When I was at university in the 90’s, ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli was required reading. Machiavelli asks; how do we utilise power to do good while utilising evil to keep power. Weak leaders, in mid 15th century Italy as now, were disastrous. Supreme amongst strong leaders was Cesare Borgia (Pope Alexander VI’s son); Machiavelli charts how Cesare disguised his intentions, weakened opposing factions, broke old loyalties, enriched allies and eliminated rivals. Most of all, what impressed Machiavelli was Cesare’s readiness to do what was necessary when it was necessary. Ultimately, Machiavelli tells us that we cannot do good without power but we cannot gain power, nor retain it, without doing evil. It’s interesting to consider what Machiavelli would have made of Twitter, Musk and the ADL. Machiavelli lived his life in an age when brutality and deceit often won out - are we that much different now?
It really does. I can’t think of another political text - and there are many - with it’s cultural reach. I remember my grandparents watching the BBC adaptation of ‘House of Cards’ back in 1991, and remarking that the central character (Frances Urquhart) was a Machiavellian, yet neither of them ever read ‘The Prince’ (House of Cards is on the BBCIPlayer at the moment, and really stands the test of time - I never watched the Kevin Spacey version!).
Ian Richardson was brilliant in that role. Back in the day when the BBC still made superb drama. Can you imagine it getting made now? It would be ruined with feminism and identity politics. I also just rewatched ‘I, Claudius’ - we’ll never see anything like that on the BBC again either.
A very careful analysis by one of our best. What I wonder is why the various purveyors of soft power appear to act so heavy-handed lately, which in turn would appear to be their detriment. Why did these kinds of dynamics not play out publicly in this way 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Is it due to technology (e.g. the internet) or due to an increasing lack of skill of the people involved, which could explain an unnecessary overreach? Or is there some other reason?
I'd say both but the more under discussed element is that the elites themselves are increasingly stupid. I'm willing to bet that Abe Foxman had studied Machiavelli, Greenblatt probably not. Kissinger was a fan of Oswald Spengler, who is Victoria Nuland reading, if anything?
The stupidity of the elites is a definite and troubling development. Stupid powerful people seem to me more dangerous than smart powerful people. We are seeing the results of even elite university education as a four year party with professors unable or unwilling to distinguish between the bad, the good, and the best when only the last should be taught. We are in a leadership vacuum which is always dangerous.
Victoria Nuland is responsible for so much misery and most people have no idea who she is.
I tend to agree. In this particular case, one could argue that the recent heavy-handedness is perhaps a deliberate flex that serves a new purpose that wasn´t there because the overarching strategy has changed from the one before. However, we can see in other contexts steps that are clearly mistakes, very serious errors in fact, that cannot be rationalized as 5D-chess moves. For me, Nord Stream in particular comes to mind as such a massive blunder.
I agree nordstream was a huge blunder but no one seems to be talking about it. Another misstep was Trudeau’s freezing of the trucker’s bank accounts. That struck fear into hearts worldwide and showed just how powerful and ruthless (in this case prematurely showing his hand) our keepers have become.
I worry that our emasculated and drugged proletariat will not be equal to the task of taking down these monsters.
I am afraid it is because they feel emboldened, that they now hold so much power they do not need their actions to appear logical or reasonable. They were previously known for defending even far right organizations such as the KKK’s right to march publicly , thus appearing to be a classical liberal bastion of free speech. While the vast bulk of their activity supported the far left they needed to appear to be defending everyone’s rights to gain credibility. That they are now shredding that credibility with abandon indicates that they have consolidated so much power they can dispense with public opinion entirely.
While it has its roots in the JDL, I do not believe the current ADL would defend the rights of an orthodox Jewish organization to teach and promote biblical morality or to protest the abominations we are see daily. The staff may be largely ethnically the same but they hold no religious ties to that community, and are held by no commandments beyond the ever changing set they design for themselves.
Absolutely, they champion transitioning children and pretty much every other form of leftist lunacy. Jonathan Greenblatt has been at the forefront of this. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he is forced to resign in any attempt by the ADL to shift back to old ground.
Intensely amusing to see Musk musing about extracting $22 billion in damages due to lost as revenue via a lawsuit for defamation. It seems unlikely to me that he could win, but then again it also seemed unlikely he'd buy Twitter, so perhaps that's just pessimism bias. Such a lawsuit would bankrupt the ADL, and the documents that would emerge in discovery - something else Musk is musing about - would very likely damage what's left of their reputation. Musk is essentially threaten to neuter their economic and cultural power. I wonder if they'll get the message?
A smart organization knows not to put shady practices in writing , preferring to keep it to in-person where the action is implied with a wink and a nudge. Orgs like the ADL and SPLC are so drunk with power due to no real resistance that it's likely they were communicating blatantly illegal stuff.
Now, the courts will not give any quarter to X, no matter how bad the evidence is right now, but discovery will show the ADL to be simply a mafia organization, dramatically hindering any pressure campaigns they can muster in the future. If public opinion shifts too much, the ADL WILL become vulnerable to legal warfare. Contrary to popular opinion, courts are very susceptible to public opinion and can sense the winds changing.
If the ADL thinks it is in shit street it will overlay the current narrative with another. As example, here in England, when David Amess MP was murdered, the correct focus and questioning of why a foreign moslem would commit such an act was hastily smothered with bullshit about the perils of the internet. The ADL is agile enough to make opportunity out of adversity. The truth will always be the first casualty.
An excellent summary and many brilliant comments. I agree that the increasing brazenness of our leaders in what they are doing, combined with a clear degeneration in their gravitas is both worrying and encouraging. As far as the ADL goes, the more they tighten their grip, the more minds will awaken from the boomer truth and slip through their fingers. I'm certain many generations have thought this before, but it really does seem to me that humanity is on the precipes of the most challenging and potentially catastrophic decade or two in all of history.
Their approach was stolen, lock, stock, and barrel by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson shuffles up to Anheuser Busch and says "that's a nice business you have. Shame if something happened to it," and gets a regional distribution license for his son. Yes, the ADL too is a protection racket. Nothing more. That being stated, the solution is to deal with them in the same manner. There will be losses and this is unavoidable with such entrenched power.
I do love that Game of Thrones discussion on power and there is a nice nugget of truth there.
However-
Every law is, when you go down the branches far enough, a layer over naked force. Every law, at it's core, is enforced by a man with a gun who will kill you or use the threat of killing you to take your freedom or your property.
The ADL doesn't have an army. It's not quite BLM or Antifa. It is all soft power, all slander, threats and influence. It doesn't have the power of law, no men in uniform show up if you tell them 'no' often enough. Thus their power is truly Vary's illusion.
Of course...illusions are still dangerous and can cause harm.
"Theatricality and deception, powerful agents to the uninitiated" - it's true that the appearance of power goes a long way, but as with a fight real power is only revealed when the antagonists go all in. At some point you realise the big, swaggering tough guy can't really throw a punch and can't take them either. The ADL may find, to quote GoT, that what they thought of as power was merely influence.
I am beginning to think some of these entities we fret about are like Bill Gates. Money and connections get you far. They also give you plenty of free passes and minimal scrutiny.
But the act only really works without the scrutiny. When examined, for whatever reason, what is revealed is unimpressive.
Many worried about Gates during covid but he seems increasingly clownish. Not someone to take seriously.
So I do wonder if this kind of balancing act is just difficult to pull off. But once we peek behind the curtain all is revealed and the mystique evaporates.
The fusion of Keith Woods and Elon Musk is internet bizzaro world, but maybe a signal towards what post boomer truth world looks like? If so - I’ll take it.
When I was at university in the 90’s, ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli was required reading. Machiavelli asks; how do we utilise power to do good while utilising evil to keep power. Weak leaders, in mid 15th century Italy as now, were disastrous. Supreme amongst strong leaders was Cesare Borgia (Pope Alexander VI’s son); Machiavelli charts how Cesare disguised his intentions, weakened opposing factions, broke old loyalties, enriched allies and eliminated rivals. Most of all, what impressed Machiavelli was Cesare’s readiness to do what was necessary when it was necessary. Ultimately, Machiavelli tells us that we cannot do good without power but we cannot gain power, nor retain it, without doing evil. It’s interesting to consider what Machiavelli would have made of Twitter, Musk and the ADL. Machiavelli lived his life in an age when brutality and deceit often won out - are we that much different now?
I read The Prince whilst studying in the 1990s. It remains highly relevant, and speaks to universal and permanent truths.
It really does. I can’t think of another political text - and there are many - with it’s cultural reach. I remember my grandparents watching the BBC adaptation of ‘House of Cards’ back in 1991, and remarking that the central character (Frances Urquhart) was a Machiavellian, yet neither of them ever read ‘The Prince’ (House of Cards is on the BBCIPlayer at the moment, and really stands the test of time - I never watched the Kevin Spacey version!).
You may care to think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Ian Richardson was brilliant in that role. Back in the day when the BBC still made superb drama. Can you imagine it getting made now? It would be ruined with feminism and identity politics. I also just rewatched ‘I, Claudius’ - we’ll never see anything like that on the BBC again either.
A very careful analysis by one of our best. What I wonder is why the various purveyors of soft power appear to act so heavy-handed lately, which in turn would appear to be their detriment. Why did these kinds of dynamics not play out publicly in this way 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Is it due to technology (e.g. the internet) or due to an increasing lack of skill of the people involved, which could explain an unnecessary overreach? Or is there some other reason?
I'd say both but the more under discussed element is that the elites themselves are increasingly stupid. I'm willing to bet that Abe Foxman had studied Machiavelli, Greenblatt probably not. Kissinger was a fan of Oswald Spengler, who is Victoria Nuland reading, if anything?
The stupidity of the elites is a definite and troubling development. Stupid powerful people seem to me more dangerous than smart powerful people. We are seeing the results of even elite university education as a four year party with professors unable or unwilling to distinguish between the bad, the good, and the best when only the last should be taught. We are in a leadership vacuum which is always dangerous.
Victoria Nuland is responsible for so much misery and most people have no idea who she is.
I tend to agree. In this particular case, one could argue that the recent heavy-handedness is perhaps a deliberate flex that serves a new purpose that wasn´t there because the overarching strategy has changed from the one before. However, we can see in other contexts steps that are clearly mistakes, very serious errors in fact, that cannot be rationalized as 5D-chess moves. For me, Nord Stream in particular comes to mind as such a massive blunder.
I agree nordstream was a huge blunder but no one seems to be talking about it. Another misstep was Trudeau’s freezing of the trucker’s bank accounts. That struck fear into hearts worldwide and showed just how powerful and ruthless (in this case prematurely showing his hand) our keepers have become.
I worry that our emasculated and drugged proletariat will not be equal to the task of taking down these monsters.
That was my view too. Too blatant. But I'm increasingly of the view it was just a visible mistake by people making lots of less visible ones.
I am afraid it is because they feel emboldened, that they now hold so much power they do not need their actions to appear logical or reasonable. They were previously known for defending even far right organizations such as the KKK’s right to march publicly , thus appearing to be a classical liberal bastion of free speech. While the vast bulk of their activity supported the far left they needed to appear to be defending everyone’s rights to gain credibility. That they are now shredding that credibility with abandon indicates that they have consolidated so much power they can dispense with public opinion entirely.
While it has its roots in the JDL, I do not believe the current ADL would defend the rights of an orthodox Jewish organization to teach and promote biblical morality or to protest the abominations we are see daily. The staff may be largely ethnically the same but they hold no religious ties to that community, and are held by no commandments beyond the ever changing set they design for themselves.
Absolutely, they champion transitioning children and pretty much every other form of leftist lunacy. Jonathan Greenblatt has been at the forefront of this. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he is forced to resign in any attempt by the ADL to shift back to old ground.
I think the social capital that Jews used to rely on is dwindling as WW2 recedes into the past. This might explain some of this trend.
Plus mass migration increasingly means Muslims, a group not known for their love of Jews.
Intensely amusing to see Musk musing about extracting $22 billion in damages due to lost as revenue via a lawsuit for defamation. It seems unlikely to me that he could win, but then again it also seemed unlikely he'd buy Twitter, so perhaps that's just pessimism bias. Such a lawsuit would bankrupt the ADL, and the documents that would emerge in discovery - something else Musk is musing about - would very likely damage what's left of their reputation. Musk is essentially threaten to neuter their economic and cultural power. I wonder if they'll get the message?
Yup.
A smart organization knows not to put shady practices in writing , preferring to keep it to in-person where the action is implied with a wink and a nudge. Orgs like the ADL and SPLC are so drunk with power due to no real resistance that it's likely they were communicating blatantly illegal stuff.
Now, the courts will not give any quarter to X, no matter how bad the evidence is right now, but discovery will show the ADL to be simply a mafia organization, dramatically hindering any pressure campaigns they can muster in the future. If public opinion shifts too much, the ADL WILL become vulnerable to legal warfare. Contrary to popular opinion, courts are very susceptible to public opinion and can sense the winds changing.
If the ADL thinks it is in shit street it will overlay the current narrative with another. As example, here in England, when David Amess MP was murdered, the correct focus and questioning of why a foreign moslem would commit such an act was hastily smothered with bullshit about the perils of the internet. The ADL is agile enough to make opportunity out of adversity. The truth will always be the first casualty.
An excellent summary and many brilliant comments. I agree that the increasing brazenness of our leaders in what they are doing, combined with a clear degeneration in their gravitas is both worrying and encouraging. As far as the ADL goes, the more they tighten their grip, the more minds will awaken from the boomer truth and slip through their fingers. I'm certain many generations have thought this before, but it really does seem to me that humanity is on the precipes of the most challenging and potentially catastrophic decade or two in all of history.
I am likewise convinced that this vertiginous precipice we're dangling from dwarfs anything else that has preceded it.
I think one of the differences between previous generations and now is that this impending sense of doom is entirely self-inflicted
Their approach was stolen, lock, stock, and barrel by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson shuffles up to Anheuser Busch and says "that's a nice business you have. Shame if something happened to it," and gets a regional distribution license for his son. Yes, the ADL too is a protection racket. Nothing more. That being stated, the solution is to deal with them in the same manner. There will be losses and this is unavoidable with such entrenched power.
I do love that Game of Thrones discussion on power and there is a nice nugget of truth there.
However-
Every law is, when you go down the branches far enough, a layer over naked force. Every law, at it's core, is enforced by a man with a gun who will kill you or use the threat of killing you to take your freedom or your property.
The ADL doesn't have an army. It's not quite BLM or Antifa. It is all soft power, all slander, threats and influence. It doesn't have the power of law, no men in uniform show up if you tell them 'no' often enough. Thus their power is truly Vary's illusion.
Of course...illusions are still dangerous and can cause harm.
"Theatricality and deception, powerful agents to the uninitiated" - it's true that the appearance of power goes a long way, but as with a fight real power is only revealed when the antagonists go all in. At some point you realise the big, swaggering tough guy can't really throw a punch and can't take them either. The ADL may find, to quote GoT, that what they thought of as power was merely influence.
I am beginning to think some of these entities we fret about are like Bill Gates. Money and connections get you far. They also give you plenty of free passes and minimal scrutiny.
But the act only really works without the scrutiny. When examined, for whatever reason, what is revealed is unimpressive.
Many worried about Gates during covid but he seems increasingly clownish. Not someone to take seriously.
So I do wonder if this kind of balancing act is just difficult to pull off. But once we peek behind the curtain all is revealed and the mystique evaporates.
Another great article and I do enjoy your more spicy topics and old form content.
The fusion of Keith Woods and Elon Musk is internet bizzaro world, but maybe a signal towards what post boomer truth world looks like? If so - I’ll take it.