Login or Register
TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic

- the machiavellian times -

articles & exerts by OmLaLa the Machiavellian

"It is better to be audacious than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."
-Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Hello and welcome to the machiavellian times. We hope you enjoy your stay.

-the machiavellian news-

"Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you truly are."

-Niccolò Machiavelli, The Art of War



-the machiavellian headlines-

"The reason is that nature has so created men that they are able to desire everything but are not able to attain everything: so that the desire being always greater than the acquisition, there results discontent with the possession and little satisfaction to themselves from it. From this arises the changes in their fortunes; for as men desire, some to have more, some in fear of losing their acquisition, there ensues enmity and war."

-Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy


"Using Pavlov on Plates"
Published 09/24/15 by OmLaLa [0 Comments]

Red Pillers,

I’ve been conducting a type of "social experiment" on my current favorite plate (a.k.a. my “Fine China”) Ashley for a little over a month now and I’ve decided to share the experiment and it’s results with all of you RP bastards as objectively as I possibly can. It is a long post fellas, so go chop wood, meditate, lift something and come back when you’re ready to learn. I’ll sure you’ll get something out this one.

Lastly, if you find this experiment, it’s procedures or OmLaLa too amoral or too objective, please skip to the disclaimer at the bottom. Let’s begin.


Ashley and I met roughly once a week to fuck and hang out, but I don’t want to drive the 20-30 minutes it takes to see her. While we do smoke separately, we would smoke like chimneys while we are together. Although the smoking doesn’t bother me, I believe that I can play at her insecurity towards her smoking habits to my advantage and get her to come to my place more often by using two forms of Operant Conditioning.

The idea behind my experiment would be to condition her to believe that her smoking upset me without telling her directly (learned reflexive response) to establish a long-term “escape” negative reinforcement conditioning (i.e. remove the undesirable result by exhibiting the correct behavior), then to implement positive reinforcement conditioning of the behavior under certain guidelines/requirements (i.e. establish a positive reinforcement stimuli under the guidelines set by the escape negative reinforcement conditioning).


Ashley, HB9, 21, black and Middle Eastern ethnicity. Smokes Black-and-Mild cigars daily, roughly 2-4 a day. Her high need for validation stems from being unattractive at an early age and “growing into” her attractiveness. It also explains why she subconsciously keeps less attractive friends and is on Facebook/Instagram/YouTube/the mirror longer than your average attractive woman. She has roughly 4 male beta orbiters as well that I’m currently aware of (she’s told me). These details may prove very beneficial for this experiment.

Stage 1 Negative Conditioning

I began conditioning her with light dread game every time she smoked without me. If she left the room and went outside to smoke, on her return I’d turn a bit colder, more distant or be on my phone more. Just enough for her to notice. I made no scene of it, said nothing about her smoking too much, and didn’t make any clear or distinct signs that my distance was relative to her smoking habits.

Of course, she would follow up with shit test like, “are you okay?” or “Is everything alright?” which informed me that her hamster was indeed running. Good sign. It was when I heard her say “Did I do something wrong?” that I knew her hamster was running in the direction I wanted it to be. She was becoming introspective, meaning she was attributing my change in demeanor towards something she was causing. I pause slightly before dismissing it to give the impression I had more on the topic than I was willing to say. I then knew it was time to move on to Stage 2.

Stage 2 Negative Conditioning

While I made no DIRECT distinction between her smoking and my change in demeanor at this stage, I aimed to begin my dread game in the presence of OTHER female smokers.When we watched a movie where the woman began smoking, I became slightly colder and more distant. Whenever we went out and passed a female smoker I would respond in the same way. Also, the amount of female smokers we encountered would affect the degree of my dread game/demeanor change (i.e. a group of 3 smoking females illicited a stronger response or lack thereof than 1 smoker).

Again, I continued these dread games until Ashley began to shit test again and then I listened for the proper shit test. “What’s the matter?” or “You’ve been acting different lately” were the common shit tests Ashley began with prove her hamster had begun running again. I dismissed these. Her follow up shit test were along the lines of “I need to go to the gym more often” or “I really should eat better” which was Ashley’s hamster turning more self-reflectant and introspective in its search for the cause of my discomfort (moving in the right direction), but it was generally just grasping in the dark. I needed Ashley’s hamster to connect my situation discomfort and women smoking naturally (i.e. feel like she did it on her own and it wasn't orchestrated), so I kept the dread games going and dismissed these shit tests as well.

I waited until I heard her say, “I really should to quit smoking soon” and “I think I need to stop smoking” to inform me that her hamster’s determination to discover the root of my discomfort (the result) was introspective (something she’s doing or has done i.e. the cause) AND she connected the actions she observed during Stage 1 Conditioning I’d established earlier on (i.e. smoking is the variable). We’re on the right track now. I left a large gap of tension-building silence before succinctly stating that wasn't the reason. Her hamster takes that pause as a yes and she’s ready to go. Time for Stage 3.

Project Analysis

At the last stage of negative conditioning I had to be careful. I wanted to invoke an “escape” negative reinforcement around smoking (i.e. doing smoking the right way or at the right time removes the stimuli of me being distant) to which I’d build a positive reinforcement around (i.e. after fucking, smoking becomes acceptable for a finite period of time). I DID NOT want to invoke an ”active avoidance” negative reinforcement by mistake (i.e. stop smoking and remove the stimuli of me being distant). I did not want to stop smoking altogether, I just wanted to benefit from it. Plus, I’d be very difficult to build a long-term positive reinforcement around active avoidance (quitting smoking could only illicit a one-time reward, in this case fucking, at the time of quitting) Fucking also can’t be the reward because it doesn't rely on dependency nor does it effectively play to an insecurity as much as smoking (I know this sounds amoral, bear with me). The idea is to turn smoking into her reward through the process of fucking.

Stage 3 Negative Conditioning

This stage would be the most blatant approach towards the connection of my dread tests and her smoking, but I had to make other changes in preparation. First, during this stage, I stopped smoking freely or randomly. Secondly, I would only smoke after we had sex and I’d smoke a lot. This added a visual stimuli for Ashley of what was to come and what I’d expect (Preparatory Conditioning). During this stage. Every time she’d return from smoking or we would get into her car, I’d comment on something that RESULTED from her smoking. I’d comment on the way her clothes smelled, the way her car smelled, the empty wrappers and boxes in her car, her breath, her teeth (not really much of an issue, but still), the smell that stuck to her hands, whatever I could. I NEVER flat out said that I have a problem with the act of smoking and I never commented on anything smoke-related after sex.

It didn't take long for the correct shit tests to come forward at this stage. It started with Ashley hamstring on extroversive causes. “Why didn't you say something earlier?’ or “You smoke too!” or “You’re making a big deal out of this!” Then she began to hamster on introversive causes. “Does it really smell that bad in here?” or “Can you really smell it on my clothes?” or “Is it really that big of a deal?”. Then, surely enough, she began to retract how often she’d smoke around me. If I had an issue with her smoking, I’d stop here, but I have a bigger goal in mind. Time to begin positive reinforcement.

Establishing the Positive Stimuli

The following night, I sent her a text clearly stating my parameters: it stated that we both needed to cut back on smoking, and we could only smoke after fucking. This does two things. It turns the negative reinforcement into a positive one under certain guidelines and it gives the subject (Ashley) incentive rather than functioning purely on prevention (something I feel is better suited for social experiments, as people tend to plot and rebel when pressed). Her incentives (outside of fucking) are the ability to limit smoking (long-term escape negative reinforcement) and removal of my change in demeanor/dread game (short-term escape negative reinforcement). The only thing left to do is monitor maintain the scarcity of the positive stimuli (i.e. make sure she doesn’t cheat and smoke alone).

Maintaining Scarcity of Positive Stimuli

This wasn’t too difficult. I followed up with how happy it made me that she was willing to try to limit smoking with me and continued on how unattractive habitual smokers are. Ashley highly values my opinion because I speak on it so rarely (Law 4: Always Say Less Than Necessary, 48 Laws of Power). She had only tried to cheat on our agreement once, which I caught (wrappers in the back seat) and she immediately came clean. This scarcity cannot be completely monitored, however, so a great deal of it will rely on trust in the subject.


Needless to say, the experiment was a huge success. I get phone calls at all hours of the day, she always comes to see me, she only stays around just long enough to fuck and smoke and then returns to her days as usual. What’s even better, it requires no additional work on my end; because she’s now conditioned to connect smoking and fucking me, so long as I stay attractive (i.e. remain someone worth fucking) my day-to-day is unhampered. Better still, because she reflects positively on smoking and it’s a direct result to fucking me, she reflects positively towards just the act of fucking me, making our sex amazing and abundant. She comes to me roughly 5-6 times a week and any location is fine in her book, so long as we aren’t caught.


In the end, what I’ve learned is that using and understanding RP theologies and through the use of some simple Pavlov and Miller Conditioning strategies, plates can be subconsciously influenced into following guidelines to the benefit of the user.

TL;DR- I used techniques discussed in Operant Conditioning (and a few from Classical Conditioning) to teach my best plate (a.k.a. my “Fine China”) to connect her smoking habit and fucking me. She then attributes good fucking with smoking and becomes subconsciously conditioned to fuck harder, longer, more often and less discriminately.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be. My understanding of Pavlov and Miller is very basic and was simply used in junction with RP theology.

Disclaimer Part 2: Some people might read this and the objective way I’ve presented it in as completely amoral. They are correct, it is. But that’s the point. Presenting subjective details is presenting the chance of bias. What I have listed is my experiment, the steps I’ve taken and my results. I am long past the ”morality” of the sexual free market. Sex is war and war is amoral.

Disclaimer Part 3: Some may ask how this is different from women who use sex as currency for drugs. I say to them that they are failing to see the bigger picture. Women who use sex for drugs do so because they have no other option to quell their dependency. Their options are expertly crafted to bottleneck to the point where having sex with the dealer is her only option.

This is much different because there are clear and present alternatives she can choose from to quell her dependency. She chooses the route of fucking me because out of her other options, this one has the highest benefit (possibility to quit smoking, fucking, removal of dread game). If she were to find a greater benefit from another option, she would take that route. AWALT. Until then, I’ll reap my own mutual benefits from the route she’s chosen.

Disclaimer Part 4: I know that Miller was the developer of Operant Conditioning and not Pavlov. “Pavlov on Plates” had a nice ring to it so I chose catchiness over correctness.

Tip OmLaLa for their post.
Login to comment...


-about the machiavellian-

I am RP Machiavellianism in its purest form with a touch of Sociopathy and Charm sprinkled in then baked at roughly 450 degrees for 45 minutes. I am OmLala.

The RP Machiavellian dissects the "butterfly" in order to view his world in the purest & most objective fashion possible. But in seeing the world so objectively, you rob it of a beauty only possible through ignorance and subjectivity.

That is Machiavellianism in a nutshell; everyone and everything is a butterfly to either be dissected and studied or benefited from. Most interpersonal relationships with butterflies is through the pursuit of one's own ends. Superficiality is attached to most interpersonal relationships, feigning compassion or remorse, all while displaying a facade where the thoughts and opinions of butterflies matter.

But they don't.

The mindset and perceptions of butterflies can never match that of an individual; what a butterfly fears, holds dear, considers important are petty in the eyes of the individual.


for more insight, Skype with OmLaLa the Machiavellian under username omlala2015.

the machiavellian times © 2015

Image result for machiavelli

"God and nature have thrown all human fortunes into the midst of mankind; and they are thus attainable rather by rapine than by industry, by wicked actions rather than by good. Hence it is that men feed upon each other, and those who cannot defend themselves must be worried."

-Niccolò Machiavelli, The Art of War