Niccolò [Mock]iavelli ?

(These thoughts were sparked while listening to CBC Radio, “Ideas” (Paul Kennedy) “Machiavelli: The Prince of Paradox,” broadcast 6 November 2013 in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the writing of The Prince.¹

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Satire: “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.”

So, was Niccolò Machiavelli² being satirical (or not) when he wrote The Prince?

Perhaps context and history can give us some clues.

1. Machiavelli chose not to publish The Prince during his life; and there is no evidence that it was ever given to its addressee: the “Magnificent Lorenzo, son of Piero de’ Medici.”

2. This Magnificent Lorenzo was the son of a usurping family that presided over Machiavelli’s torture before his time of exile in which he wrote The Prince.

3. Machiavelli lived in a time of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia. Come to think of it—which Machiavelli probably did in the many hours of his self-described communion with history—this Medici period of vanity and violence, pride and paranoia was just another long stretch of never-ending, historical déjà vu.

4. A review of the “long-term security” and “survival” of so-called “statesmen.”

5. Reading Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal (1729)³ in the same sitting as The Prince (1513).  

So, for the sake of those who believe The Prince is “a work on statesmanship” and that it “systematically analyze[s] the requirements of power and survival” (being the words of Mr. Henry Kissinger at min. 1:10-1:27 of the “Ideas” broadcast ), let’s look at an abbreviated sample of power and survival:⁴

Assassinated	Executed	Other Ends
Sennacherib (681 BCE)	King Saul (while fleeing, circa 1007 BCE)	Cyrus the Great (slain in battle, 528 BCE)
Xerxes I (465 BCE)	Robespierre (1794 CE)	Alexander the Great (poisoned? at age 33, 323 BCE)
Pompey the Great (48 BCE)	Mussolini (1945)	Nero (suicide, 68 CE)
Julius Caesar (44 BCE)	Vidkun Quisling (1945)	Napoleon (dies in exile, 1821)
Caligula (41 CE)	Hideki Tojo (1948)	Hitler (suicide, 1945)
Emperor Dominian (96 CE)	Ceausescu (1989)	Pol Pot (dies while under house arrest, 1998)
Kaiser Wilhelm II (1914)	Saddam Hussein (2006)	Idi Amin (dies in exile, 2003)
Nicholas II of Russia (1918)	Gadhafi (2011)	Pinochet (last years under house arrest, 2006)

Created with the HTML Table Generator

So, perhaps the “requirements of power and survival” need a little less delusion (by Kissinger and friends) and a little more systematic analysis.

Of course, some “Princes” do manage to survive their tenure of (tyrannical) power by the practice of so-called “judicious” excesses, yet how often are they plagued with continual paranoia, if not outright madness? Thus, in the light of history (which often unfolds in the dark), is it not stupefying to view The Prince as some formula for secure statesmanship?

But, even if Machiavelli were not mocking the Magnificent Lorenzo (et ilk), I submit that the facts of history do. Tyrannical rulers seem more susceptible to being deposed than “democratic” ones, and manifest as much, if not greater, paranoia.

So, let’s line-up the dead “statesmen / Princes” of history and ask:

Are we naive, delusional, and / or fools-worthy-of-mockery to believe there is power and security in the prescriptions of The Prince?

-----------
1. http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2416333338/
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations ; http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/ ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinations

A Plea to the Bully Pulpit

Would the powers that be please schedule an open, global convention to discuss the despicability of bullying? Of course, we are beginning to name (and condemn) it for what it is, though we have a long way to go, particularly when it happens in families, or when the bully is especially powerful, wealthy, or famous.

SO, if you are part of a family, or if you are especially powerful, wealthy, or famous—or want, or plan to be—you might be well-advised to watch a re-run of Touched by an Angel, Season 7, CD-1, Episode 2, entitled “Legacy.” There you can observe in brutal detail the way of the bully—a powerful, wealthy father.

Considering the past and present ubiquity of bullying (from the micro- to the macrocosm), we suggest an international screening of “Legacy” (with requisite permissions) for all elected and non-elected government officials, all employees of governments, all CEOs and other HyPEs* of big business, all lawyers and lobbyists, all so-called conservatives and liberals, all fathers and mothers, all gang members, and all other persons and faux-persons (as in Goldman Sachs, et al.) who may or may not fit into one of the above categories.

After the global screening, here is the plea:

▪ If you are the bully: Admit it! STOP IT! (That means even, and especially, you, Uncle Sam! And you, too, IMF.)
▪ If you are the bullied, STOP IT! Get help. NAME IT for what it is—ten thousand times ten thousand, if necessary. Don’t give loyalty to anything that violates integrity. Stand for truth and justice.

-----------------------/
* (being Highly Paid Employees)

Babylon Boomerang

This post is in commemoration of the annual Babylon Boomerang that begins every December 26^th. In some countries, it is called “Boxing Day” in accidental acknowledgement of all the gifts (unwanted, unneeded) that giftees box up to return to the “free” market for cash (or preferably credit from the POV of a bait and switch Babylon).

Of course, for most giftees, cash is the preferential return which, in this world, in large measure, is the compensation they really needed in the first place, as in:

◦ a good job (including self-employment);
◦ good wages and benefits;
◦ generous returns for labors performed;
◦ lower mortgage / loan / credit-card rates;
◦ reasonable health, food, shelter, utility, education, & legal costs;
◦ etc., etc.

Surely, in this day of our sophistication, we can figure out a better way to give gifts that are needed and wanted—not for the building-up of Babylon, but so people can refocus from possessing things to having sufficient resources so they can devote their labors to improving and sharing the gifts and talents given of God for the good of all mankind.

Perhaps a lesson or two in the economics of Jesus might be helpful in turning this boomerang around:-)

http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2009/12/economics-of-jesus.html

http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2013/12/gods-economy-christmas-perspective.html

The Spruce Budworm Syndrome?

"The eastern version of the Spruce Budworm is Choristoneura fumiferana, which is one of the most destructive native insects in the northern spruce and fir forests of the Eastern United States and Canada. ... The catastrophe theory of budworm outbreaks holds that particularly major infestations occur every 40–60 years, as the result of a cusp-catastrophe event, whereby populations jump suddenly from endemic to epidemic levels."¹ (Bold emphasis added.)

Wall Street ~ 1907 Panic
By Soerfm (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)],
 via Wikimedia Commons

If one takes a stroll down Wall Street (and Memory Lane²) one can perhaps see the syndrome in epidemic action, at this very hour, in the budworm nursery of downtown New York City.

Budworms do not seem to cogitate that at some point all the trees that sustain them will be destroyed, especially when the infestation cycle becomes a spiral instead of a cycle, which is precisely where we are at, is it not? (And does it help that the NY nursery has a brisk export business in this era of globalization?)

So, if you are a budworm or a budding-worm, there was some drastic / radical / offensive advice given about 2,000 years ago (in prescience and déjà vu of our day?) that may help if you are sick and tired of being caught up in the down-spiraling syndrome:

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not,^[*] and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (New Testament Mark 9:43-48)

[*] Yes, a kind of immortality! but why, in blazes, choose that kind?!

---------------------------/
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruce_Budworm (Section titled “Eastern Spruce Budworm”
2. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/04/growth-funds.html ; http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/03/vast-fund-of-stupidity-recycling.html

Open System / Closed System ?

Any déjà vu here?

You decide:

Rupert Sheldrake ~ Science Set Free (aka: The Science Delusion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE (Banned TED talk ~ 18 min)

TED Talks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo (Sheldrake’s take)
http://www.ted.com/search?cat=ss_all&q=sheldrake (TED’s blog)

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Dan Dennett ~ Breaking the Spell

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

Are we nearing the end of this latest GAFFs* spin cycle?

------------------------/
* http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2013/10/gaffs-in-pursuit-of-truth.html

GAFFs in Pursuit of Truth?

(aka: The ever-repeating way of the World?)

Since the dawn of man, generally accepted theories,* have been espoused in order to explain the way of the world and its universe.¹ Whether based in “old” religion or “new” science, all these generally accepted theories may (for the sake of brevity) be termed GATs. Except in full disclosure, many of these GATs do not remain GATs for long. Becoming soon vested with id and ego, many GATs are quickly converted into generally accepted facts, otherwise known as GAFs.

Then, in the déjà vu of expanding ego, some of these GAFs further devolve into GAFFs, being generally accepted (fallacious) facts.

As we know, religion takes its turn with GAFFs. And despite our evolving cleverness, science has had its share, though we seem to prefer to “reconstitute” scientific GAFFs as “incomplete comprehensions” when persistent observation finally cooks the GAFF goose.

Thankfully over time, most GAFFs get corrected,² though the process can wend its tortuous and obstructive way down the centuries—inflicting the maximum pain allowed by law and conceit upon questioners or contrarians. Just ask Galileo (battling religious GAFFs) or Velikovsky and all those other so-called “pseudo-scientists”³ (battling science GAFFs).

So what might be a small sampling of our latter-day, science-based GAFFs?

▪ Could our Big Bang be a distant but close cousin (if not a veritable clone) of that old, “spontaneous generation”?⁴ (See the footnote reference and extrapolate.) And if the Big Bang (with its virtual offspring) eventually offends every observation and measurement, what should we call it? dead wrong? or just incomplete?⁵ What have we called spontaneous generation? Incomplete?

▪ Has scientific, logical man become the “orbital” center in replay of the old Ptolemaic (earth-centered) system?

▪ What do we make of “scientific” constants that are proving not so constant?

▪ What about radioactive decay that inexplicably speeds up or slows down?

▪ What about that shifting red-shift?

▪ What if gravity⁶ doesn’t deserve all the credit it gets?

▪ How long did the principle of uniformity retain its obstructive sway?

▪ How long can the scientist who doesn’t observe or comprehend a “fact” retain the conceit that if He hasn’t observed or comprehended it, it can’t be observed or comprehended by anyone?!

A sign of a probable GAFF is some new observation that is described as:

▪ abnormal
▪ anomalous
▪ astonishing
▪ baffling
▪ bizarre
▪ inexplicable
▪ mysterious
▪ peculiar
▪ puzzling
▪ shocking
▪ strange
▪ surprising
▪ unanticipated
▪ unexpected
▪ unforeseen
▪ etc., etc.

Yes, science and scientists deserve countless accolades for great advances, but to those scientists who have become militant, self-appointed defenders of GATs, GAFs, and sometimes GAFFs, here’s an observation or two:

▪ Science has been, always and forever, full of surprises, upsets, and inexplicables.

▪ Research and history has shown that loners are often the creators, innovators, and discoverers and that many have had to battle GAFFs much of their life.

▪ Research has also shown that groups have a tendency to reinforce each other’s biases, inhibit each other’s creativity, and dampen the courage to dissent.

▪ GAFFers often have a vested interest in perpetuating GAFFs to which they have dedicated their careers, reputations, and financial well-being.

▪ Scientists are not immune to the sway of ego, prejudice, irrational passion, and astonishing myopia.

▪ Science seems better served by those pursuing truth than those pursuing conformity!

----------------------/
* (Our current generally accepted theory is also known as The Standard Model.)
1. (Or universes as the case may prove.)
 2. Though NOT self-correcting as some scientists like to claim, but are laboriously, painstakingly corrected by men and women dedicated to the pursuit of scientific truth, come hell or the high priests of scientific GAFFs.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fads_and_Fallacies_in_the_Name_of_Science This wiki entry describes in classic detail, the way GAFFers discount contrarians, or as they prefer to call them, loners, cranks and pseudo-scientists. How déjà vu the responses towards Galileo? Newton? Pasteur? Tesla? etc., etc., etc.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
5. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before Yes, there are truths in this wiki entry, but the analysis falls far short of humility and full confession.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Cruz-control?

Some have been referring to Senator Ted Cruz as a true, Right-wing “Cruz Missile” destined to decimate the intransigent, left-wing liberals and their BIG government. For the record, here is a definition of cruise missile.

A cruise missile is a guided missile, the major portion of whose flight path to its target ... is conducted at approximately constant velocity; that relies on the dynamic reaction of air for lift, and upon propulsion forces to balance drag. Cruise missiles are designed to deliver a large warhead over long distances with high accuracy. Modern cruise missiles can travel at supersonic or high subsonic speeds, are self-navigating, and can fly on a non-ballistic, extremely low altitude trajectory. They are distinct from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in that they are used only as weapons and not for reconnaissance. In a cruise missile, the warhead is integrated into the vehicle and the vehicle is always sacrificed in the mission.

Cruise missile designs fundamentally derive from the German V-1 of World War II. Advances in transistor and computer technology have contributed to self-correcting avionic and aeronautical designs that allow missiles to be guided in flight, as opposed to only at launch. These advances developed into guided missiles and guided bombs, and later into the modern cruise missile. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile : bold emphasis mine)

When one listens to his words, Ted Cruz does seem guided (at times) by many good principles, and he also seems gifted (at times) with traits of leadership, intelligence, conviction, and self-confidence. YET somehow, the déjà vu of similarly-gifted, historical leaders parades in memory, so here is a prediction from the too frequent déjà vu of history. Will we, within the coming decade, review these (bolded) words:

guided
air for lift
propulsion forces
large warhead
supersonic
subsonic
self-navigating
low altitude
used only as weapons
self-correcting

and ask ourselves if “seeing, we chose to see not and hearing, we chose to hear not” what was coming?

What is the repeating history of the rich, powerful, and intelligent who self-navigate? And what is the frequent fate of that self-navigation? Desolation?

Again, just asking that we proceed with caution; that we don't forget history; that we pay attention to the symbolic warnings contained in these "cruise missile" words.

----------------------/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz (Junior U.S. Republican Senator from Texas, elected in 2013.)

ECON 013 ~ Aptly Named?

The Gods must have an infinite sense of irony to have inspired the naming of this modern behemoth.

Is this not the latest, perfect symbol of ten-thousand déjà vus since the days of Cain?

Is this what we champion with our capital addictions?

Isn’t this the inevitable legacy of the Randians?

Isn’t there a better option? like maybe a third way? not right or left, but UP?

Just asking.

Econ 013 ~Clip art from MS Office 2000

The Sach-ing of America*

*(et al.)

Just one more déjà vu from the burgeoning vaults of Goldman Sachs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOrSRsqSV4k (The Daily Show of July 25th, 2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFIcNreBSi0 (NBR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj07djP9L2U (MSNBC)

At least Rome was sacked by outsiders. We seem to prefer, tolerate, and reward sach-ing by insiders. For how long? Till sackcloth and ashes?

-------------------------/
For more on Goldman Sachs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJtO_o-G5Jk -- Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril (Documentary) - Money and Finance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMc6KyM_CrE -- How Does Goldman Sachs Make Its Profits? (Part 1) - PBS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98NhoCmaMt4 -- How Does Goldman Sachs Make Its Profits? (Part 2) - PBS