Auron Macintyre is big on Machiavelli and demands strong leadership. But I've heard him talk about the Anti-Machiavelli by the young Frederick the Great, who was arguably an exceptional leader.Has anyone ever read this thing, at least heard about Frederick, or is it all just not flashy and catchy enough for you Ameritards?
>>534840970Not an American but the TL;DR for the Anti is that he's a enlightenment era monarch seething about the reality of power and how NECESSARILY to rule means requiring immoral (or at least amoral) actions to preserve your own base of power, couched in libtarded rhetoric because he was buttbuddies with Voltaire. That's it.
What kind of mutt is he?
>>534841828> the reality of power and how NECESSARILY to rule means requiring immoral (or at least amoral) actions Yeah, I find it rather off putting how easy everyone's accepting the cynicism of power as long as the guy at the levers is their brand of power. I'm fine with accepting gvt can't do anything positive, but Macintyre types want something positive from power. They should be at least aware of Frederick's criticism and take it seriously. Is it too tough to accept the pitfalls and give in to the naivete something finally happens? Really don't get it. > couched in libtarded rhetoric Ironically, that guy was several magnitudes more conservative than all supposedly conservatives nowadays.>>534841877Claims to be a christian conservative with heavy emphasis on Machiavelli, Schmidt, Carlisle and stuff.
>>534842652>Yeah, I find it rather off putting how easy everyone's accepting the cynicism of power as long as the guy at the levers is their brand of power.Because that's the reality. You either have your guy there, or someone else is there. You're delusional for thinking things can be another way, the same as leftists are (generally their "bright" idea is to get rid of power altogether, whereas yours ostensibly is that power can be used without corruption). Both are oughts, Machiavelli dealt with is. >Ironically, that guy was several magnitudes more conservativeYou do understand that conservatives ARE liberals right?
>>534840970I've been planning to read The Prince since forever but I didn't know about Anti-Machiavel. I will read it after I've read The Prince. Something that's strange is that I posted about The Prince just a few minutes after this thread was posted but I hadn't seen this thread.https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/534803733/#p534841356
>>534840970Been a while since I've read it, but worth a read if you're taking the time to study Machiavelli. Bear in mind, of course, that Frederick lacked the benefit of experience when he wrote it. I liked his emphasis on studying wise rulers, not just the ones people like to complain about. He clearly developed a more practical streak in warfare and diplomacy later on: "a king owes it to his people to be as cunning as serpents".
>>534843245Yeah this is a uniquely northern European delusion - that power can just "go away". I blame it on the high rates of autism within germanic/nord populations. German idealism is basically just one massive refusal to acknowledge realities of power. Its gotta be genetic.
>>534841828Wait, Anti-Machiavel is antithetical to The Prince...? Groundbreaking stuff, anon.
>>534845194He's the one that asked for a TL;DR. Shocker, the TL;DR is that it's antithetical to Machiavelli.
>>534846045>asked for a TL;DRNo
>>534844916Read it bro, very quick read and incredibly dense. Though much of the references are archaic, you can apply many of the examples in the book to modern figures. Quality post by the way.
