/lit/ - Literature

If you have been one of the unfortunate arrogant men who've failed to mold a moral compass before being captivated by Machiavelli's joke, then I suggest you immediately read Frederick The Based's anti-venom to cure you of your madness with his gentle yet precise prose that removes all infected quills from your unjustly bloated ego.

Sorry I'm late, I was busy playing music on the streets. No machiavels in sight at the thought of Frederick The Based's anti-venom flowing through me.

Sorry I wasn't here last night, I was busy busking on the streets with non-Machiavellians.

t.potion dispenser

Sorry I'm late.

Every Machiavellian I've met irl has been an insufferable person. Conversing with them is shallow and they're always pervasive of revealing their true feelings.

Frederick the Great is right about Machiavellians being ever oscillating warped men incapable of agreeing with society, so they must lie, cheat and steal their way into a false sense of power.

Frederick the Based dismantled Machiavelli's satire and administers the cleanest antidote to combat his vile inseminating ideology.

That Frederick the Great was right about Machiavellians being heartless monsters who spit nothing but poison.

Cesare Borgia is the man Machiavelli idolized as the conceptual peak of Machiavellianism all should follow.
>often poisoned his opponents
>bouts of sedentary and listlessness
>drowned an 18 year old whom he felt adverse jealousy after realizing the young man could run his newly conquered area better than him
>incestuous relationship with his sister
>sired many bastard children
>died alone, stripped of his earthly belongings, naked and cold

Meanwhile Frederick the Great offers a chance to redeem any of those who've been seduced by Machiavelli's caustic satirical book to repent and reinstate themselves on a path of righteousness. Those who've been incorrectly lead to believe they can follow Machiavelli's instructions are mere instruments of this devil. Don't be fooled into being a private individual who's caught up in an ever blinding chase for power or narcissism, it'll destroy you as it has those before.

>It is not only his violence; he shows utter contempt for the people that he rules, and treats them like animals: the usurper will sacrifice, both all the goods of "his" people and their very lives, to appease his tyrant's whims and avarice. There are only three legitimate ways to become Master of a country: succession; choice of the people which have the capacity; or conquest as a result of war. It should be clear as to which manner Machiavelli covertly recommends.

>The fifteenth century, where Machiavelli lived, was one where cruelty was normal; then, the disastrous glory of the conquerans was preferred, and these striking actions which by their size, impose a certain respect. Now, gentleness and fairness win respect and is considered good statecraft; I see that people prefer a humane ruler to one with the qualities of a conqueror, both bad and good. The insanity which praised and therefore encouraged the cruel passions, which caused the upheaval of the world, is gone.

>I ask: what can sustain a man that seeks power for the sake of power? And what incentives can such a man, intent on raising his own power on the misery and the destruction of other men, offer others? How can these others believe that the misery will only be suffered by only the "losers"?

Machiavellians btfo

Frederick the Great dismantled Machiavelli's rancorous propaganda in his work he published (Machiavelli never published The Prince) upon his ascension to the throne.

Frederick continues to administer the anti-venom to Machiavelli's curse in his well written Anti-Machiavel.

That Frederick the Great dismantled Machiavelli's venomous book.

>I always have regarded The Prince as one of the most dangerous works which were spread in
the world; it is a book which falls naturally into the hands of princes, and of those who have a taste
for policy. It is all too easy for an ambitious young man, whose heart and judgement are not formed
enough to accurately distinguish good from bad, to be corrupted by maxims which inflame his
hunger for power.
>If it is bad to debase the innocence of a private individual, whose influence on the affairs of the
world is minimal, it is much more to pervert some prince who must control his people, administer
justice, and set an example for their subjects; and must, by their kindness, magnanimity and mercy,
be someone to be looked up to.
>Machiavel shows ambition only in its beauty (if it has any at all); he speaks only about the
ambitious which were assisted by fortune - but he keeps a silence, that is truly deep, about those
which were the victims of their passions. This gives his work a bias towards imposing them on the
world; one could not see easily that Machiavel plays, in this chapter, the role of apologist for the
crime.
>It seems to me also that Machiavel was rather unwise in placing Moses with Romulus, Cyrus
and Theseus. Either Moses was inspired by God, or he was not. If he were not (which we cannot
assume is true), then Moses was a mere tool of God, used as the poets employ a deus ex machina
when they cannot create a believable outcome. If you continue to evaluate Moses as a mere
human, he could not have been very skillful: he led the Jewish people down a forty-year path,
which they very easily could have completed in six weeks. He secured very little benefit from the
enlightenment of the Egyptians: in this criterion, he was much lower than Romulus, Theseus, and
the other heroes. If Moses was inspired by God, as is usually assumed, one can treat him only like
the blind servant of the divine absolute power. Why would the Conductor of the Jews be lowered
to the status of a mere mortal man, and lumped in with the founder of the Roman Empire, the
monarch of Perses and the heroes who did their deeds by their own will and their own forces -
that Moses did not do without the assistance of God? Either Moses is a True Prophet or he isn't. If
he is, why lump him in with conquerors, great though they are? And if he isn't, why not use the
same standards used for the other great warriors when judging him?

Machiavellians can't refute this.

How can any Machiavellian recover after this enormous bombshell dismantling their shoddy ideology?

Your daily reminder that Frederick the Great dismantled the poisonous vitriol Machiavelli unleashed upon the world.