One of the most strik­ing exam­ples of this law is illus­trat­ed by Ivan IV, also known as Ivan the Ter­ri­ble of Rus­sia. His pow­er was solid­i­fied through a mas­ter­stroke of con­trol when he strate­gi­cal­ly with­drew from Moscow, leav­ing the pop­u­la­tion in a state of fear and uncer­tain­ty. His absence cre­at­ed a cri­sis that par­a­lyzed the city, and when he returned, the peo­ple begged him to return to pow­er under any con­di­tions, demon­strat­ing how cre­at­ing a cri­sis and offer­ing a solu­tion that only you can pro­vide can give you unprece­dent­ed con­trol over oth­ers. This exam­ple per­fect­ly show­cas­es how manip­u­lat­ing the field of choice can give you com­plete com­mand over the sit­u­a­tion, as the peo­ple believed they had a choice but were actu­al­ly forced to accept the terms he dic­tat­ed.

The prin­ci­ple of con­trol­ling choic­es is not lim­it­ed to his­tor­i­cal mon­archs. Oth­er exam­ples, such as the clever tac­tics of Rudolf Vir­chow, fur­ther demon­strate this law in action. Vir­chow, faced with the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a duel, clev­er­ly intro­duced an ele­ment of doubt by offer­ing a choice between two sausages, one of which was poi­soned. The uncer­tain­ty of the choice manip­u­lat­ed his oppo­nent into declin­ing the duel alto­geth­er, show­ing how fear and con­fu­sion can be manip­u­lat­ed to con­trol deci­sions. This use of fear and uncer­tain­ty as a tool for con­trol­ling choic­es high­lights how psy­cho­log­i­cal manip­u­la­tion can be just as pow­er­ful as phys­i­cal dom­i­nance when it comes to influ­enc­ing behav­ior.

Anoth­er exam­ple from the law is the sto­ry of an Armen­ian king who chal­lenged his sub­jects to find the great­est liar in his king­dom. The con­test, which seemed to be a sim­ple test of truth­ful­ness, quick­ly turned into a para­dox when the con­tes­tants were out­wit­ted by their own manip­u­la­tion, demon­strat­ing the pow­er of con­trol­ling choic­es through para­dox­i­cal chal­lenges. This illus­trates how peo­ple can be con­trolled not just through sim­ple offers of choice but by pre­sent­ing them with options that lead them into a sit­u­a­tion where they believe they are in con­trol, while in real­i­ty, they are being steered toward a pre­de­ter­mined out­come.

Fur­ther exem­pli­fy­ing this law is the sto­ry of Ninon de L’En­c­los, a cour­te­san who under­stood the art of con­trol­ling her suit­ors. Instead of sim­ply being pas­sive in her rela­tion­ships, she made her­self the prize in a game of choic­es, offer­ing her suit­ors the illu­sion of con­trol. By posi­tion­ing her­self as the ulti­mate choice in a strate­gic game, she was able to main­tain her auton­o­my and pow­er, forc­ing oth­ers to com­pete for her favor while she was in com­plete con­trol of the sit­u­a­tion. Her abil­i­ty to cre­ate an envi­ron­ment where her suit­ors felt they had a choice, yet were ulti­mate­ly guid­ed by her terms, is a prime exam­ple of how con­trol­ling options can ele­vate one’s pow­er and inde­pen­dence.

These exam­ples all rein­force the main prin­ci­ple of Law 31: true pow­er lies in the abil­i­ty to manip­u­late the choic­es of oth­ers while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly expand­ing your own options. Through strate­gic plan­ning, psy­cho­log­i­cal manip­u­la­tion, and cre­at­ing the illu­sion of free­dom, one can con­trol the actions of oth­ers with­out them real­iz­ing that they are being steered in a direc­tion that ben­e­fits you. The para­dox here is that those being influ­enced believe they have the pow­er to choose, but in real­i­ty, they are caught in a web of care­ful­ly craft­ed choic­es that lead them to a pre­de­ter­mined con­clu­sion. By under­stand­ing how to nar­row the options avail­able to oth­ers, you can effec­tive­ly con­trol their actions and shape the course of events with­out ever reveal­ing your true inten­tions.