Chuckle: A Comment On Rioting Caught My Eye

A comment on rioting, “Rioting is an alt-left” thing caught my eye and brought a chuckle.

Riots are called “protests” these days,and the purpose is obscured by the complicit media. Which is virtually all the media.

Back in Justinians Constantinople,they were just riots as the “colors” were hired by some plutocrat trying to become a part of the ruling elite.

Today they rioters dress in black skin-tights, and are paid by billionaires who want to become a part of the ruling elite.

But what the Billionaires forget is that the usual reward for toppling a government and installing a new one is a vist with the headsman. Because the new elites cannot trust the traitors who sold out their own government in order to gain power and position.

It is all laid out in Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince,’ including the recommendation that a new government disarm the people so they may not be overthrown by force of arms, and to “cut off” those who supported the new government in hopes of gain because greed will lead them to do it again.

The text is at the link, and a chapter will take about as mcuh time as brushing your teeth and do wonders for your undderstanding of modern politics. If it is good enough for Hitler,FDR and Stalin,it is good enough for us.

Stranger

About Stranger

Extranos Alley is a Collaborate effort to provide up to information on the relationship between restrictive gun laws and violent crime; as well as other related topics. While emphasis is on United States gun laws and crime, we also provide data on crime trends world wide.
This entry was posted in HISTORY. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Chuckle: A Comment On Rioting Caught My Eye

  1. Akatsukami says:

    I have to disagree. In Chapter XX of The Prince Machiavelli clearly states:

    “There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependents, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependents, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. ”

    (Translation by W. K. Marriott)

  2. Stranger says:

    At the moment the only functioning computer refuses to open the Constitution society websitge, sayst in has been reported as a malicious site, taking, so excuse the from memory citation. As I recall Chapter twenty, the next paragraph points out that princes that take control by force or other means means invariably disarm the people, “that they may not be overthrown by force of arms.”

    This agress with what was at the time of Machiavelli’s captivity an almos t2,500 year sweep of history. Today we are up to morte than 3,500 years and the same rule still applies.

    Princes who obtain their thrones by fair means arm their subjects to gain said subjects trust, while princes who obtain thrones by other means disarm subjects preserve their own power.

    For a case in point,consider the Soviet Union. Lenin, who overthrew an unpopular ruler the people had lost confidence in, did not confiscate or attempt to “control” guns. But Stalin, who obtainted power by force and other questionable means means promptly began a massive gun control drive with all the tricks the modern progressives use; including b uy-backs, turn in campaigns, bans, amnesties, and even outright confiscation.

    And as soon as areas like the Ukraine were disarmed, the mass murders began. In Ukraine’s case it was the Holodomor.

    S

  3. Akatsukami says:

    The next paragraph speaks of a prince who (already being a prince) conquers a foreign state:

    “But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.”

    I think that the two paragraphs contain the same idea: that from the prince’s point of view, distributing arms to his partisans (or those who will be made his partisans thereby) is a good idea, as is confiscating arms from those who oppose him.

    Very much the same idea, but about republics, is expressed in The Discourses, that a republic, if it is to remain free, must either be situated in a position where it (and its citizens) has nothing to excite the avarice of foreigners, or that its citizens (for Machiavelli, not synonymous with residents) must be armed.

  4. Stranger says:

    A translator has a tough job, and thee are many errors translating Machiavelli’s medieval prose into modern English. When I first started posting I had a fifty email back and forth with of Florene on the Prince. Properly read, third paragraph of the chapter whose title begins with “ARE FORTRESSES” points out that Governments (princes) who have gained power by any means other than inheritance or invitation or other legitimate means has reason to fear its )his) subjects and invariably disarms them to save his own neck.

    Now, consider the feelings of some 252 million adult Americans if a faction seized power, fired the military commanders, installed its own commanders, and ordered all guns confiscated. And then imagine that same government orders everyone to abandon their homes taking only what they can carry.

    That situation cannot easily happen when the people are armed, as the Founders intended for the simple reason the people have both a right the means to choose their own form of government, enforce that right.

    And that is of course the point. If you wish to debate it, let us desist from copying The Prince by the paragraph.

    S

Comments are closed.