Now you are just being insulting, I posted the link/address. Copy and paste it to the address bar and it will work, but I see you are to lazy to do that.
As for the term Machiavellian, the modern definition is nothing more than a continuation of the age old, and now PC slander of Machiavelli by people who were too lazy to read anything more than the Prince.
Note the term "modern definition", which you admit I used the word "Machiavellian" in the correct "modern definition".
As for Sun Tzu, he himself discusses the unversality of his military principals and there application in all adversarial relationship
Note an "adversarial relationship" in which the government views it's country's citizens as it's adversaries, is a tyranny.
"A gentleman can see a question from all sides without bias. The small man is biased and can see a question only from one side." - Confucius, Analects, c.400 b.c.
I guess by this quote, you are a 'small man' because you refuse to see any other side by your own.
Get back to me when you expanded your reading list.
You're the one who refuses to accept the modern english language.
Isn't it interesting that none of your arguments rely on any of the source material I mentioned? In fact you have mentioned no source material at all to bolster or back up your argument/opinion. Why is that? If parsing my words or looking up the word "Machiavellian" in the dictionary is the best you can come up with, you stop embarassing yourself. This is not an argument over the definition of "is". You need to come up with something else if you want to be taken seriously.