Was it satire?

Was it satire?

Yes.

Exactly like every opinion on /pol

No.

...

he's making a joke of actual autists

Maybe

some of it

Idk

>"Machiavelli described immoral behavior, such as dishonesty and killing innocents, as being normal and effective in politics. He even seemed to endorse it in some situations. The book itself gained notoriety when some readers claimed that the author was teaching evil, and providing "evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain power".

He was pretty fucking serious. You have to look at the times he lived in, and the political climate during the pre-unification years. He was an extremist that believed the end justified the means,. No satire at all. Pretty big piece of shit to be honest.

Does it matter?

It's a thoroughly honest piece of literature

Yeah

He hated monarchy and wrote it while hiding in the woods.

It's pure "fuck you Prince douchebag". The Prince didn't think so and it became cannon for degenerate politicians.

stupid

No, but he was not endorsing these things necessarily, only describing them.

If you'd read it carefully, you'd see that on multiple occasions he takes care to not defend the morality of these things; that he is only describing the reality of the world.

Also he talks about Moses and David as examples of Godly princes (if I remember correctly) and praises them.

No stupid. STFU stupid. Lurk more.
See:

/thread

Absolutely nobody here has read that book

But he's describing them as the things needed to hold a civil society together. You're right that he doesn't say that they're moral, but he's certainly endorsing them.

he wasn't white so his opinion doesn't count

Lurk more? Nigger im 30 and have been cursed with coming to this place since I got my poli-sci/history double-major over a decade ago. I'm just telling you what I learned from actually studying this guy in academia. What are you disagreeing with my post? Anything youd like to repute?

Not really. He did hold his tongue and kiss some Medici ass because they were in charge and he was largely out of favor. That said, as I am just reading the book right now (I just finished chapter 11) a lot of it is just common sense. It's hard to consolidate a recent conquest unless you're willing to kill a lot of people, mercenaries will jew you hard if you let them because they are only in it for the money, power hungry nobles and courtiers really can't be trusted and will abandon you in a heartbeat. The people won't just randomly rise up and save you if you get into a bind just because you handed out a few gibs (hint hint Leftist scum).

I mean, he's just saying that politics is cutthroat and people are not angels so you have to be careful who you trust. He also indirectly praised republics as being made up of strong, independent people, so even in ass-kissing mode he still lets his republicanism shine through. He also provides a nice outline of the political history of the Italian Renaissance. And there's a small map of Central/Northern Italy in the original versions and some reprints. It's decent.

can you repeat the question?

Who cares? The ideas were never very applicable to anything outside of the incestuous den of faggots he operated in. A totally worthless book, which is why niggers in prison often pretend to understand it. Essentially his ideas allow you to feel good about acting like a sneaky little faggot, right up until you get btfo by competent people who can work together.

I have read the book people claim to be a satire. I have to say it is not a joke, reason people think it is satire is because he uses meme rich dudes like that Sicilian tyrant to explain how not to rule. It is a good manual on how to rule as an ultimate ruler. Niccolo Machiavelli always was for democracy, but his patriotism was stronger than his love for democracy so he tried his best to teach the new ruler how not to be a tyrant, so his nation could prosper and be at peace. You could see he is redpilled from the way he explains why the approach described is good and why is it bad.

>>>/hist/

he was literally being ironic, like three levels of irony. so both

No user, what he said was general not only tied to Itally. The examples he used were mostly from Itally or Ancient Rome because that is what the person he wrote the book for knew about history.

it's normie tier.
I prefer the discourses personally.

You ever read any of his comedies? Mandragola is pretty good.

Well, yeah. In the Discourses he's talking to someone he considers an equal and is not filtering his thoughts as much. In The Prince, Machiavelli is censoring himself and is clearly "dumbing" down a lot of what he writes.

You're stupid. I'm older than you. And I have a history degree and studied him too. So fuck off with your oldfaggorty.

It's obviously satire and the guy was in political opposition to the Prince's take over of his Republic. He ran into the fucking woods out of fear when writing it.
He was saying monarchy is evil.

In a way, he was describing tactics employed by the ruling classes. There's a reason why the book was written in common Italian instead of latin, it was to make it more accessible to the laypeople of Italy.

>He did hold his tongue and kiss some Medici ass because they were in charge and he was largely out of favor

The Medici also broke his legs and tortured him before locking him up in a tower.

Pretty fucking sure Machiavelli hated them.

If it's satire, it's certainly not obvious. The book doesn't read satirical on it's face at all.

I didn't take it as satire but now that you mention it..

Satire doesn't mean you giggle, dude.
He hated the Prince.

He hated both Savonarola and Soderini for being feckless and unable to secure Florence (i.e. not being enough like his Prince). He clearly venerates the Roman Republic and Athens for having leaders strong enough (i.e. like his ideal Prince) to make them prosperous and secure.

Of course he hated them. He practically wept with joy when they were finally booted from Florence for good and the Second Florentine Republic was established. However, when the Prince was written the Medici were still in power and he didn't want to go through all that unpleasantness again.

Keep in mind, The Prince was a manuscript that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (not the really famous one, this was a later Lorenzo) and originally another Medici (who died before it was completed). It was not even published for public consumption until after Machiavelli died. The whole thing is basically an olive branch and career resume Machiavelli sent to the Medici in an attempt to curry favor and maybe get a posting in the Civil Service. His efforts did eventually pay off near the end of the Medici's rule. After Lorenzo died (Lorenzo, to his credit, saw right through Machiavelli). Which meant that the Second Republic didn't trust him (they thought he was a Medici Loyalist) and refused to give him a posting. Machiavelli died of despair shortly thereafter.

Sorry user, I was just taking offence to your "lurk moar" comment, and wasn't trying to call to authority or anything. Machiavelli ran because of the enemies he had made from the loyalties he chose over others. He believed what he wrote, and believed that true power arises from how you wield said power. Us old fucks have to stay together. Ill defer to you on Nicolló. Not my area of expertise, just the few classes on him.