"A New Prince" (A discussion on why sociopath's love Machiavelli)

[GhostofTsenzei]

In this world, many are they who believe that the end justifies the means.  If it gives you what you desire, you must do whatever it takes.  It is said that a man should be judged by the fruit of his works, and it is taken that that means the "results."  The fruit of a person's work, is not just whether or not the ultimate goal is achieved, but also result of each action.  It is your means.

Yet I propose an old idea, and a new Prince to show Machiavelli the correct way.

To gain what you desire, the only true way is not through "the ends justify the means" but rather "the means justify the end."

If you wish to rule a place, you must work hard to serve it honestly, justly, and with sincerity even before you gain such power.  If you wish to accumulate wealth, you must work to ensure no corruption in your business, and to provide a good and well priced product.

These ideas are not new.  They are as old as thought itself.  Yet many have forgotten them.  There is nothing wrong with seeking power.  With seeking wealth.  Just as there is nothing wrong with seeking knowledge, or wisdom, or love.  So long as the means justify the end.

[heavyhebrew]

Machiavelli wrote his treatise by flattering the ego of his patron. And every sociopath and megalomaniac since has seized upon his writing as "truth".

[GhostofTsenzei]

Machiavelli wrote his treatise by flattering the ego of his patron. And every sociopath and megalomaniac since has seized upon his writing as "truth".

Aye, but not only that.  Machiavelli's method, while wrong, was also effective.  So those megalomaniac's grew in power, and began teaching that it is the only way to achieve your goals, because it suits them.  Since then, it has become "new" or "foolish" to talk about honest hard work actually getting results.  Indeed, so much so that those that want to get money or power or knowledge, feel like they have to play along.

It continued long enough that almost all people that choose to enter "public service" do so by being or becoming corrupt.  After a long enough time, many people began to view seeking office, or ruler-ship, as being a purely selfish and evil thing.  That to want to have control of your own life was evil.  And that no honest method would move governments or companies.

[Dig]

Aye, but not only that.  Machiavelli's method, while wrong, was also effective.  So those megalomaniac's grew in power, and began teaching that it is the only way to achieve your goals, because it suits them.  Since then, it has become "new" or "foolish" to talk about honest hard work actually getting results.  Indeed, so much so that those that want to get money or power or knowledge, feel like they have to play along.

It continued long enough that almost all people that choose to enter "public service" do so by being or becoming corrupt.  After a long enough time, many people began to view seeking office, or ruler-ship, as being a purely selfish and evil thing.  That to want to have control of your own life was evil.  And that no honest method would move governments or companies.

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by god. -Thomas Jefferson

all princes, kings, queens, etc. can go fly a kite at the fletcher memorial


these people seeking some puppet office do not have to play any game, and the world is waking up to the fact that the people hold all the power and can pick their servants however they see fit.

the public officials are our servants, they bow to us, not the other way around, that paradigm shift (as opposed to the deception we are in now) needs to occur.

[netizen_x]

We would do better to look up to the teachings of Jesus and Confucius than the Medici - medicinal death cults of the European middle ages. Greed is not good. Mammon is not God.

[GhostofTsenzei]

No, seriously.  This is not a thread about promoting Godlike Supermen, be they good or evil.  This is not a thread supporting oligarchies or monarchies.  This is not a thread about whining or UFOs.

To the Mod that moved the original thread.  Please actually understand what I am trying to say here.  That it is through good works that people should go after their goals.

That wanting power is not a bad thing.  Any more than Alex Jones, Henry Patrick, Martin Luther King, or others who sought the power to change things for the better were or are bad.

If you want something, the model to follow is not "the ends justify the means."  But that: "the means justify the end."

Those that wish to change this nation, must gain, or retake from the elite, power.  But if you do it through false-flag terrorism, or through manipulation.  If you use the same methods as those very elite they wish to overthrow have used, then you are ultimately accomplishing very little.

The only way to do it is through true, open, honest work.

People have been taught that seeking power is only evil.  It is not.  No more so than seeking knowledge or love or money.  Is Alex Jones evil when he asks people to support him? To do so financially or through other donations of time, effort, and information? Not at all.  Yet that is an example of someone who is seeking power and money, yet doing so through providing goods and services of worth, doing so by having his means justify the end of gaining that support.

Is he a perfect being? I doubt it.  Does he have moments where he might allow some measure of corruption, be it from his ego, from his position, or whatever to corrupt some action or purpose? I'd wager so.

Yet is he a bad man? Is what he does wrong? I can't say that is the case.

What of Ron Paul? Because he desires to have a voice in Congress, does that make his desire for the power to represent his district, evil?

Because megalomaniacs and sociopaths and the corrupt are drawn to power.  And more so, drawn to getting it through "whatever means possible."  Because they have been successful society has learned that to "seek power" or "money" is inherently bad.  Even more, that you can only get these things through corrupt means.

Does power corrupt? Possibly.  I am more of a mind that the corrupt seek power more often than the pure.  More so, I think that as people gain power, their true motivations and goals are more likely to surface.  So that people you thought of as "good" use their power to indulge their actual selves that they kept hidden when they were "weak."

I do not want to see dictators, though a good one would be better than an evil one.  What I want to see is 6+ Billion people ruling the world as equals (changing with the population).  Congressmen and Presidents to once again be servants of the people.  Yet the people have been taught that they cannot have power over their representatives.  That only the reverse is true.

Yet the people have been taught that seeking power is evil and wrong and dirty and nasty.

This is true, but only so long as the means to that power is evil and wrong and dirty and nasty.  If your means are righteous, then not only will whatever power you gain be righteous, but also there will be inherent limits one what power you CAN obtain.  For those that gain power through service and honesty and justice cannot override the basic tenets, the basic rights, of other human beings.

[Knave/Crank]

GhostofTsenzei,
Why do you feel the urge to point out the Nietzschean "beyond good and evil?"

Since you are promoting an übermensch will-to-power ideology, I must ask: who do you think will be fooled by this?

[GhostofTsenzei]

GhostofTsenzei,
Why do you feel the urge to point out the Nietzschean "beyond good and evil?"

Since you are promoting an übermensch will-to-power ideology, I must ask: who do you think you will be fooled by this?

Let me say this again: I AM NOT SUPPORTING THAT IDEA

If that is still unclear to you, I am not sure what to say.  Please, point out how I supporting that.  And no, I haven't read Nietzsch, but from the blerb of Ubermensch in Wikipedia at least, it is most certainly not a philosophy I believe.


I realize I am not the best communicator.  A large part of this is simply that my vocabulary is too small, and that I tend to have a different semantic dictionary than most.

[Satyagraha]

One commonality among the three people you cite (MLK, Patrick Henry and Alex Jones) is that all had/have a mission ...

Was their intent to 'draw' people to themselves by 'choosing' the right mission?

I don't think so...

People who seek power for the sake of having control over other peoples lives are dangerous and too often the people IN power.

People who seek to empower others - like MLK, Patrick Henry or Alex Jones - attract others because they show people how to TAKE power.

[GhostofTsenzei]

One commonality among the three people you cite (MLK, Patrick Henry and Alex Jones) is that all had/have a mission ...

Was their intent to 'draw' people to themselves by 'choosing' the right mission?

I don't think so...

People who seek power for the sake of having control over other peoples lives are dangerous and too often the people IN power.

People who seek to empower others - like MLK, Patrick Henry or Alex Jones - attract others because they show people how to TAKE power.

EXACTLY!

It is the means which is more important than the end!

Those that care more about the end result than the means will only be the same as those they seek to overthrow.

I think I know part of why people misunderstand and misrepresent what I'm trying to say:

That wanting power is not a bad thing.  Any more than Alex Jones, Henry Patrick, Martin Luther King, or others who sought the power to change things for the better were or are bad.

If you want something, the model to follow is not "the ends justify the means."  But that: "the means justify the end."

Would have been better written as: "That wanting power is not a bad thing, other than wanting power for power's sake."  Or "That wanting money is not a bad thing, other than for the sake of having money."  Likewise, wanting power or money in order to enslave people, or commit other evil is also bad.

People that want to rule the world in order to rule the world for themselves, will never get that from following the idea of Means Justify the End.

Alex Jones will ask for money, in order to further his means.  In order to further his good cause of avoiding/getting out of/ending slavery and oppression at least where he can.  It is because his cause is good that he can get that money.  But he only wants the money because of the cause, and so that he can personally feed, cloth, and shelter himself and those that he employs and are in his family.

[Satyagraha]

EXACTLY!

It is the means which is more important than the end!

Not exactly... the means ' empowering people' (in the case of MLK, PH & AJ) IS the end. There is no other end than getting people empowered - and in turn, the ability to be free from whatever tyranny they face.

[Dig]

EXACTLY!

It is the means which is more important than the end!

Those that care more about the end result than the means will only be the same as those they seek to overthrow.

I think I know part of why people misunderstand and misrepresent what I'm trying to say:

Would have been better written as: "That wanting power is not a bad thing, other than wanting power for power's sake."  Or "That wanting money is not a bad thing, other than for the sake of having money."  Likewise, wanting power or money in order to enslave people, or commit other evil is also bad.

People that want to rule the world in order to rule the world for themselves, will never get that from following the idea of Means Justify the End.

Alex Jones will ask for money, in order to further his means.  In order to further his good cause of avoiding/getting out of/ending slavery and oppression at least where he can.  It is because his cause is good that he can get that money.  But he only wants the money because of the cause, and so that he can personally feed, cloth, and shelter himself and those that he employs and are in his family.

dude, please do not spam this forum thanks

[ConcordeWarrior]

I will vote for Prince Albert of Monaco. 
He is not all that bad after all. 

[GhostofTsenzei]

Not exactly... the means ' empowering people' (in the case of MLK, PH & AJ) IS the end. There is no other end than getting people empowered - and in turn, the ability to be free from whatever tyranny they face.

Yes, that is right.  "The Ends Justify the Means" would never work to accomplish that goal.

It's like, say I wanted to run a good business that would support me, my family, and my favored politician.  The "Means Justify the Ends" would involve me actually running a good, honest business.

Whereas the NWO, using "The End Justifiies the Means" would use scams, undermine other legitimate business, and blatantly steal.  They might achieve the same goal, but it is wrong, and it is evil.  Yet that doesn't mean that wanting to run a good business, support your family and a favored person or group of people is wrong.  Yet people have been taught to think like this.

That the moderator stupidly retitled this thread is proof of this.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for moderating the forums.  Yet the person obviously doesn't understand.  I suppose I can only blame myself for not being clear enough.

Even if MLK's goal WAS to eventually gain office, it was more important to empower the people.  Whether or not he did gain the office, would then depend on the empowered people's judgment of him, and whether or not they desired it.

[GhostofTsenzei]

I will vote for Prince Albert of Monaco. 
He is not all that bad after all. 

Lol.

Machiavelli was cesspit a-hole and Prince Albert was far ahead of him in that regard.

[Knave/Crank]

I will vote for Prince Albert of Monaco. 
He is not all that bad after all. 

Right ...

He is just the head of the House of Grimaldi, a high-profiled member of the Black Nobility.

[GhostofTsenzei]

Special note: I'm terrible at writing, especially headlines.

A better title (last suggestion) for this would be, perhaps:

"Why the Ends Don't Justify the Means" or "A return to the ideology of good honest work."

the public officials are our servants, they bow to us, not the other way around, that paradigm shift (as opposed to the deception we are in now) needs to occur.

Yes, absolutely.  If a person wishes to have an office, they should do so by being servant to the people, because that is what the offices should be in the first place.  All offices of the government should, by right, have less power than that of the people.  Any and all power of the governments are to be granted by the people, not by itself as it is now nor by the power of a bank, as more and more laws they push allows.

[Knave/Crank]

Special note: I'm terrible at writing, especially headlines.

A better title (last suggestion) for this would be, perhaps:

"Why the Ends Don't Justify the Means" or "A return to the ideology of good honest work."

Eh... I suggest that you leave ideology out of it entirely (as it accounts for a derailed view of the world).

[GhostofTsenzei]

Eh... I suggest that you leave ideology out of it entirely (as it accounts for a derailed view of the world).

You actually have a good point.  I had, ironically, just started reading your article on that very subject after that post.