Axiom Two of the Raymond Method: When Someone Proves They Are Your Enemy, Trust That They Are Your Enemy
- john raymond
- Jul 19
- 3 min read
I. Strategic Function of Axiom Two
Axiom Two is the operational corollary to Axiom One. If the first axiom warns you not to extend trust until it is earned, this one tells you what to do once betrayal is proven.
Once an actor shows—by repeated pattern or outcome—that they are operating against your strategic interest, they must be treated as your enemy, regardless of how they present themselves.
In asymmetric conflict, actors rarely declare their allegiance openly. They operate through delay, sabotage, deflection, and narrative camouflage. Axiom Two pierces that fog by grounding allegiance in action, not appearance.
II. Why It’s Necessary
The failure to act on known betrayal is one of the most consistent—and lethal—mistakes in Western strategic culture. Even after a politician, corporation, or supposed ally repeatedly undermines democratic institutions or aids authoritarian interests, many analysts and institutions cling to hope:
“He’s just being provocative.”
“She’s misunderstood.”
“They’re complicated.”
This is how saboteurs thrive—by weaponizing ambiguity and exploiting institutional inertia.
Axiom Two ends that indulgence. It recognizes the pattern, locks it in, and mandates a posture of strategic defense.
Once an actor defects, their status as adversary is no longer a question. It is a conclusion.
III. Functional Test of an Enemy
An enemy, under the Raymond Method, is not identified by:
Their party registration
Their national identity
Their tone or branding
An enemy is identified by:
The outcomes of their actions
The persistence of sabotage
The interests they serve—regardless of what they claim
If an actor’s behavior repeatedly strengthens an autocrat, weakens an alliance, or obstructs the defense of a democratic partner (e.g., Ukraine), they are not neutral. They are an adversary. And they must be treated accordingly.
IV. Strategic Advantages of Axiom Two
Eliminates Analytical Paralysis: You don’t re-litigate known betrayal. You recognize it, file it, and move on to containment.
Prevents Narrative Distraction: You don’t get pulled into PR rehabilitation campaigns or rebranding efforts designed to soften the public image of a strategic threat.
Sharpens Resource Allocation: Energy goes toward countering threats—not persuading, negotiating with, or hoping for the return of someone who has already chosen to betray.
Increases Predictive Accuracy: Once labeled correctly, enemies become easier to model. Their goals become transparent, their timing legible.
V. Case Applications
Donald Trump: Years of undermining NATO, delaying or blocking aid to Ukraine, echoing Kremlin narratives, and sabotaging American democratic institutions. Status: Proven enemy of Western strategic cohesion.
Elon Musk Pattern of platform destabilization, amplification of authoritarian narratives, and communication sabotage in wartime. Status: Not a misunderstood innovator. A known asymmetric actor until proven otherwise through costly reversal.
Viktor Orbán: Member of NATO and the EU, but consistently works to undercut sanctions, support Russia, and weaken transatlantic unity. Status: Alliance saboteur. His institutional membership does not erase the reality of his behavior.
VI. Scientific and Psychological Grounding: Tit for Tat and Strategic Memory
Axiom Two is anchored in the game theory of “tit for tat”—the most successful strategy in repeated-play prisoner’s dilemma competitions:
Cooperate until the other side defects.
Once they defect, reciprocate.
Resume cooperation only if they reestablish trust through action.
This model works because it’s clear, punishable, and responsive. It mirrors real-world strategy where memory and pattern recognition matter. And it ensures that betrayal is neither rewarded nor endlessly rationalized.
In game-theoretic terms: defection locks in a new posture—mistrust—until conditions change demonstrably.
Axiom Two is the real-world operationalization of that logic.
Western institutions fail because they treat betrayal as an exception to be explained away. The Raymond Method treats it as a pattern that must be acted upon—swiftly and without hand-wringing.
VII. What This Axiom Prevents
Endless "benefit of the doubt" loops: Once an actor has crossed the line consistently, you don’t reopen the case.
Strategic leakage through false reconciliation: You don’t reintegrate hostile actors into planning or communication cycles.
Self-inflicted blind spots: You don’t let branding, history, or partisan alignment cloud the simple question: Whose side are they actually helping?
VIII. Conclusion: Pattern Is Proof
Where Axiom One demands skepticism, Axiom Two demands recognition. Once betrayal has been confirmed by action—repeated, sustained, strategically aligned with enemy interests—you must stop entertaining ambiguity.
You do not need to know why they are your enemy. You only need to accept that they are—so you can act accordingly.
This is the great failure of conventional analysts and institutions: they see the pattern, but refuse to name it. They ask for clarity when clarity has already arrived.
The Raymond Method does not wait. Because in asymmetric war, delay is death.
And clarity is survival. Because knowing who your enemies are lets you counter them.
Comments