/lit/ - Literature

The art of the deal

Nothing.

>>11519156
Robert Greene - 48 Laws of Power

You need to be 18 or over to post on this site.

Watch the british house of cards, I havent read it but “Get me roger white”

>>11519197
*Roger Stone sorry

>>11519156
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry - The winsdom of sands.
>>11519170
A wonderful collection of quotes, including Machiaveli

>>11519156
>moralfag
so this is the power of Zoomers

>>11519156
This is the political climate libtards created.

>brutally honest
This literature was satire though, OP.

>>11519340
It seems to me that anyone who uses the term "brutally honest" about a person, especially themselves, is simply a fucking cunt.

>>11519167
fpbp

The Dictator's Handbook
48 Laws of Power

>>11519353
Could you explain why? "Brutally honest" was used as a term because that's what I was requesting - literature that is honest to the point of disregarding commonly held moral positions in favour of what works in reality. "Brutal" is a fair description of that kind of honesty.

>>11519340
Yeah, it's so obviously satire that only select pseud faggots see how satirical it is.

>>11519340
>The Prince was satire.
Is there any other sentence as capable as this sentence at revealing its poster to be a pseud?

>>11519777
>>11519813
>ad hom
Great arguments, friends.

>>11519167
Predictable

>>11519167
The art of the deal is satire.

Debate me

>>11519984
Your argument for The Prince being satire may be described as "ex anus", so I'd say that an "ad hominem" is a completely fair response to it.

>>11520080
ex ano

>>11520112
I knew someone would correct me. I never learned even the most basic latin declensions, but I just knew that some faggot from the other side of the world does know them and will exploit my lack of knowledge to come off as super smart and feel better about himself. Congrats.

>>11520146
You seem like a very secure and stable person.

>>11520146
I don't know Latin either, I just googled "ex" and looked which case follows

>>11519340
Lol it's really not satire. The advice in the book, at the time, was extremely sound advice for a ruler. This was Machiavelli's "resume" if you will. I don't remember the name of the King, but he wrote this book to secure him a spot on that King's court.

>>11520162
Is your post satire? It does seem more satirical than Prince.

Rules for radicals - Saul Alinsky

Not joking

>>11520175
>literally suggests that a prince actively arm a Democratic populace that he lives among and lies to on a daily basis
Its a satire. Either that or the worlds most elaborate and reusuable prank on sociopaths that totally lack foresight.

>>11520206
You’re right, but it’s effective satire. As in, power is inherently flawed in that the lust for absolute power no matter what leads to some extremely ridiculous results. It’s what prompted him to proliferate and spread the document himself anyway.

>>11519156
If you weren't born rich there is no hope for you.

If you think otherwise, you have no idea how society actually functions, so there is definitely no hope for you.

>>11520206
>a Democratic populace
But it's a guide for rulers of monarchies, not democracies.
And Machiavelli conquered a city with an army of commoners, so his advice literally comes from personal experience.

>>11520218
It’s a collective guide on how to garner power in many different kinds of governments, including democratic regimes. Using the power of the people to lift your rank in society itself is inherently democratic.

>>11520225
>It’s a collective guide on how to garner power in many different kinds of governments, including democratic regimes (anonymous, 2018)
>I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. (Machiavelli, 1532: the first fucking page)
*thinking emoji*

>>11520248
That point is absolutely not necessary to make. Him commenting on other governments is hardly extremely different than principalities. Autocratic regimes and republics can have very similar ways of garnering and collecting power

>>11519167
Based and redpilled

>>11519170

>>11519156

>>11519156
never gonna make it

>>11519167
Memes aside, is this actually worth reading?

>>11520112

>>11520206
He says a ruler should build a stable army rather than relying on mercenaries. Jesus, do you people even know what you're talking about?

>>11519414
not anon, but I'd imagine it's because cunts use 'honesty' as a way to rationalize being a cunt

>>11522408
Who did he write the book for? What was going on during that era where the person he wrote the book for resided?

>>11520217
shut the fuck up

>>11522597
It was not known who the book was write for (iirc?) but most speculate Cesare Borgia or the pope that was a Borgia or that Medici banker. Perhaps rather than the book being written for someone, the premises were made based on someone(Borgia or Medici which came to power within his time who used such tactics).

>>11520217
Absolutely not. Thank god this isn’t the case.

You see this mentality in high school and college, but once you get in the real world you will see immediately that society prizes hard work more than ever and the aristocratic tendencies of last century are weakening even further. Eventually capital will be much more fluid, we just have to get a very religious, conservative ‘liberal’ movement going which prizes individualism over mindless collectivism.

You have espoused the exact principle that this century will destroy. Complete social mobility(not just pecuniary mobility) is the objective here

>>11522670
You're a capital C cuck

>>11520000
The art of the deal is NOT satire

Your move

>>11522720
I think Katie might be there

>>11519156
You can't learn such things from a book. Reading it helps perceiving deceiving as a normal thing which was always done.

You need to watch such plots unfold infront of your eyes.

t. german politician

>>11522609
>>11519167
>>11522670
The level of COPE in poorSTEMs voting against their own economic interests.

>>11519170
Inb4 no that book doesn't work it just makes you an asshole

Anyone who says the above is powerless if they have read the 48lop, because it is a book on MAINTAINING power. If you find it useless, that means you have no power to maintain.

>>11522858
i'm pretty sure no one truly believes in becoming ceo just because of "iq" or "muh grades in college", leadership isn't hereditary and i'm sure that the greater leader, regardless of birth, can become the "king" of whatever hierarchy he finds himself in, only of course if he values victory over good (sorta the message of the book).

>>11522965
you would think that the dude only know for writting teen romance books would have no authority in the leadership field and yet here we are

>>11520252
But he explicitly states that his advice won't focus on democratic states. Therefore, >>11520206's point is nonsensical, unrelated to the actual text.
Satirefags really don't make a shred of sense, it's ridiculous. Apparently The Prince is a text that is so satirical that you need to (incorrectly) overanalyze specific passages to notice the satire. Fucking wow

>>11523078
That’s the stupidest post I’ve ever seen. Satirefags just as much as anyone else, make good points about the book. You would do well to read posts like these
>>11520213
Again and again.

I believe there is some severe cognitive dissonance going on which seems to make people think that being a satire delegitimizes something. Or that it’s a ‘bad’ thing to be a satire

>>11523043
Did you just confuse Robert Greene for John Green? Please don't talk about what you don't know.

>>11522855
>t. german politician
Stop posting on 4chan and get back to fixing your country.

>>11523155
Sadly that is not nearly in my realm of possibilities.

>>11523138
oh fuck

>>11522670
>capital will be much more fluid
>very religious conservative movement
Thats not how that works.

>>11523298
Not historically how it has worked. History does not have to be an indication of the future, however

>>11522855
>You need to watch such plots unfold infront of your eyes.
or one could read about them?

>t. german politician
doubt

>>11522981
>thinking politics is about "leadership" and other supposedly innate virtues
How can people be still this stupid post-Marx? It boggles the mind.

>>11523078
And I could give you some dogshit advice about how you, a duck, can trick a hunter and survive 'duck season' by donning a headband with a pair of rabbit ears, smacking Fudd in the face repeatedly, handing him a loaded shotgun, and shouting that you're a rabbit at the top of your lungs. I can then say explicitly this advice is *not* meant to work in 'rabbit season'. The joke is that I gave you this advice knowing Fudd is in the other corner of the room getting ready for 'hunting season', and that if you act on the advice seriously, you will die. The dark humor arises from the fact that the distinction(s) I made regarding where the advice applies does not matter, and is a distraction if anything. Additionally I am giving you advice that actively worsens the situation.

Moldbug, desu

my diary

>>11520000
Checked quads.

Also Trump just kinda ranted in that unfocused way he's known for and some poor schmuck had to cohere all these ramblings into a ghostwritten self help pamphlet. Trump was then paid as the "author"

Ghostwriting is a cuck move and authors should stand up for themselves... unless you're ghostwriting for God then it's ok

>>11523582
These are innate qualities that Marx did not have. Which is why communism became popular after Marx died, loser

>>11523703
Ah no no. Not at all. What you are describing is dark humor, not satire.

Satire is much more intelligent. Satire is not applying unnecessary advice, it could be applying useful advice.

The satirical aspect of the Prince is how ruthless it is. How it advocates killing monarchs to obtain their throne, or using the trust of others against them. At times Machiavelli gives really useful advice but at other times he clearly cannot he taking himself seriously because one laughs at certain sections of the book, even if the advice is 100% accurate.

It’s the kind of satire where you are on a long, icy climb up a mountainous terrain and the advice to survive is to slice your partners belly open as opposed to finding materials to build a tent. Both options would be discussed by Machiavelli and the pros and cons of each weighed, which is where the satire comes in.

Ragnar Redbeard would of course only consider the latter option amidst a vast portrayal of Darwinian efficiency and general atheistic nonsense. Which is why he is genuinely satirically uninformative. Whereas Machiavelli is satirically informative.

There’s a HUGE degree of subtlety to this whole thing, a lot of tact

>>11524032
Sorry the former option. My bad. Redbeard would only consider slicing the guys belly open. Tents are for lesser beings

>>11523825
desu