/iq/

>>5081
>Machiavellian thinking
No reason not to start with Machiavelli himself. Start with The Prince.

I could but I won't.

>>5084
You've fallen at the first hurdle. Machiavellian thinking is not 'political success for the lazy'.

>>5086

No, I mean I could help the OP but I won't. There are enough manipulative, underhand bastards in the world, why contribute to it?

>>5087
Who said anything about being a manipulative, underhand bastard?

If I wanted to look to read about national socialism there'd be no shortage of suggestions and people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

>>5088
Yes, but books on national socialism generally aren't how-to guides.

>>5089
There's a lot to suggest The Prince isn't either, and is merely a pisstake.

>Can people recommend any books on social manipulation and generally being an underhand bastard

And this is why a) I won't help OP, and b) why I suggested /iq/.

>>5091
>>5087
God you two are stuck up.

>>5092

GodhatesOP.jpg

>>5090
So?

Simply to spite some of the people in this thread, I've asked this question elsewhere are received these responses as things to read up on for this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
The fourth century BC indian work Arthashastra
The works of George Friedman
The works of Edward Bernays.

>>5095

TROLLED TO TEARS, then lad? At least we didn't bait you.

>>5096
Posting information relevant to the purpose of the thread is considered being trolled now? Oh how .gs has fallen.

>>5095
>spite
See? This is why we don't want to help you with this.

>>5097

No lad, they're taking the piss. And you're lapping it up. Tut, tut. KC is that way =>.

>>5098
No it's not.

Excuse the post if it seems a little incoherent, I have a shitty headache.

>>5081

You can see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals in play in US politics today. Take a look through the text then go and watch some American politics and you'll see both sides doing it.

>>5088

Always with the Godwin's law. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>5101
>Always with the Godwin's law. What the fuck is wrong with you?
It's an ample example of what people might not want others to read about for fear of replication.

As for the book, very interesting, will look into it. I heard that book related to one of the Republican primary candidates, can't remember which.

>>5095
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
That would be a guide to being an utter cunt and laughing stock, not an underhand bastard.

>>5103
That's not reason not to read about it. It may be bollocks but no reading is time wasted.

>>5102

It's a good read, I can't stand the communist shitbag personally but the guy was an absolute genius, the American NRA just a few months ago used rule 13

>“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

https://www.youtube.com/v/zKLA3BODXr0

>>5095

I would just get the Cliffs Notes version of "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays.

Machiavelli wrote another book (believe it or not), called "The Art of War". It's often confused for the synonymous book by Sun Tzu, but IMO it's more relevant to modern total warfare. I actually found it much more informative than "The Prince".

On the subject of slimy jew tactics, "Influence" by Robert Cialdini is very informative, but short, and tends to repeat the same things over and over (it reads like a books that would kick off a management fad).

Drug addiction is great for learning manipulation.

>>6321
OP here, read all this stuff and you're a bunch of cunts for saying don't read it.

No one's mentioned Othello yet?

Draco Malfoy had it down.

"My father will here about this!"

"You'll pay for this, you and your bloody chicken!"

Kicked a man in the face while he was hexed and couldn't move. Utter bastard.

>>6323
I hope you take all of it very seriously. There's definitely nothing that's been recommended in here which will teach you things which are provably false.

I'm not really sure what the OP is after. In what capacity do you want to manipulate people? Are you trying to get people you talk to every day to like you? Are you trying to change the opinions of others through writing or speaking? Are you just trying to get ahead in office politics? Do you want to learn about how people are influenced as a whole, as in the public relations industry? All of these questions would bring different recommendations.

You could maybe learn techniques employed by influential people, read biographies of those widely considered to be cunts, and research philosophies that promote self-interest or justify self-interested outlooks, but I'm afraid this may just turn you into Ayn Rand.

>>5101

I haven't researched this, but I did pick up on a recent search that Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis for her degree on Saul Alinksy.

>>6328
This was posted three year ago. I wasn't interested in employing any of it, just curious as the mechanics of manipulation.

>>6329

Jesus. I forgot that parts of .gs are like an archive. Did you ever get around to reading Edward Bernays? Chomsky's Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind may be a helpful analysis for you, too, if you're interested in the broader political strategies.

>>6328
> Do you want to learn about how people are influenced as a whole, as in the public relations industry?
This would be interesting. I'm not OP though.

>>6330
Yes I did, though I can't remember much. I may reread it and get back to you. Thanks for the recommendations.