There are duty and device in commitment and it is always the idiot who hurriedly takes sides. A fool has no sense of self-government, he is conquered by other people and quickly ensnares himself through sheer ignorance to his detriment. Do not be hasty to take sides and stay away from the heedless commitment that you have no assurance in. When you don’t commit your fondness to any side, people only work harder to win over your approval. Their civility and thwarted yearning become your influence when you withhold your commitment and remain distant from taking sides. Holding yourself back does not sustain annoyance but more so a sense of self-concern for your individualism. Also, it makes a person seem incapable to lay hold of, his lack of compliance with the cast of mind of the common people makes him appear like a superior man who stands beyond the crowd. Such a person’s capacity to detach himself from leaning to certain positions makes him sought after. In time, such a quality cultivates and expands and as your sovereignty develops, so do more people crave your attention and commitment. Yearning is contagious and a person who is craved by many naturally seems more in-demand and in turn, more attractive.
A sure way to break the spell is to dive into commitment carelessly, you automatically become unremarkable and colourless like the masses. Swift commitment sounds more like unenlightened clinging than independence, a person who has an adequate degree of awareness would at least gauge desire and tension before considering such a contract. People carelessly commit because they find a sense of consolation and security in doing so. This is undistinguished, for obvious reason, since people generally lack self-government that is not hampered by dependency and inferiority. People have their own courses of action to persuade you to commit, such as gifts and favours, solely to coerce you into duty. Don’t be taken in by such schemes, simply advocate their civility and kindle their desire without falling for the gambit. Do not grant yourself to be subject to commitment, obligation is negotiation and it is grounded in subtle duping. Bear in mind, though, you do not want to frankly push people away or give the impression that you are inadequate for commitment. You must, as it were, intimate the potentiality of ownership and commitment to keep them involved. That is to say, you dangle the carrot neither too close nor too far from their mouth.
If control and authority are your longings, consider a strategy; place yourself at the centre of competing forces and while you entice one side with a word of honour, notice as the other side comes after you also with the intention of surpassing its adversary. Your attention is costly to both sides, your effect and appeal will instantly magnify as you get both competing forces fighting over you for your assent. If you had laid down your commitment to one side, your influence would not seem as great, thus there is more power to be gained through avoidance of impetuous commitment. It is of import to bear in mind that a sharp machiavellian has an adequate sense of objectivity and dispassion from passionate involvements and has a capacity to observe the people around him as puppets that could further his plans in his road towards supremacy. Furthermore, he does not allow himself to turn out to be a footman for any motive or belief. People earn minor respect from dashing to substantiate others. Distance is more potent than effortless support. Postponement to pick up your weapons can in and of itself be a weapon. Let them tire out and leverage their depletion to your advantage.