excerpts:
DISCOURSES Upon The First Ten (Books) of Titus Livy To ZANOBI BUONDELMONTI AND TO COSIMO RUCELLAI By NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI 1517 NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI TO ZANOBI BUONDELMONTI AND TO COSIMO RUCELLAI
“...in having selected you, to whom above all other of my friends I address (dedicate) these Discourses; as much because in doing this it appears to me I have shown some gratitude for the benefits I have received, as well because it appears to me I have departed from the common usage of those writers, who usually (always) address (dedicate) their works to some Prince, and blinded by ambition and avarice laud him for all his virtuous qualities when they should be censuring him for all his shameful parts.” (But isn’t this precisely what Machiavelli does in the Prince?)
Final Paragraph:
And although these maladies in a Republic have a bad effect, they are not fatal, for there is always time to correct them; but there is no time for those that affect the State, which, if they are not corrected by a prudent man, ruin the City. Because of the liberality which the Romans showed in giving their civil privileges to foreigners, many new people sprung up in Rome, and these begun to have a part in the elections; so that the government began to change and depart from those institutions and principles of those men who had been accustomed to direct it. When Quintus Fabius, who was Censor, became aware of this, he put all the new people, from whom this disorder derived, into four Tribes, so that they should be unable ((reduced to such small a space)) to corrupt all Rome. This was well recognized by Fabius, and put into effect a suitable remedy, which without change, was so well accepted by the Society (Republic), that he merited being called Maximus. (Describe how this statement of Machiavelli parallels the situation in America in 2017 with regard to immigration policies.)
[Pardon the use of Blanko-pedias--I have bundled together some contemporary “reflections” on Machiavellianism from the WWW.]
Machiavellianism http://www.conservapedia.com/Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism in Psychology is defined as a manipulative strategy of social interaction and personality style that uses other people as tools to achieve for personal gain.[1] The LGBT movement has the Machiavellian character.[2]
In political science the term "Machiavellian" connotes cunning and deceit, the Prince (1532) - best known work of Machiavelli - is seen by many as the foundation of modern political science for four reasons:
- its stress on centralized government and bureaucracy
- its cynicism about character
- its opposition to the classical, affirmative view of Hebrew Scriptures and Plato
- its focus on success and efficiency as the supreme goals of government
Today it is often spoken in tone of admiration but Machiavelli's Florentine contemporaries were shocked by his views,[3] some in fact to such degree that they regarded his works to be inspired by devil.[4] We don't know if Machiavelli wrote the Prince as a satire on the way the princes of his day behaved or as serious advice. We do know that more than a few leaders have taken his advice seriously.[note 1] Whatever his objectives were, Machiavelli made his position clear: leaders are essentially selfish, self-interested, and self-protected; they view other people simply as objects to be manipulated. That's why from their perspective, virtuous character is not just irrelevant but also even obstructive and foolish. This is in sharp contrast to Plato who wrote in his Republic that characters of leaders[note 2] are extremely important for public welfare: "the States are as the men are; they grow out of human characters".[3] The contemporary society of Machiavelli's period based its morale on conviction that evil acts in temporal life will cause punishment in eternal life. He turned this perception upside down and refrained from mentioning Bible or Christianity in his writings. His ostentatious avoidance of addressing the question of the Last Judgement in this respect excited resentment.[4][note 3]
From the Prince: “A prince has never lacked legitimate reasons to justify his breach of faith. ...But it is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and how to pretend and dissemble. Men are so simple and so ready to follow the needs of the moment that the deceiver will always find someone to deceive. ...So a prince need not have all the aforementioned good qualities, but it is most essential that he appear to have them. Indeed, I should go so far as to say that having them and always practising them is harmful, while seeming to have them is useful. It is good to appear clement, trustworthy, human, religious, and honest, and also to be so, but always with the mind so disposed that, when the occasion arises not to be so, you can become the opposite. ... a prince should stick to the path of good but, if the necessity arises, he should know how to follow evil.”
Goebbels' maxim
Goebbels' maxim can be stated as: the bigger the lie (and more it is stated with absolute conviction) the more people are likely to believe it.[1][2]
Goebbels' maxim and Propagandists
Demagogues, dictators, and fanatical ideologists all try to convince audiences that their reasoning is logical and sound. In reality, they abuse logic, twist, slant, and distort the reasoning process in whatever ways they believe they can without detection. Some of these speakers believe that the bigger the misrepresentation they can get away with, the greater the triumph. Since propagandists have already made up their minds, they are not really searching for truth. Such people do not attempt to use logic in an honest search for truth, but only with the intent to deceive more effectively.[3]
Entry in Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Gleichschaltung
Gleichschaltung (meaning "coordination", "making the same", "bringing into line")[3] was the Nazi policy enforcing political conformity in all sectors of society, from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.[4] It is an example from the early days of the Nazi dictatorship of developing its own twisted and distorted language[note 2] used to manipulate and confuse citizens of a totalitarian state so that they no longer can distinguish truth from falsehood. Consequently, they are reduced to such a state of confusion[note 3] and impotence that the dictatorial government can control their hearts and minds. George Orwell’s famous books 1984 and Animal Farm are the classic fictional and symbolic statements addressing this aspect of totalitarianism.[note 4] The Ministry of Propaganda established by Joseph Goebbels, best known for his media and social manipulation in Nazi Germany,[5] is used as model for the Ministry of Truth in the 1984 book.[6] Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and interpersonal communication while simultaneously forcing citizens to speak in politically controlled jargon, it could blunt independent thinking.[7] One of the key figures in the process of Gleichschaltung that established the Nazi dictatorship was Hermann Göring, who in 1933 banned all Roman Catholic newspapers in Germany.[8] When gleichschaltung is applied into the realms of science, it transforms science into scientism. The twisted scientific methods and self-serving research are then used to support particular political agenda of the party or pressure group having special interests.
"Deceit and deception, falsehood and hypocrisy. In the eyes of this world nothing is too mean - if it leads to achieving the objective. Honor, character, principles – they play no role whatsoever. One thing is being said, other is being thought.[note 1] ... One thing is being said, other is being done. The word is losing its value because in the dirty politics, people do not know conscience, honor and morality. Anything goes there - there we are able to make alliance even with the devil, and yet we do it under the guise of and in the name of humanity, peace and justice!"
— Jozef Ondrej Markuš[1]
Bible Gateway: John 18:33-38
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
