redmetal

This is the first entry.

Will it be profound? No. Will it move you? Absolutely not. Will it be interesting? Of course not.

Why am I posting it? Because it has to have some preface of some sort, and I suppose this will be as good as any.

Maybe I should try and seem profound by posting some Machiavelli. That will work.

Machiavelli is actually an interesting fellow. He was a self-described political junkie who lived in a time of some of the most brutal politics the world has ever seen. Modern politics don't compare to Italy in the 15th and 16th Centuries. Italy was divided into rival city-states that used every advantage against one another. A balance of power was eventually struck, but to little avail, as the balance of power was broken when Lodovico il Moro of Milan brought was with Florence, and then invited the French King Charles VIII the Spider King to come to his aid. This shattered the balance of power, and Lodovico il Moro was forced to realize his error. He allied his forces against the invading French King in an attempt to keep sovereign control of Italy. Eventually the Italians were aided by the Spanish King, leaving an even greater mess in Italy.

It's no surprise Machiavelli was so cruelly amoral in his politics. He believed in achieving political power no matter how cruel, or kind, it might be. An effective idea, which has made his name associate with modern political amorality.

Here's some awesome quotes from Machiavelli himself, from his famous book, The Prince. They were not only true in his time, but are true today.

"At this point one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge."

"People are by nature changeable. It is easy to persuade them about some particular matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion. Hence it is necessary to provide that when they no longer believe, they can be forced to believe."

"A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler. And it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank."

"Only the expenditure of ones own resources is harmful; and, indeed, nothing feeds upon itself as liberality does. The more it is indulged, the fewer are the means to indulge it further. As a consequence, a prince becomes poor and contemptible or, to escape poverty, becomes rapacious and hateful. Of all the things he must guard against, hatred and contempt come first, and liberality leads to both. Therefore it is better to have a name for miserliness, which breeds disgrace without hatred, than, in pursuing a name for liberality, to resort to rapacity, which breeds both disgrace and hatred."

" Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present."

I find Machiavelli interesting, but do not condone his views, it just stands as a testament to how many think today.