Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli

!

Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.

RJJensen 06:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Influence on Conservatives?

Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to "Pocock", but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure where you get this idea that he had zero influence from. Francis Bacon, the catalyst of the scientific revolution, was deeply fond of Machiavelli's Prince and Discourses on Livy, based his entire approach to the writing and study of history upon the Machiavellian approach, and noted, "We are much beholden to Machiavel and others, that write what men do, and not what they ought to do." The Discourses had wide impact throughout the centuries on republican thinking, though I can't speak to his influence on the founding fathers, being a British, and not American historian. PaulAuber 01:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes Paul is right. The Discourses are cited and reprinted to this day by conservatives. Some argue that The prince is a warning what it's like to have a king who is sovereign as opposed to the much better system that Machiavelli supported of a republic. Better look at Pocock (a cnservative--he and I used to have adjoining offices in the the 1960s) or the dozens of other scholarly studies. Willmore Kendall for example wrote about what was "truly admirable in Machiavelli" (the Discources), which are not at all "Machiavellian" (in the Prince-sense). M. warns that "Principality easily becomes Tyranny." Conservative historian Paul Rahe has an entire book on Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy Another leading conservative using Machiavelli is Harvey C. Mansfield of Harvard. RJJensen 01:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

So his influence, I am to infer that his influence, on conservatives, is mainly that they used him to explain his influence on liberal Republicans? It has been a long day, Richard! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 03:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

"liberal" in the 19th century sense, which is like libertarianism today. The influence on 2009 conservatives was this: Machiavelli's ideas on civic duty and opposition to corruption are deply engrained in America thanks to the idea of republicanism. It's a political philosophy after which the GOP names itself. Jefferson also called his party the "Republican" (or Democratic-Republican) party. RepublicISM means fears of tyranny, fear of corruption, distrust of politicians, and the need to be an active citizen, esp bear arms in wartime and vote in elections. We all share that today and (to a large degree) it comes from Machiavelli (and others too, but he was very important). This "republican" line of Machiavelli's thought is totally different from his line of thought in "The Prince" which advocates tyranny--he argued both black and white! RJJensen 03:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Sounds as if he would today be one of the highest ranking members of Congress......as the prerequisite is being able to argue both sides, while talking out of both sides of your mouth. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 05:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Was Machiavelli writing about his ideals, i.e., what the best possible ruler ought to do? Or was he writing for his time and place? I heard that his ideas were meant to apply only to Italy of the early Renaissance era (which figured in several popular Shakespearean plays).

Wasn't he only offering specifically tailored and pragmatic advice rather than timeless "do this everywhere and at all times" principles? Does the idea of lesser of two evils apply?

In other words, did Machiavelli actually recommend that rulers be "Machiavellian", as an ideal of government? I don't think so, any more than Pollyanna (in the book or even the Disney movie) practiced "unreasonable or blind optimism." [1] And Uncle Tom's attitude was never "to curry favor with whites" but was manifestly an expression of his Christian principles. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed raises a very good point. Was M telling tyrants how to do it? or was he warning people "if you don't have a republic you will get a tyrant and here's how he will mistreat you." Scholars have been debating this for years and no one is sure. I incline to the "warning" side because in fact no tyrant needs his advice--they do it naturally, but good citizens do need to be warned. ...speaking of Shakespeare: Macbeth teaches the audience exactly how to be a bad king, but nobody says Shaks. was writing a guidebook for tyrants. RJJensen 07:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Likewise, Hamlet shows how to fulfill the classic Greek ideal of avenging your father's murder, but for me it's a lesson in the unintended consequences. The prince murders his girlfriend's father (which drives her to suicide) - bad start for a poorly thought-out plan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

We don't even want to go there, Ed....Hamlet, and his issues! Good morning, BTW. :-) -- --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 07:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

RJJensen, I appreciate your clarification, but where do you get your claim that Machiavelli influence any conservatives, or conservative thought? I have never, ever, ever heard a single conservative cite Machiavelli in any way, except perhaps to criticize Machiavellianism (and even that mention is almost non-existent).--Andy Schlafly 09:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

not many people these days read Machiavelli's Discourses, but the Founding Fathers all did, and they incorporated his ideas directly and those that came via the English "country party". Ideas like service in the militia, for example, also come from him--and especially the idea that politicians are power-hungry princes that have to be watched at all times. Lots of conservative intellectual powerhouses write about him--for example Leo Strauss and the Straussians (Alan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Harvey Mansfield) also Willmore Kendall, Paul Rahe, Gordon Wood, and several National review writers. RJJensen 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I just searched the Federalist Papers, the voluminous explanation and defense of our constitutional system by our Founders, and there is not a single reference to Machiavelli or Machiavellian. As to your list of "conservative intellectual powerhouses," I don't recognize any of them as being Reagan-type conservatives. Harvey Mansfield may come closest, but I'd be surprised if he were conservative on most leading social issues.--Andy Schlafly 09:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

However, there is also not a single reference to John Locke, who was an enormously large influence, in the Federalist Papers. As for Ed's question, it's believe it's generally accepted that Machiavelli was writing for the specific circumstances of a fractured Italy, as he desired an enlightened prince to unify it through necessary means and then give control to a new republican body. By the way, can anyone explain why I was blocked for engaging in this discussion? PAuber 12:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, fine, but there's no doubt that Locke influenced the Founding Fathers. See, e.g., [2] There is doubt about Machiavelli's influence on them.

I see no record of your being blocked, but you will be blocked if you continue to delete information from the lectures.--Andy Schlafly 12:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't think Jensen was saying Machiavelli himself was an influence, but that one or two of the ideas he advocated was also adopted by the Founding Fathers. So a search of the author's name won't show anything.

RJ, could you expound again on the ideas which Machiavelli and the Founders both liked? --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Responding to Ed-- M's influence can be seen in the ideas that the good citizen has to watch out for politicians, & has to take part in politics. M. was the major porponent of the citizens militia (as oppose to standing armies or mercenries) as the best defense and the need for citizens to join the militia (which is now the National Guard). The argument by historians is that Machiavelli had a major direct influence on the English "country party" which provided the main intellectual base for the American Revolution. That is, Americans absorb Machiavelli, Locke, Hume, Harrington, Montesquieu etc through the founding fathers rather than by directly reading these people in 2009.RJJensen 19:40, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The flaw in that argument is that Machiavelli was long viewed with disdain, while the other political philosophers were not. Moreover, there's nothing special about an armed citizenry that should be attributed to Machiavelli in particular, as opposed to countless others political commentators going back to feudal times who felt the same way.

Liberals like Machiavelli for the same reason that others held him in disdain. Liberals really do think the "end justifies the means," and they really worship political status rather than genuine achievement. Machiavelli is a hero to liberals, and hence the attempt to rehabilitate him by liberal historians. Don't take that personally, as I criticize liberals in the legal field also and hopefully historians welcome some accountability in their field.--Andy Schlafly 23:11, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I suspect liberal intellectuals pay Machiavelli less attention than conservatives, judging from the scholarly books and article in recent decades. Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and Alan Bloom at Chicago, for example, taught courses on Machiavelli that influences a whole generation of "neoconservatives." Now it's machiavellianism that is rightly attacked as a formulary of evil government. But it's an interesting question --a lot of scholars (me too) think The Prince was designed as a warning for good citizens --a checklist of types of corruption to look out for. Machiavelli not only wrote the first studies about the citizen's militia he organized and supervised the first one, and his ideas were very well received by British and American writers before 1776. RJJensen 23:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the stimulus :) RJJensen 23:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

A parting shot, not intended to re-open a closed issue:

• Perhaps Machiavelli was evading censorship by clothing his critique in (apparent) praise. I gather Jonathan Swift used satire to get political points across in the era before freedom of press became the norm in the Christian West. If so, then I guess we can thank God that we now live in an era where we can speak our minds (even in an international forum such as this encyclopedia-writing project) without fear of retribution. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Featured article

This is an excellent pick for being a featured article - everyone who's worked on this - RJJenson especially- awesome job.--IDuan 22:39, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Introduction

The introduction contains some biased language and comments and I created an account specifically because it does not appear to be objective. I acknowledge this site has a conservative viewpoint but comments like "the best prose writer" are completely unnecessary and could easily be changed into "considered one of the best prose writers of his time in Italy, Mr/Ms. X writes "abc Machiavelli's magnificent prose style xyz." Furthermore, as a student who has studied Machiavelli, I found some comments to be incorrect. For example, "which showed how a self-serving ruler will follow the policy that the "end justifies the means," whereby a ruler can gain power (the "means") in any deceitful or unjust manner possible in order to achieve his often undisclosed goals (the "end")" is very poorly done. A) according to Machiavelli a just Prince would be morally justified in taking power because the betterment of citizen's lives justified the Prince's sordid means. Furthermore, a true Machiavellian Prince would not need to "disclose" it's goals as role, and goals, of a true Prince were already outlined by Machiavelli. Other statements such as "For that matter, no tyrant has ever needed the book to get ideas how to oppress people" and "Machiavelli, most scholars believe, was dedicated to republicanism as the best form of government and opposed tyranny. The Prince was a warning that it could happen like this if citizens let down their guard" and other non-cited statements of speculation don't contribute to the article. Lastly, the statement "major positive influence of" is unclear as it does not illustrate what a "positive" influence is and is thus vacuous. --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sardonac (talk) --- 21:49, 4 May 2009

thanks for the comments. The section was written by a professional historian and should pass muster for a popular encyclopedia. For example, the prose style is widely hailed. The article reflects the current scholarly literature that is cited. RJJensen 01:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Sardonicus must be bored up there north of you in Toronto, Richard. I know that you, like me, cannot wait to see their substantial contributions here, to match their obviously ponderous intellect. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 02:02, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary. Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing. All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject. Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor. Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article in order that it remain as strictly factual as possible. User:Sardonac

first let's see some proof that you are capapable of good writing. Try writing a new article on a topic of your choice and we'll see.RJJensen 16:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Heading: "LGBT movement, Machiavellianism and sociology". Not subheading within: "Machiavellism and psychology"

"Psychology is focused on understanding the individual, while sociology — like its name suggests — focuses on social groups, communities, and cultures."[3]

So I made it a heading and not a subheading within a heading "Machiavellism and psychology". Conservative (talk) 10:39, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Your so-called "experts" come from the pseudoscientific field of psychology, not political science. They know diddly-squat about politics - that's why they chose a different field in the social sciences and do not understand political texts. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:44, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Political science and psychology are both social sciences. They are not like the physical sciences of physics and chemistry in terms of preciseness and reliability. Psychology has to deal with different cultures for example whereas physics/chemistry are the same throughout the universe. On any given day, a person is somewhat different as far as their emotional state, etc. But in physics and chemistry you have greater control over the variables. And there are ethical questions too. You can smash rocks during an experiment, but you can't ethically and purposefully psychologicaally damage participants in a psychology study.

Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 GOP primary or that he would win the USA presidency. Conservative (talk)

• "the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit from the new order," Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and The Discourses 21 (Luigi Ricci trans., McGraw Hill Educ. 1st ed. 1950) (1532) (as quoted by Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 247 (Tex. 2017) (Willett, J., concurring).

That is exactly what happened to Donald trump in his first term.

Read Machiavelli, and stop cut n pasting garbage from elsewhere to support you pseudoscientific theories from the field of psychology. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:58, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

I am not fan of Machiavelli. Also, I am also not a fan of people who tell me what to read or tell me what I cannot read. I am also not a fan of people who speculate and tell me what I have read in the past or what I have not read in the past. Conservative (talk) 11:03, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

"I am not fan of Machiavelli." You are a liar. You never read Machiavelli. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:05, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

You are in bed with the Straussian atheists. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:07, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

You are way out of your league, again. And put some shoes on, so the doggie doo doesn't squish between your toes. Better yet, stop diving into it head first. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:03, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

RobS wrote as rejoinder: "I am not fan of Machiavelli." You are a liar. You never read Machiavelli. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:05, August 24, 2023 (EDT)"

You are not even being logical. Someone who has read Machiavelli and dislikes his work and someone who hasn't read Machiavelli are both not fans of Machiavelli. And someone who has read little of Machiavelli and dislikes what he read can also not be a fan of Machiavelli. This is elementary logic. Conservative (talk) 11:11, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

You are way out of your league. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams were not psychopaths, as you allege, and you are trying to make this article read with your cut n paste nonsense. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:24, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

You didn't show me where I said Jefferson, Madison and Adams are psychopaths. I believe it is because you can't and I will move on.

Feel free to engage in last wordism. Conservative (talk) 11:39, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Doggie doo alert

The ongoing vandalism of this article, to convert the meaning "Machiavellianism" into "psychopathology" is troublesome;

The original text has passages such as,

• Machiavelli's Discourses, is the work of a staunch republican. It advises citizens of a republic how to preserve their liberty and avoid corruption. He concludes that self-government is the best guarantee of security and prosperity, noting that the interests of the people and the politicians are often antithetical, and that citizens should have a healthy distrust of politicians. The voice of the people he likens to the voice of God

• Machiavelli studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live.

Yet the ongoing vandalism is being done by someone who has never read Machiavelli, and is relying of the works of the atheist Leo Strauss and other psychopaths. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:41, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Wizards that peep

User:Conservative, who is always seeking after sorcerers, false prophets, necromancers, and wizards that peep to predict the future, like election betting odds or when will the war in Ukraine be over, or who is an authority cause they "predicted" the war, should like this quote from Machiavelli:

When evening comes, I return home and go to my study. On the threshold, I strip naked, taking off my muddy, sweaty work day clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and, in this graver dress, I enter the courts of the ancients, and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space of four hours I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death; I pass indeed into their world.”

RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:29, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Are you done lying yet? See: RobSmith the liar.

Oh wait, you are a liar so the lying is not over yet. Conservative (talk) 14:34, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

It's so sad to see a man gossip. It's such girly behavior. I feel so sorry for you, User: RobSmith. Conservative (talk) 14:37, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Stick with you false prophets and wizards that peep like Peter Zeihan, and leave me alone. God commanded me not to have fellowship with those who seek after false messiahs or are obsessed to know the future by gambling at election betting sites. Sufficient is the day the evil thereof. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:43, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Suggested article: Niccolò Machiavelli quotes

If anyone is interested in doing so, create the article: Niccolò Machiavelli quotes

It appears as if there are a lot of websites misquoting Niccolò Machiavelli as can be seen here: Machiavellian Misquotes.

There is one resource I find that gives many Niccolò Machiavelli quotes and cites where the quotes are from: Niccolò Machiavelli - Wikiquote. Maybe there are other websites that do the same. Conservative (talk) 12:29, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

I like this one: A man who aspires to be good all the time must of necessity come to grief among so many who are so bad - I immediately think of Jesus. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 12:54, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Machievelli argues that those who rely on others to come to power must immediately destroy them, being that if others have the ability to give power, they also have the ability to take it away. Hence it explains events in our own times. Two examples:

• Hitler and the Night of the Long Knives; the Sturmabteilung catapulted Hitler into power, and Hitler immediately destroyed them;
• Joe Biden is about to be dumped by the same people who brought him to power.

RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:13, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Request for information/elaboration re: material in the " "Machiavellism" in the field of psychology" section

Wikipedia states in its Niccolò Machiavelli article this: "He also notably said that a ruler who is establishing a kingdom or a republic, and is criticized for his deeds, including violence, should be excused when the intention and the result are beneficial to him. Machiavelli's Prince has been surrounded by controversy since it was published. Some consider it to be a straightforward description of political reality. Others view the Prince as a manual, teaching would-be tyrants how they should seize and maintain power. Even into recent times, some scholars, such as Leo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil". The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik.

User: RobSmith, you wrote in the ""Machiavellism" in the field of psychology" section of this article: "This alleges that a prince or ruler of a society always, and only, acts out of selfish-motives, and not for the benefit of the whole of society, or on behalf of its citizens. Machiavelli's political recommendations to the prince aspiring to power is merely how to survive and be successful "among so many who are so bad." ".

I am going to assume good faith. With that in mind, can you please elaborate and far as the apparent conflict in terms of the bolded text of the two passages in question?

If I don't respond promptly it is because I have a few off-wiki things to attend to. So your patience would be appreciated. When I resume this discussion, if time permits, I will endeavor to read the footnoted source material that Wikipedians alluded to in their article in the above passage. I may read other material as well. Conservative (talk) 13:51, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

One needs to read the book - it's only about 125 pages. Then there is the problem of translations, given that it is written in 16th century Italian. Given the controversies , as the WP article states, various translations also can be miscolored to favor one interpretation over another.

My point here, on this discussion page and in the Mainspace is, the last people who are anywhere near qualified as commentators or critics are the non-political critics in the fields of psychology, business management and elsewhere who misused and misquoted the text for their own purposes.

Machiavelli examines the leadership skills of such personalities as Moses and Alexander the Great, and probably many other historical figures you've never heard of. So no, it is not causal reading, and should not be regarded or considered as such.

Again, it's only about 125 pages. There is even one chapter regarding the "wickedness" of some princes. It is a mistake to ascribe to Machiavelli that book is a 'how-to' manual on wickedness. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:03, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Machievelli examines questions that all political leaders who come power face, for example, "Is it better to be loved or feared?" be it Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, or Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler. George Bush or Barack Obama. Donald Trump or Joe Biden. His conclusion after examination with historical examples: It is better to be feared, but above all avoid being hated. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:12, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

I have some off wiki matters that will require me to read, comprehend and apply about 1,500 pages of fairly difficult material and I have a few people who want me to get through this material ASAP. So I am going to read and study the book Unlimited Memory by Kevin Horsley beforehand which will allow me to learn the difficult material faster. Plus, I have other off-wiki matters that will require me to read about 2,000 pages of less difficult material.

And then I am going to have to actually apply what I read because things don't magically get done by themselves. It will require some work on my part.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to pass on this matter given the apparent controversial matter involved and my current workload up ahead. Often controversial matters require a lot of detective work to sort things out. Conservative (talk) 14:20, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

To answer specifically the question you bolden above, it is necessary to read the book from its outset, where he describes the two types of government which have appeared on planet earth: principalities and republics. This article mainspace describes Machiavelli as a staunch "republican", opposed to principalities governed by princes (this is a long running debate in the UK, deposing the monarchy and establishing the UK as a republic, which recently resurfaced in the coronation of "Charles the Turd", as he is called by his anti-monarchist, republican opponents.) RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:20, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (i.e. governed by a prince) and powers. Machiavelli was a republican. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:25, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Machiavelli's legitimate critics need to come from political philosophers and historians, not contemporary quacks in psychology and business schools. It's why they are called quacks, cause the take a term like "Machiavellian" and totally twist its meaning to suit their own ends. If they knew or understood anything about history or politics, they wouldn't be psychology professionals. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:46, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Psychologists are primarily concerned with individuals (yes, there is such a thing as "mass psychology", propaganda and advertising, but that's a different discussion). They are not concerned with how political leaders come to power, a political leader's relationship with people, or how a political leader maintains his power. Dark Triad personality type is quack science, misusing and misquoting Machiavelli. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:57, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Now, you may argue, "Oh yes, psychologists indeed are concerned with the personality and character of political leaders"; ok, then the alternative to rejecting Machiavelli's observations is political anarchy in society, "where everyman does that which is right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6). When Israel entered the land, God forbad them from having a prince or king rule over them. But the people rebelled and demanded a king, and God granted them their wish. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 15:01, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

"The successful politician must be a great liar and deceiver...The ruler who never preaches anything except peace and good faith turns out to be an enemy of both." - Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince.[4]

I am still not a fan of Machiavelli. And RobSmith, I think that you are a liar as well. I said above that I would assume good faith, but I regret saying that because you are a liar. I have caught you twice making up things out of thin air using citations that don't say what you claim they say. And I have seen you lie about me. And I am not the only one who thinks you are shady. User: SamHB noted your lack of integrity on his user talk page. And previously, the owner of Conservapedia stripped you of your admin powers because of your ill-behavior. Conservative (talk) 20:42, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

As I said, interpretation varies by translation. I have read over 30 different translations (cause I don't read Italian very well; nor French. I can read Spanish at somewhat a competent elementary level) including a 16th century English translation. It is a short book. I called you a liar cause you claim to have some knowledge on the subject and actually have ZERO familiarity with it. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 20:59, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

And until you begin heeding some of my doo-doo warnings, I'll let you go ahead and step in doo-doo and then call you a liar for the simple reason of the disrespect you show other people. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:02, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Let's do a simple test - using the translation you selected. Machiavelli is making an observation. He is not preaching a gospel or ginving advice, or a recommendation:

• "The successful politician must be a great liar and deceiver...."

Okay User:Conservative, name one, simply one "successful politician" in history who was not a great liar and deceiver? King David?

• "The ruler who never preaches anything except peace and good faith turns out to be an enemy of both."

Name one ruler who never preached anything but love and happiness who was not an enemy of both? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:12, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Doo doo Alert! You are about to step in dog doo-doo if you keep wasting my time with this trolling BEFORE you ever read a single translation (unless you read the Florentine dialect). It's only 125 pages. Read it. Come back and we'll talk. It could be read cover-to-cover in one or two days, if you're serious, at all. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:16, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Here is the translation I am currently working with from the Gutenberg Project. I wouldn't recommend it for a first time out, but have at it. Skip the Forward and Introductory Notes and go straight to Chapter 1. Skip the editors explanatory footnotes. You should be able to read it in single sitting, or maybe two days at most. I'm waiting here. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 21:28, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Ok. 48 hours are up. Enough time to have read Il Principe cover to cover. I'm assuming, based upon your bad faith editing and trolling elsewhere over the past 48 hours you have not read the book. Hence the trolling insertions in the Mainspace here, and possible elsewhere, are subject to removal. Thanks. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 20:51, August 26, 2023 (EDT)

BBC4

Let's look at another garbage quote you cherry picked from the BBC4 link you provided and compare it with the writings of the Apostle Paul:

• Machiavelli: "One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit."

• Paul: "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God"

Whatever point either of these two authors are trying to make, if you can improve on it, have at it. And don't forget to provide the context in which either text was written. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:22, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

So what's the point BBC4 is making? That Cicero stands in contrast or opposition to the New Testament gospel delivered by Paul, whereas Machiavelli paraphrased it?

You need to quit your fly casting on Google to prove you are "knowledgeable" or an "expert", sit down and actually read a text before expounding on it. You're not fooling anyone, only yourself. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:38, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Republic v. principality

When Marie Antoinette had her head cut off, that was the end of the hereditary monarchy, i.e. the end of France as a hereditary principality and beginning of a republic. When Napolean seized the crown and made himself emperor, that was the end of the republic and restoration of France as a principality.

When the Romanov family was executed, that was to ensure that no heir could claim rights to return Russia to a hereditary principality.

This article, originally penned by Prof. Jensen, states, "Machiavelli was a staunch republican." But Machiavelli had a problem, he was living in a principality and didn't want to be executed for subversion or treason. So he made himself available to the prince, Lorenzo di Medici, with this resumé of sorts, hopefully to get a job as an advisor or bureaucrat - a how-to manual to be a successful prince without being hated, despised, overthrown and executed, giving numerous historical illustrations of successful princes and princes who failed, and why.

After the opening sentence, Machiavelli states he will say nothing more about republics. That subject is covered in Discourses.

Machiavelli is relevant to today in that he discusses the use of terrorism by regimes and its opponents in Discourses. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:28, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

"Machiavelli was a staunch republican"

Prof. Jensen said, "Machiavelli was a staunch republican."

Machiavelli said, "All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities."

Only an idiot cannot see that Machiavelli was opposed to Princes and principalities. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:08, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Absurd question asked by someone having no familiarity with the book and no clue what he's talking about: 'Niccolò Machiavelli compared to George Washington and Honest Abe Lincoln'

{{Hide collapse |reason=Trolling |A quote of Niccolò Machiavelli: "The successful politician must be a great liar and deceiver...The ruler who never preaches anything except peace and good faith turns out to be an enemy of both." - Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince.Machiavelli, BBC4 website]

A question that User: RobSmith asked User: Conservative: "Okay User:Conservative, name one, simply one "successful politician" in history who was not a great liar and deceiver?". - User: RobSmith 21:12, August 24, 2023 (EDT)

Question: Were George Washington and Abraham "Honest Abe" Lincoln great liars and deceivers? No, they were not. But they were successful politicians. Conservative (talk) 04:56, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Question: Were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln princes or politicians? RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:37, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

This article needs to address the issue of Niccolò Machiavelli's embrace of lying. I know God doesn't approve of lying and the Book of Revelation says liars go to Hell. Conservative (talk) 06:03, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Show me the quote from the book. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:11, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Read the book, then we will discuss.

The Prince is singular. A prince is not a "politician" as in a republic. Do not troll me, Personal remark removed. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:13, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

I have caught you lying more than once. I believe that is why you are so pro-Machiavelli. And because you are power-hungry. You want to be a Beauracrat at Conservapedia, but there is no way that you are going to be given that position. Conservative (talk) 10:22, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Source is HERE.

So there is the quote. It is not accidental that Machiavelli has such a bad reputation among many. Conservative (talk) 10:33, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

I have caught you making things up out of thin air. You use citations that don't purport to say what you claim. In fact, I recall one saying the exact opposite of what you claimed. Conservative (talk) 10:35, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

At the bottom of Talk:Karen Dawisha, I caught you claiming sources indicating something that they corporately never claimed. In fact, one claimed the exact opposite. Conservative (talk) 10:38, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

I said, "show the quote from the book". I caught you in a lie. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:45, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

I gave the source. You are lying again. No surprise there given that you are a liar who admires Machiavelli. Conservative (talk) 10:49, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

First sentence of the book:

All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.

A "republic" is governed by "politicians"; a principality is governed by a prince. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 10:51, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Theoretically, in a republic, the rulers' rule by the consent of the governed; a prince in a principality claims his right to govern by heredity.

Some princes thought they could just have sex with any man's wife under their jurisdiction (like King David, for example); this is the issue Macchiavelli examines in the chapter, Is it better to be loved or feared where he concludes "above all avoid being hated", i.e. keep your hands off other men's wives.

Then he extensively examines the use of mercenaries, or how to cultivate the loyalty of subjects under your rule.

Read the book.

Without having some knowledge of what you are talking about, you are headed for one massive pile of Dog doo. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 11:47, August 29, 2023 (EDT)

Message to LT

A message to LT:

You put this quote in the wrong article. See my edit/removal note about the psychology related article.

This is the political article. Put your quote where you think it fits.

“	Machiavellianism cuts both ways; and it is generally true that political leaders who practise it will increase the number of evil-doers in their own country until finally public wrath will rise up and overthrow them. It would seem as if the Apostle Paul prophesied the events of our day when he wrote in his letter to the Romans (chap. i. 18): 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'	”
—Samuel Igra, Germany's National Vice (1945), p. 13

Okay. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Thursday, 14:23, October 5, 2023 (EDT)

---

Machiavelli and feminism

Machiavelli largely gained his reputation for this anti-feminist quote:

“

Fortune is a woman, and if she is to be mastered, she must be beaten and seduced.

”

RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 12:31, June 18, 2024 (EDT)