AGENDA Hey, Kirk do you want me to e-mail you the information I get from the internet?- sure! just post it here or email it... yeah.

W.S. for homwork

Hi hannah and erin, i already made the bucket account- you know the username and password.

user hkeperiod4

pass church

post things you find below- then sign your name by doing this (~name)

if you find an image we might be able to use, right click it, and then click save image as- to your desktop- on the bucket, just click browse, select the image you downloaded, then click upload- post down here to say if you have downloaded anything

thnx! after typing click save page.

---- example

hi ~joe

i made a airplane ~mr. larry

good for you ~joe

The Basilica

Yo! Josephseagullstalin 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LINK!!! http://my.lifeinitaly.com/archive/index.php/t-331.html

Life in Italy Forum > Generalità: General Topics > Culture > Machiavelli: The Italian mentor: Part 1 PDA

View Full Version : Machiavelli: The Italian mentor: Part 1 bubbles 12-05-2006, 03:49 AM I was reading up a lot about Machiavelli in the past week, and was awestruck to see how much an Italian political thinker had in common in terms of administrative tenets with some of the famous and infamous leaders of our time, across the continents. I wanted to share what I learned with everyone on the forum.:eek:

In 1513, Machiavelli composed The Prince as a means of currying favor with the Medicis, the autocratic rulers of Florence.....The book was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, whom Machiavelli hated; its model is Cesare Borgia, an undisputed, if healthily respected, tyrant. Machiavelli praised the way Borgia had acted swiftly, decisively and indeed ruthlessly in playing off France, Italian city-states and the papacy against each other, suppressing conspiracies and laying a strong foundation for the future. ( Rust, 1999)

This then was the background of “Il Principe”, or “The Prince”, in which Machiavelli describes and analyzes the methods by which an ambitious person may attain power, and then retain it through calculated ruthlessness, boundless charm, and ambiguous morality. This classic of political science has retained its relevance down the five centuries it has survived to come down to us, and leaders of various reputes have been acquainted with it, and consciously or sub-consciously followed its principles. Modern leadership in the twentieth and twenty-first century are no exception, and examples of Machiavellian wisdom abound from Stalin and Hitler, to Ronald Reagan, Nixon and George Bush.:eek:

One of the most striking pronouncements that Machiavelli made was absolutely revolutionary in terms of accepting facts as they are, and not what they ought to be or portrayed to be in traditional political philosophies. He claims to talk about what really goes on behind the corridors of power and what a political aspirant should basically learn in order to get to the top:

Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity.( Machiavelli, 1513)

Joseph Stalin, a totalitarian leader was a self-confessed admirer of Machiavelli, and sought to maintain his supremacy through being “not good”. He validated torture and oppression by plainly declaring that anyone who did not agree with him was in fact and “enemy of the state” and deserved to be punished as such:

Stalin originated the concept "enemy of the people." This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven; this term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. ( Russian Institute-orgname, 1956)

But on the other hand, Stalin brilliantly followed the other machiavellian concept of appearing to be very good, where Machiavelli strictly instructs a political aspirant to always appear totally benevolent, “A prince, therefore, must be very careful never to let anything slip from his lips which is not full of the five qualities mentioned above: he should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion”. Stalin really took care to create a myth around himself about being a caring humanitarian gentleman, despite actually being a merciless and manipulative despot:

As brutal despots have learned throughout the centuries, and as Machiavelli counseled, Stalin could show himself to be a caring, even benevolent father figure. .....Even today, among some older Russians a strong nostalgia persists for "Uncle Joseph," a kindly, all-seeing, and all-caring man who never really existed but lives on that way in the myths that still surround him. (Dvoretsky, Fugate, 1997)

Another devotee of Machiavelli was the infamous Hitler, the scourge of our modern times who deceived the Germans into believing their superiority as the Aryan race, and their right to commit genocide in the name of purification using horrifying means.:mad:

One idea that Hitler carried over from his pre-political years was his understanding of Allied propaganda during World War I......and by far exceeding the Allied propaganda of World War I. Hitler became the father of the big lie. He was a Machiavellian politician par excellence, and it is likely but not certain that he read Machiavelli's The Prince or a popular version of the opus. (Redlich, 1999)

Whereas Hitler followed the Machiavellian precepts of deceit, he carried to excess Machiavelli's doctrine of how much of bloodshed and cruelty a leader should commit. Machiavelli's recommendation was to only perpetrate as much cruelty as necessary for the common good:

Well used are those cruelties (if it is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and are not continued but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for the subjects. Badly used are those cruelties which, although being few at the outset, grow with the passing of time instead of disappearing.( Machiavelli, 1513). :mad:

But Hitler's atrocities did not disappear with time, they stopped only with his downfall and demise, a case of Machiavellian policies carried out to an extreme.

In order to understand how Machiavellian policies come into play in the life and times of the American presidents like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, or the Venezuelan president Chavez, one needs to understand how these individuals assert themselves in the corridors of power:

The president cannot merely declare his authority and make it so: as Machiavelli observed, executive power must be negotiated, justified, and achieved. As political actors operating within a political system inhabited by other institutions vying for power and authority, presidents must ensure their institutional rights, per se, in relation to other institutions of governance.... Like Machiavelli's prince, they yearn for autonomy; but unlike the prince, their authority must be derived from the democratic political system in which they operate. By actively confronting existing institutional arrangements, redefining political understandings, and seizing upon any number of available resources, presidents throughout history have actively crafted their personal, political, and institutional authority.(Galvin, Shogan, 2004)

A President like Nixon who was involved in one of the most nefarious scandals of American politics, tried to subvert authority to suit his own ends. Ruthless and unscrupulous, he was given to serving his own ends instead of that of the country:

What were Nixon's values, what were his morals? In a very real sense, Nixon was amoral. He was not immoral, because he did not have a deep sense of morals. He was amoral in the Machiavellian sense. He had no real internal gyroscope to guide him morally. Power was the guide, winning his god. Thus, Nixon did not see himself acting immorally, he saw himself maximizing his power in a hostile and aggressive world. (Genovese, 1990) bubbles 12-05-2006, 03:53 AM Nixon tried to follow Machiavelli's precepts of deceit, wherein a ruler needs to be deceitful, but should by all means appear to be above board and straight forward.

But it is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and to be a great hypocrite and a liar: and men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present needs that one who deceives will always find another who will allow himself to be deceived.....Alexander VI did nothing else, he thought about nothing else, except to deceive men, and he always found the occasion to do this. And there never was a man who had more forcefulness in his oaths, who affirmed a thing with more promises, and who honoured his word less; nevertheless, his tricks always succeeded perfectly since he was well acquainted with this aspect of the world. (Machiavelli, 1513)

But, as we all know, he was not able to conceal his actual actions from the world, and could not appear blameless in the end.:)

Following Machiavelli's policies, albeit a little differently, was Ronald Reagan, who succeeded in creating a mythical image around him just like Machiavelli had advised:

Since the people are impressed, Machiavelli noted not by what you are but by what you appear to be, the successful prince must create a superficial image that is "palatable" to a mass audience. It is perhaps fitting that Ronald Reagan, ......followed the simple message and political wisdom of Machiavelli: Since the people will know you by your appearance, appear to be what they want, because they are the key to your power. ( Datlof, Schmertz,Ugrinsky, 1997)

And the present American President Mr. George Bush seems to be following a similar Machiavellian advice, his staff has tried to concoct his image in the media of being a “fabricated an image of George W. as a successful CEO, born-again Christian, effective governor, and all-around nice guy.”. By standing by his decision for taking his country into war, and relating his policies of war continually to the war on terrorism, Bush follows Machiavelli's injunction: “he must strive to make everyone recognize in his actions greatness, spirit, dignity, and strength; and concerning the private affairs of his subjects, he must insist that his decision be irrevocable;” . Bush always has claimed that the war on Iraq was a necessary step, and always stood by his decision to do so. By relating the war in Iraq to the worldwide fight against terrorism, he has tried to garner support for the ongoing war, and dub himself and his country the world's messiah for deliverance from terrorist threats.

Another leader who has not only followed the Machiavellian policies described above, but stoutly declared the U.S. as his enemy is the Venezuelan President Chavez. He has even gone to the extent of ridiculing the American President in front of the United Nations, thus following the Machiavellian policy which states that: “A prince is also respected when he is a true friend and a true enemy; that is, when he declares himself on the side of one prince against another without any reservation”. Chavez is now striving to gain the support of countries like Iran and China, in a bid to strengthen his case against the United States, and with the recently won election, there is no stopping him.

De Lamar Jensen has aptly described Machiavelli's influence on the leaders of the modern era in the following words:

Machiavelli wrote a grammar of power, not only for the sixteenth century, but for the ages that have followed. Read The Prince today and you will be struck by the detonations which its sentences set off in the corridors of our experiences with present-day rulers. Machiavelli seen only in his historical context does become intelligible; but his greatness does not emerge until we see that when he wrote his grammar of power he came close to setting down the imperatives by which men govern and are governed in political communities, whatever the epoch and whatever the governmental structure. (Jensen, 1960)

Works Cited

Burnett, Bob, “The Public Eye: The Politics of Bush’s Machiavellian Presidency”, Berkley Daily Planet, October 25, 2005, October 05, 2006, <http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-25-05&storyID=22605>

Datlof, Natalie, Eric J. Schmertz, Alexej Ugrinsky(eds.) Ronald Reagan's America, Volume: 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997, 805

Dvoretsky, Lev - author, Bryan I. Fugate, Thunder on the Dnepr: Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler's Blitzkrieg, Novato, CA: Presidio, 1997, 48.

Galvin, Daniel, Colleen Shogan, “Presidential Politicization and Centralization across the Modern-Traditional Divide”. Polity, Vol: 36, Iss: 3, 2004, 477

Genovese, Michael A. The Nixon Presidency: Power and Politics in Turbulent Times, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990, 16.

Jensen, De Lamar, (ed.) Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? Boston: D. C. Heath,1960, 10

Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, trans. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, ed. Peter Bondanella Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998

Redlich, Fritz, Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet, New York, Oxford University Press,1999, : 304

Russian Institute, The Anti-Stalin Campaign and International Communism: A Selection of Documents. - orgname. New York :Columbia University Press, 1956,12.

Rust, Michael, “Machiavelli Was Ahead of His Time”, Insight on the News. Vol: 15, Iss: 34, September 13, 1999 vBulletin® v3.6.5, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephseagullstalin (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Italy was in turmoil, foregin powers frequently invaded the italian city states, bringing the once glorious city states to their knees. Alliances were made and broken, cities went to war with each other, and the political situation was constatntly shifting, some goverments rising and falling within weeks. The wonderous age of art achievements were still being made, but times were hard. War and famine killed many. From these times came a political genius far above his times, in the city state of florence. He analyzed politics the way a naturalist would analyze a creature, and made very strong political views that influenced the world far beyond repair. He was Niccoló Machiavelli.

The accomplishments made by Machiavelli were astounding for his time. throughout his life he loved the art of negotiating, politics. The accomplishments he made lie in the two wonderous works he generated, The Prince and Discorsi. The prince is the most famous of all, a single book that teaches how to gain power, and hold power, and create a nation. It is an amazing book, adressed to the Medici family. GAH I'm NEVUR gonna finish- SAVE!!!!

PraetorianCheese 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prince is a brilliant example of the foundations of totalitarianism, fascism, autocracy, dictatorship, despotism. It was written hastily for the Medici family, when they came to power, for because of his love of politics, he wanted to have a position in the government and tried to win the medici over by writting a book adressed to them. It speaks of famous historical leaders of the past and how they obtained and held power, from different situations and diffferent ways the took power. It ranges from alexander the great to darius, the powerful leaders of the italian city-states and the rules of the abbasid caliuphate. The first Chapter is the principalities, or monarchies, and how they are the only form of government control where someone has actually held power for a while besides a republic. The book, the prince, focuses on the principalities. In the next chapter, Machiavelli goes on to talk about heredity principalities, asserting that the hereditary principality is one that is passed down through fortune and virtue, stating it is the easiest form of principality to control, and maintain, for the predecessors have already won the peoples favor for it, and it comes from an ancient line of rulers who have already gained the people's love, and they have natural affection for the next to obtain the throne, and therefore, it is easier to control. Because of this, if a foreign power posseses the principality, power will easily be regained, for the prince already has followers. In the next chapter, Machiavelli discusses new and mixed principalities, which he asserts are much harder to control than hereditary principalities. According to Machiavelli, Mixed principalities are new territories added to an existing territory, and new principalities are formed through military intervention and civil aquisition. Machiavelli identifies four ways where a prince is able acquire a new principality, quote from the prince, "A new principality may be aquired through one’s own arms, by the arms of others, by evil means and by civil means." He asserts that new principalities are harder to establish, control, and maintain for when a people of a newly obtained principality are forced to adopt a new ruler, they are most likely expecting better fortune, wealth, and other expectations, and ↑↑↑↑NOT DONE- WORK ON THIS!!!↑↑↑↑

The impact Machiavelli had on history is so great it is unreversible. All the great dictators and leaders of the 20th and 19th centuries read his book, the prince, and of curse they took on the example the book had set for them. The great leaders who took his example were Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Kaiser, Otto Von bismark, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guerva and Fidel Castro, and tito.

Niccolo Machiavelli

During the times of the late Italian renaissance in the late 1400s, Italy was in turmoil. Popes led armies, and foreign powers fought for control over the city states of Italy, and invasions were frequent, and war brought the Italian city states, bringing the once glorious city states to their knees. Alliances were made and broken, cities went to war with each other, and the political situation was constantly shifting, some governments rising and falling within weeks. The wondrous age of art achievements were still being made, but times were hard. War and famine killed many. From these times came a political genius far above his times, in the city state of Florence. He analyzed politics the way a naturalist would analyze a creature, and made very strong political views that influenced the world far beyond repair. He was Niccoló Machiavelli.

The accomplishments made by Machiavelli were astounding for his time. Throughout his life, he had loved the art of diplomacy, and politics. The accomplishments he made lie in the two most famous and wondrous works he generated, The Prince and Discorsi. The prince is the most famous of all, a single book that teaches how to gain power, and hold power, and creates a nation. It is an amazing book, addressed to the Medici family. The prince is a brilliant example of the foundations of totalitarianism, fascism, autocracy, dictatorship, despotism. It was written hastily for the Medici family, when they came to power, for because of his love of politics, he wanted to have a position in the government and tried to win the Medici over by writing a book addressed to them. It speaks of famous historical leaders of the past and of his time and how they obtained and held power, or how they failed in their dreams of conquest. From this, the book demonstrates the different situations leaders in the past had undergone and the different ways they took power (or how they failed), and their strategies. It ranges from Alexander the great to Darius, King Louis XVII of France, the powerful leaders of the Italian city-states and the rulers of the Abbasid caliphate. The first Chapter is the principalities, or monarchies, and how they are the only form of government control where someone has actually held power for a while besides a republic. The book, the prince, focuses on the principalities. In the next chapter, Machiavelli goes on to talk about heredity principalities, asserting that the hereditary principality is one that is passed down through fortune and virtue, stating it is the easiest form of principality to control, and maintain, for the predecessors have already won the peoples favor for it, and it comes from an ancient line of rulers who have already gained the people's love, and they have natural affection for the next to obtain the throne, and therefore, it is easier to control. Because of this, if a foreign power possesses the principality, power will easily be regained, for the prince already has followers. In the next chapter, Machiavelli discusses new and mixed principalities, which he emphasizes, are much harder to control than hereditary principalities. According to Machiavelli, Mixed principalities are new territories added to an existing territory, and new principalities are formed through military intervention and civil acquisition. Machiavelli identifies four ways where a prince is able acquire a new principality, quote from the prince, "A new principality may be acquired through one’s own arms, by the arms of others, by evil means and by civil means." He asserts that new principalities are harder to establish, control, and maintain for when a people of a newly obtained principality are forced to adopt a new ruler, they are most likely expecting better fortune, wealth, and other expectations, and the leader, or prince is at the mercy of his new subjects.

Machiavelli firmly states, quote “No matter how powerful one's armies, in order to enter a country one needs the goodwill of the people”. He goes on to say that new principalities with similar cultures and languages are easier to establish and control, while principalities that are not similar in culture and language are harder to maintain power, and to maintain power over these new principalities the prince must have both good fortune and and the ability. He claims for this the best stragtegy is to have the prince be near the newly acquired state

The impact Machiavelli had on history is so great it is irreversible. All the great dictators and leaders of the 20th and 19th centuries read his book, the prince, and of curse they took on the example the book had set for them. The great leaders who took his example were Adolf Hitler, Vladmir Illich Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Kaiser Wilhelm, Otto Von Bismarck, Mao Tze Dong, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guerra and Fidel Castro, and Joseph Tito (dictator of Yugoslavia, before its breakup). Josephseagullstalin 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]