Posted on 05/28/2021 9:26:44 AM PDT by LuciusDomitiusAutelian
The new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at earlymoderntexts.com ...
And if it has been a long time since you read them it would probably be a good idea to read them again. You can rest assured that everyone in a seat of power, public or not, has studied "The Prince". This is one book that is in the Globalists' bookshelf and composes their collective "bible".
Know Thy Enemy: Ephesians 6:11-12
Ephesians 6:11–12
11: Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Why thank you MonicaG!
Note that its all in the context of feudalism not a republic.
Niccolo identifies that a successful ruler generally does things that lead to the success of the principality. And that usually involves letting people do what they want. Rule by menace or despotism is not a long-term policy as ultimately the mob will support a usurper.
So pegging Machiavelli as some evil demon is lazy and inaccurate.
That is entirely correct. Machiavelli was a small-R republican, said so at length in the Discourses, and ended up getting tortured by the Medici for his activities defending the Republic of Florence from their reoccupation. The model for The Prince was Cesare Borgia, who all Machiavelli's readers knew perfectly well came to a rather bad end 25 years before The Prince was published. That context isn't very clear some 490 years afterward but it was clear at the time.
I never pegged Niccolo is a “bad guy”. This needs to be read to understand how to take and consolidate power. And it was dedicated to the Medicis. The global bankers of his time.
Hmmmmm.....strange that he dedicated the first part of the work to the Medicis.
Are you sure read the book? The very first page is a dedication to the Medici.
DedicationTo his Magnificence Lorenzo Di Piero De’ Medic
This is the part of the career whom Machiavelli dedicated the work to.
Lorenzo II became lord of Florence in August 1513, after his uncle, Giuliano de’ Medici, handed over control of its government. Ambitious by nature, Lorenzo II lacked “patience with Florence’s republican system of government”, and thus in 1516, convinced his uncle, Pope Leo X to make him Duke of Urbino at the age of 24.
I’m sure there are folks on here who do things besides nit-picking, grammar NAZIs, and create circular firing squads. lol. But maybe I’m being hopeful and not realistic. I can’t post a damn thing on here without someone trying pick it apart. And we wonder why the globalist communists are running right through us. I do welcome criticism or other takes but so far i’ve been accused of attacking the author, which i clearly never did. And it would appear the other person didn’t even bother to read the first chapter of the work. smdh
My favorite piece of knowledge from and advice for others is “if you take on the king better take him out”
Machiavelli was an example of a professional and well-regarded civil servant, who loved participating in the “game” of politics more than seeking power for his own sake. His ultimate penalty, which he clearly considered worse than being tortured, was to be exiled from Florence and the political world he lived for.
“The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy” were not so much advocacy of political amorality (that predated him, all the way back to the earliest times of government and power-broking) as persistent attempts to show his potential value to the Medicis and get back into “the game”. Unfortunately, his reputation preceded him, and his writings probably induced both envy and suspicion from his would-be bosses...his petition to return to Florentine politics was rejected the same day he died.
Plus, they’re great reading...like sitting in a wise elder statesman’s library and listening to him reminisce and make observations.
More liberal crud spouted by conservatives.
Look, Machiavelli wrote three Christian sermons:
On Penitence
On Thanksgiving
On (Political) Ambition
He never meant that the ends justify the means in all situation. He wrote the ends justify the means IN AN EMERGENCY that threatens your existence. Translated: you may have to use war to fight those warring against you or you die.
He wrote it is not moral under cover of doing good to do evil (Discourses).
Machiavelli’s the Prince has been a book read by Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Cromwell and other despots. But it also was the template for a republic form of government read by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin.
Machiavelli’s role model of a leader is Moses. He praised the strong man Lorenzo de Medici because he was the only leader stone enough to resist the French invasion of Florence with all the rape, murder and confiscation that went with that invasion.
Machiavelli is depicted as a teacher of evil by liberal novelists, playwrights, movie makers and philosophers (Strauss) to distract and divert from what Machiavelli advocated. I even wonder whether posts like this are written to deceive about Machiavelli -— in other words the commenter is Machiavellian.
I have a very old copy of “the Prince” in my library.
It was not an Evil Book.
The Communist Democrats who are gleefully attempting to destroy our nation ARE EVIL!
It is up to US. To end it. It will not be stopped from DC.
It must start at the State Level. I believe that is already underway in a few places.
Ephesians Bump
For those who have not read it and are interested:
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1232
Choose your format and download it for free.
The purpose of this post, just as SunTzu was going to be the second post, has nothing to do with the author, but to know what our enemy is reading. It is good to be educated in what your enemy has been educated in. I don’t understand why people think I am attacking Machiavelli. Please point out one place where I attacked Machiavelli or please refrain making baseless passive-agressive assertions such as “I even wonder whether posts like this are written to deceive about Machiavelli -— in other words the commenter is Machiavellian.”
Seriously at my wit’s end with some of the pettiness of folks.
I read SunTzu, Machiavelli, Marx, Lennin, von Clausewitz, Hitler, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran ad infinitum, to better lend myself to fighting my enemy. lol. Doesn’t mean SunTzu is my enemy or was a bad man But my enemy has studied him, and only a failure would not make an effort to try and understand the enemy’s playbook. Regardless of who wrote the playbook. If I were a football coach, and had access to the other coach’s playbook, I WOULD READ IT!!!!
Hallelujah Texas Fossil!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.