellian, though the sadists tend to be better at it. (Private altruists are a different species from the public ones.)

    Machiavellians are focused on manipulating other people and therefore are forced to think about the desires and motivations of others more than is comfortable for the narcissist. They care about others’ thoughts only insofar as those thoughts are about the narccissist, so they do poorly in manipulating others compared to sadists.

    There is another species of self-absorbed people besides the narcissists, which might be called autistics. These do not care about other people’s opinions or feelings enough to want to manipulate them, in fact they find thinking about others so disagreeable that even the prospect of thereby being able to use other people for the autistics’ own ends is seldom enough to make such consideration worthwhile. These nevertheless tend to follow social rules rigidly once they have learned them (usually with difficulty) and so are paradoxically often among the most moral people, and because of their tendency to leave others alone, they likely do less harm than misguided altruists.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. @Kid Jupiter
    “Nevertheless, such people must guard such principles from public view, for these principles are the individual’s Achilles heel and will be exploited by those who do not share them.”

    “It takes a smarter man to balance the nuances of his own morality within a society that is powerless to impose a collective morality.”

    “But then one must remember the sadist only respects power, like a woman, and thus has no frame of reference for innate altruism.”

    Good points to think About.

    Like

  5. I’m curious why such a well read person as yourself seems so inclined to interpret Machiavelli as making a claim about morality rather than one about political science. What makes you think that Machiavelli endorses these beliefs on morality that you take to be Machiavellian?

    Like

  6. I’m not so sure civilization’s existence depends on the majority of men being able to get laid. I think some of the times when men are most productive, and willing to take the most risks, are when they hold out hope of someday having a sexual relationship with a hot woman, but don’t currently have it, because they’re in monk mode, focusing on their mission. Guys whose default is betatude will take on some alpha characteristics during this time, as their devotion to their goal makes them temporarily indifferent to women.

    When men decide to give up on their dreams and settle for mediocrity, that’s usually when they shift their focus to pursuing a relationship with the best woman they can attract. No longer aspiring to build skyscrapers, they are now ready to finish off the bungalow of their lives with the capstone of a committed relationship. Achievements requiring long-term, devoted attention and the sacrifice of other priorities will be beyond their reach, because they are concentrating on keeping their wife and children happy and offering them security.

    If a small minority of men were monopolizing all the women, though, then the sex-starved men would have no choice but to either get depressed and give up entirely, or continue striving to become desirable enough to get a woman. I think a lot of them would go through periods of depression alternating with inventive attempts to rise into the top 20%. The possibility of going from having no woman, to possessing a large harem, could be a powerful motivating force for risk-taking and hard work.

    People might then say that civilization’s accomplishments depend on female hypergamy’s providing incentives for men to strive for greatness.

    Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s