Opinion on Machiavelli's the prince?
I find it very interesting, useful and insightful but i think it is limited due to the fact that he doesn't account for ideological struggle.
Has anyone read "Discourses on Livy"?
I heard they are really good as an addendum.
Does anyone here confirm?
Also, what about the art of war by him? Is it any good or just a self aggrandizing bullshit?
Mein Kampf is a better read, more informative, and much more relevant to modern times. I recommend both but Kampf is a 9/10, Prince is a 7/10.
good if you're going to be a country leader
virtually useless for the pleb
they needn't concern themselves with such subjects
Bump
make it your blood this country was born like a fucking Phoenix out of his method
Bump
>ideological struggle
He's too much of a chad for this. Only violence prevails
Discourses on Livy is really his best work. He essentialy was the first to bring up the argument that Christianity weakened Rome and advocated for a utilitarian Neopaganism. Later ideologues from northern Europe adopted it from him.
Are there good online sources?
Eh, Mein Kampf seems much more dedicated to germans, no?
Awww, the jew got something right for once. You're such a good little cutie pie.
Understanding is always useful. Also helps explain power dynamics so you can be better prepared
What do you mean? I wouldn't read secondary sources written by cuck scholars. Just read the books.
Well, it succeeds in being what it's made for, a guide book for rulers. The Discourses is much more about how a nation and its societies ought to be rather than how its leader should be, so in a way it is more ideological than The Prince.
Read 48 Laws of Power if you want to understand power
Mein Kampf isn't good . it's rambling and disorganized. The book that informed Hitler's (and Musso's/Mao's and more) practical politics is Gustave Le Bon's 'Psychology of Crowds'. It's a mandatory read imho.
The only part I remember from reading it awhile back is not to destroy your enemy's cities.
Greene's laws of power is better.
Great book.Machiavelli was my imaginery friend for 5 years.
Get out of here with that garbage.It's literally for edgy 11 year olds.
Primitive. He advocates basic violation of reciprocity throughout. We either have moved past that or we ought to.
I'll condense the whole thing into one line for you.
>Don't trust anyone and do whatever it takes to win
That's the basic principle expressed in the book
It's good if you want to learn how authoritarians think.
>can be better prepared
for what purpose
99.9% of the people here will never take a decision that'll impact more than 1-2 people
Let's face it. Machiavelli is boring and doesn't really say anything.
>for once
buddy the jews have been doing the violence thing for millennia. It's the exact reason why hadrian hated them.
Something people don't think about enough sometimes is how ideas get outcompeted. There must be some reason we regard dictatorships that leave people in terror as somehow primitive, yes? A reason we regard them as something to move away from?
Could it be that fear cannot be maintained except by suffering? The very substance of that which we would withhold from all souls compassionate is that which maintains a power born of fear.
You sound like a vocal bench warmer.
Mein Kampf is for retards
Machiavelli was a fucking genius.
Sun Tzu's Art of War is much, much better
its good for gaining dark triad thinking which women love to see
>There must be some reason we regard dictatorships that leave people in terror as somehow primitive, yes?
Because you are ruled by women and jews.
Imagine not reading Meditations and The Prince.
aged and irrelevant
>Yas Forums
>reading books
lol
I liked both Art Of War and Discourses. Both of them are pretty heavy on Machiavelli's admiration for Rome and his whole 'kids today don't know nothin' about virtu' attitude. Machiavelli's Art Of War is much better than the Sun Tzu one in my opinion, because its written as a Socratic dialogue and is very specific rather than a bunch of vague maxims and philosophy.
ecks dee, it ain't only that. It gives you methods as well. It isn't a morality handbook.
Good. Better than faggoty philosophy, also On War by Clausowitz
Didn't he write The Prince as a satire to criticize the excesses of the nobility?
ah, understood
which has proven to be utterly and completely useless.
No political force has had even mariginal sucess in europe without beeing either christian or anti-christian.
Basically this. It’s a fun read but he’s ultimately sucking up because he wanted to stay out of prison - so he essentially wrote a guide on what the Medici were doing to keep power, and justified their use of violence and totalitarianism.
It’s a guidebook on how to maintain a tyranny and not get your head chopped off.
My step mother gave me this book for Christmas as she thought I'd love it.
Is it actually any good? I haven't yet read it
I can't disagree, but it's still interesting because he was the first guy who made the argument. Later writers just parrotted the same stuff, essentially, with some added pseudo-mysticism and so on.
It’s a foundation in political science and you’re posting on a board that’s supposed to be about politics. You should read it, take the actual recommendations with a grain of salt, because it was never meant to be taken seriously.
>Opinion on Machiavelli's the prince?
It's a good book.
It's a very good read. Its easy to digest, interesting concepts and has a ton of practical examples. Also you get informed on a bunch of niche history.
finally a good thread
im actually half way through reading it, i find it very interesting but you are right it doesnt talk about ideological struggle, but the book was published in 1532 so you can really count that as a disadvantage of the book
>
>Mein Kampf isn't good . it's rambling and disorganized.
Yes but so is The Prince, and unlike the prince, Kampf lays out more modern ideological and subversive powers. In Mach's time there were Kingdoms and Monarchs, in Hitler's, republics and democracies. The elite no longer ruled overtly, but subersively, which is still mostly the case today, which is why it's more relevant. Also, there is a good bit of unpopular bit important history in Kampf that needa to be read by more people in today's world because it is almost repeating itself currently.
As far as the other book you referenced, i haven't heard of it but thank you for listing it, i will read.
>Opinion on Machiavelli's the prince?
one of the best book you can find to understand power play and politics.
>I find it very interesting, useful and insightful but i think it is limited due to the fact that he doesn't account for ideological struggle.
then you missed the part where he talk about the church. but is point is that behind ideology, power struggle is always the same.
>Has anyone read "Discourses on Livy"?
>I heard they are really good as an addendum.
yes, they are more oriented on republics, which was actually the preferred mode of governance of machiavelli. his art of war is also worth a look.
You might also like De Re Militari by Vegetius. There are some small sections relating to psychology and power.
The book that basically invented modern political theory, next to The Leviathan, and a must read for any leader in any position. While Bertrand Russell called it a handbook for gangsters, I would have to disagree. Machiavelli does say that the ends justify the means, he backs that up with historical examples that show how the leaders that could not do what was needed always failed. That is his most important point in my opinion, it does not matter if you like what he is saying or not but if any leader that ignores Machiavellis realist approach to matters will ultimately fail. People also forget that next to his two most important goals for a leader, gaining and maintaining political power, there is a third goal, achieving glory. Only through glory (and not personal but that of your political society) can your actions have any meaning and be remembered. That means he does not endorse tirany if it is not needed. The Prince is ultimately a discussion on how to lead a political society in which you have complete power (or as near as complete power as you can) and as such stands the test of time as a guide for hard nosses politics but his greatest work is Discourses on Livy in which he argues for the type of state he actually believes in, that of the republic.
It's alright, while you must remember that it was made for different times most of the points made are still applicable today or can become so with just a little adjustment.
Like the italian said, it's quite easy to understand for a book of its time, because it is meant as an instruction manual for future rulers, not a take on divinity or something abstract.
Many people will say that Machiavelli was a evil or even cruel dude, and the Machiavellian does also refer to getting stuff done "no matter the means/consequences", but that's not really true. Machiavelli preaches virtue, honesty and being a good person, but unlike other writers at the time he realized that a prince/ruler would most likely be not-so-virtuous during their reign, particularly an ambitious Prince. Therefore his book also informs the reader on how to be "evil" in the way that minimizes cruelty, but the fact that he informs people on how to be evil in the first place leads to these accusations.
It's on the index of forbidden books. Read a bit its just faggy evil propaganda that he used to get hired. Into the fire it goes
If more retards read Kampf today we'd have less retarded politicians in power. Mach maybe was a genius, but he was also sucking up pretty hard to the Medici to stay in their grace, which didn't work in the end. The genius of Kampf/Hitler is its ability to stir up a counter culture among the masses, tje common man, which is why it was banned for so long and still bears a hefty stigma. Prince is written for intelligent people, which are few, which is why its not as dangerous, which is why is has no stigma. Hitler is considered a more loathsome character than Machiavelli, you can't dissagree with that.
The story of Kampf has more actual parallels with today's world and common man than ever before it's time, the prince does not and is hard to relate to for most.
l'ideologia é per faggotti per quello é un gran libro finisci il selfo
See
and
>Opinion on Machiavelli's the prince?
>I find it very interesting, useful and insightful but i think it is limited due to the fact that he doesn't account for ideological struggle
Its a good read. But if you are really interested in grand strategy you should read Clausewitz's Vom Kriege (Of War)
The New Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency: The Classic Guide for Realists and Dreamers
by John Seymour
A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind
by Stephen Mitford Goodson
- mega.nz
The Art of War
by Sun Tzu
The Prince
Discourses on Livy
The Art of War
by Niccolo Machiavelli
New lies for Old
by Anatoliy Golitsyn
The Physics of Creation / vdocuments.site
by Harold Aspden
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
Pharaoh / amazon.com
by Boleslaw Prus
Iliad + Odyssey
by Homer
Enemy of Europe/the Enemy of Our Enemies
by Revilo P. Oliver
Maxims
by Francois de La Rochefoucauld
If
by Rudyard Kipling
Rational Male
by Rollo Tomasi
- therationalmale.com
Chateau Heartiste
- heartiste.org
An Anglo following papist preaching?
holy fuck, rare flag
It is a great book, it shows that a secular ruker should not worry about morality (which is a religious belief anyway) except when they can use it to.manipukate people.
That is wrong.
Didn't Clausewitz say that a smaller army can't encircle a larger one? How does he explain Cannae? Or am i referencing the wrong guy?