What books are you currently reading?

[ThreeTwentyOne]

I've heard A LOT about how great this book is, I guess I'll give it a go now.

 

[The alchemist]

A short and concise book about power and how to rule. It is arguably the first book in the modern philosophy that emphasizes the need for realism, as opposed to idealism.

 

[Omar del Sur]

View attachment 59317
A short and concise book about power and how to rule. It is arguably the first book in the modern philosophy that emphasizes the need for realism, as opposed to idealism.

Basura.

A better, more interesting book would be a bipgraphy so people can see how his delusions worked out for him. The Prince could be retitled How To Be A Loser. The man lost in both spiritual and worldly terms.

I recall how Tupac called himself Makavelli. He claimed he knew "the secrets of war".

Apparently, "the secrets of war" turned out to be "the secrets of how to get murdered at 25".

Satan promises them and arouses desire in them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion.

-Quran 4:20

 

[The alchemist]

Basura.

A better, more interesting book would be a bipgraphy so people can see how his delusions worked out for him. The Prince could be retitled How To Be A Loser. The man lost in both spiritual and worldly terms.

I recall how Tupac called himself Makavelli. He claimed he knew "the secrets of war".

Apparently, "the secrets of war" turned out to be "the secrets of how to get murdered at 25".

Satan promises them and arouses desire in them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion.

-Quran 4:20

Read the book and stop with these baseless conspiracies. I don't know how you made a connnection between 2pacs murder from a crip gangmember in Las Vegas, and a book on political philosophy from the 1500s. It is just a book that reveals how power works in reality. So if you don't know how the powerful rule, it is good to start with understanding their point of view regardless of how morally right or wrong it seems to us normal people. Next time, you should try to open yourself up to understanding the content before using religion as a justification or excuse for being ignorant.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Read the book and stop with these baseless conspiracies. I don't know how you made a connnection between 2pacs murder from a crip gangmember in Las Vegas, and a book on political philosophy from the 1500s. It is just a book that reveals how power works in reality. So if you don't know how the powerful rule, it is good to start with understanding their point of view regardless of how morally right or wrong it seems to us normal people. Next time, you should try to open yourself up to understanding the content before using religion as a justification or excuse for being ignorant.

I have the book.

It is collecting dust somewhere under a stack of other books. The book is garbage. I am well aware of its contents- I first read it way back in high school.

Nothing in my post was "conspiracy," it's all common knowledge.

You continue to give a biased description of the book. It's like someone saying "Marxism is a way of empowering workers". Yes, that may be what Marxism alleges itself to be- but that is not the actuality.

The book is a "realistic" what? I suppose it's a realistic guide to how to lose.

Machiavelli, supposedly some master strategist, lost in both worldly and spiritual terms. What is conspiracy about that? It's easily verified fact that the man failed.

I have the blue Cambridge edition of the book, not the bargain edition (EDIT: correction- that looks to be a free edition) in the image file. I know the book and I am well entitled to say it's garbage. The man couldn't even win in his own affairs, much less guide anyone else to success.

The man was no master strategist, either. I'm reading a book on Mao right now. Mao was not exactly the most moral of guys but Mao was a clever guy.

The Prince was basically "the way to get ahead is to have no morals". That's basically the message. I guess that could be "realistic" from a certain kind of amoral, atheistic perspective but from that stance Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was "not realistic". Yet Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was successful in both spiritual and worldly terms and Machiavelli failed in both. "You tell me who won," as Tupac said.

And speaking of Tupac... Tupac allegedly read The Prince in prison and was apparently into Machiavelli enough to call himself Makavelli. There is nothing "conspiracy" about that, that's well-known stuff. And it's not "conspiracy theory" that Tupac ended up murdered at the age of 25. That's where all the "Makavelli" stuff got him. These are just commonly-known facts.

Mao Zedong was a clever guy.

If people want a book on strategy, let them read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Now that is a book on strategy. Or let them read Strategies of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Our Prophet (PBUH) was himself a master of strategy. But that doesn't entail being immoral.

If you know the difference between tactics and strategy, you know that tactics are immediate and strategy is long-term. So being immoral is inherently unstrategic. It backfires. And that's what Machiavelli was advocating. You can't follow his stuff and be a Muslim. The Prince is a book for evil people.

The Prince is not a sociology book like The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon (which I really recommend). The Prince is more like a manual. It's a strategy book. I was like 14 when I first read that. It's not some shocking new revelation to me that people at the top are immoral. But only a fool thinks they're there because they're so clever. That's their narrative. The truth is they're willing to do things which are immoral. The Prince is a sort of proto-Nietzscheanism. And where did Nietzsche end up? In an insane asylum. It's funny how these Nietzschean types end so horribly. Same with Hitler. Hitler was basically of that school.

Telling people to be immoral doesn't qualify Machiavelli as a genius or as any master of strategy. The Prince was a degenerate book and Western culture celebrates it because it's a degenerate culture.

A real classic on strategy is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. That's a real strategy book. And Sun Tzu understood that you have to be in harmony with divine law. He was not an out-of-touch-with-nature white Westerner who didn't understand that basic fact. Go beyond the superficial and the surface of things. There is a line from things like Machiavelli to things like those boys wearing dresses in Sweden. But you can't see that if you are completely immersed in a Westernized, atomistic way of thinking. This is a far-cry from the profundity of a man of Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu. Mao Zedong. Those are real theorists of strategy. The Prince is garbage. I recommend the Little Red Book by Mao in addition to the previous recommendations.

 

[Invader]

our naval heros

 

[The alchemist]

I have the book.

It is collecting dust somewhere under a stack of other books. The book is garbage. I am well aware of its contents- I first read it way back in high school.

Nothing in my post was "conspiracy," it's all common knowledge.

You continue to give a biased description of the book. It's like someone saying "Marxism is a way of empowering workers". Yes, that may be what Marxism alleges itself to be- but that is not the actuality.

The book is a "realistic" what? I suppose it's a realistic guide to how to lose.

Machiavelli, supposedly some master strategist, lost in both worldly and spiritual terms. What is conspiracy about that? It's easily verified fact that the man failed.

I have the blue Cambridge edition of the book, not the bargain edition (EDIT: correction- that looks to be a free edition) in the image file. I know the book and I am well entitled to say it's garbage. The man couldn't even win in his own affairs, much less guide anyone else to success.

The man was no master strategist, either. I'm reading a book on Mao right now. Mao was not exactly the most moral of guys but Mao was a clever guy.

The Prince was basically "the way to get ahead is to have no morals". That's basically the message. I guess that could be "realistic" from a certain kind of amoral, atheistic perspective but from that stance Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was "not realistic". Yet Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was successful in both spiritual and worldly terms and Machiavelli failed in both. "You tell me who won," as Tupac said.

And speaking of Tupac... Tupac allegedly read The Prince in prison and was apparently into Machiavelli enough to call himself Makavelli. There is nothing "conspiracy" about that, that's well-known stuff. And it's not "conspiracy theory" that Tupac ended up murdered at the age of 25. That's where all the "Makavelli" stuff got him. These are just commonly-known facts.

Mao Zedong was a clever guy.

If people want a book on strategy, let them read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Now that is a book on strategy. Or let them read Strategies of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Our Prophet (PBUH) was himself a master of strategy. But that doesn't entail being immoral.

If you know the difference between tactics and strategy, you know that tactics are immediate and strategy is long-term. So being immoral is inherently unstrategic. It backfires. And that's what Machiavelli was advocating. You can't follow his stuff and be a Muslim. The Prince is a book for evil people.

The Prince is not a sociology book like The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon (which I really recommend). The Prince is more like a manual. It's a strategy book. I was like 14 when I first read that. It's not some shocking new revelation to me that people at the top are immoral. But only a fool thinks they're there because they're so clever. That's their narrative. The truth is they're willing to do things which are immoral. The Prince is a sort of proto-Nietzscheanism. And where did Nietzsche end up? In an insane asylum. It's funny how these Nietzschean types end so horribly. Same with Hitler. Hitler was basically of that school.

Telling people to be immoral doesn't qualify Machiavelli as a genius or as any master of strategy. The Prince was a degenerate book and Western culture celebrates it because it's a degenerate culture.

A real classic on strategy is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. That's a real strategy book. And Sun Tzu understood that you have to be in harmony with divine law. He was not an out-of-touch-with-nature white Westerner who didn't understand that basic fact. Go beyond the superficial and the surface of things. There is a line from things like Machiavelli to things like those boys wearing dresses in Sweden. But you can't see that if you are completely immersed in a Westernized, atomistic way of thinking. This is a far-cry from the profundity of a man of Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu. Mao Zedong. Those are real theorists of strategy. The Prince is garbage. I recommend the Little Red Book by Mao in addition to the previous recommendations.

Marxism is just a criticism of the capatalist sytem, nothing more. The author of the book was not a immoral person, he was a normal man that, yes, failed in life. But is that a good argument? I mean, many famous scientist and authors didn't live a life in luxury, but their work spoke volume. What i meant by conspiracy was, how did you make a connection between 2pacs death and him reading a book? Your view on criticizing a book is very flawed, we are not talking about his mortal spirituality or his afterlife, just his book. The art of war is phenomenal, but Mao Zedong definently used machiavellian tactics, every single leader used those tactics one time in their life. Either you didn't understand the book, or you don't have a basic understanding on how politics works. And the reason i doubt you read the book was, just like Sun tzu, he observed real events and documenteted it. You act like his book is some concept he conjured up on his head without any real evidence. And ofc, any intellectual would disagree with you on his merit. The only reason he was failing at life, was because no one acknowledged his work long after he died, the same could have happened to einsteins theory of relativity, they denied his theory many times. Mao and tzu were both machiavellian , you talk like they are mutually exlusive. He didn't say that it is good not to have morals, but that people at the top never do have them, and that you can't survive when no one shares your values. Name me one leader or country that is running by the concept of true morality? They show good ideals on the screen, but in the reality they assasinate, manipulates and use fearmongering propaganda to control the general public. This is the reality. Just like the 47 laws of power, it reveals the bad side of humanity, but we have to acknowledge that it exist. Im not spupporting it's content as something i want to implement in my life, but it gives me more innsight and widens my understanding. Nietzsche's ideas were used by the Nazi's to justify their atrocities, but Nietzsche didn't actually support Fascism. And it was sad the way he lost his mind after seing that horse getting killed. It is very hypocritcal of you when you talk about morality and praises mao that killed over 20 million of his people when Machiavelli did not hurt a fly, but condemn him for a book.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Marxism is just a criticism of the capatalist sytem, nothing more. The author of the book was not a immoral person, he was a normal man that, yes, failed in life. But is that a good argument? I mean, many famous scientist and authors didn't live a life in luxury, but their work spoke volume. What i meant by conspiracy was, how did you make a connection between 2pacs death and him reading a book? Your view on criticizing a book is very flawed, we are not talking about his mortal spirituality or his afterlife, just his book. The art of war is phenomenal, but Mao Zedong definently used machiavellian tactics, every single leader used those tactics one time in their life. Either you didn't understand the book, or you don't have a basic understanding on how politics works. And the reason i doubt you read the book was, just like Sun tzu, he observed real events and documenteted it. You act like his book is some concept he conjured up on his head without any real evidence. And ofc, any intellectual would disagree with you on his merit. The only reason he was failing at life, was because no one acknowledged his work long after he died, the same could have happened to einsteins theory of relativity, they denied his theory many times. Mao and tzu were both machiavellian , you talk like they are mutually exlusive. He didn't say that it is good not to have morals, but that people at the top never do have them, and that you can't survive when no one shares your values. Name me one leader or country that is running by the concept of true morality? They show good ideals on the screen, but in the reality they assasinate, manipulates and use fearmongering propaganda to control the general public. This is the reality. Just like the 47 laws of power, it reveals the bad side of humanity, but we have to acknowledge that it exist. Im not spupporting it's content as something i want to implement in my life, but it gives me more innsight and widens my understanding. Nietzsche's ideas were used by the Nazi's to justify their atrocities, but Nietzsche didn't actually support Fascism. And it was sad the way he lost his mind after seing that horse getting killed. It is very hypocritcal of you when you talk about morality and praises mao that killed over 20 million of his people when Machiavelli did not hurt a fly, but condemn him for a book.

Well as long as you don't actually support putting The Prince into practice, we're on the same side.

The issue is that The Prince advocated immorality. You can't actually put The Prince into practice unless you're immoral. If Machiavelli was immoral in his private life but his book wasn't promoting immorality, it would be different.

Mao Zedong is one of the most influential military theorists of modern history. These are totally different.

Mao:

"Rules:

All actions are subject to command.
Do not steal from the people.
Be neither selfish nor unjust.

Remarks:

Replace the door when you leave the house.
Roll up the bedding on which you have slept.
Be courteous.
Be honest in your transactions.
Return what you borrow.
Replace what you break.
Do not bathe in the presence of women.
Do not without authority search those you arrest."

I reference The Prince because I'm attacking The Prince. I'm not particularly attacking Machiavelli's own life (the irony that this alleged master strategist was unsuccessful is a side note) and I'm certainly not attacking you of course.

I'm attacking the contents of The Prince- of the book. The book's contents are immoral.

Mao:
"Many people think it impossible for guerrillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? It is only undisciplined troops who make the people their enemies and who, like the fish out of its native element cannot live."

There's nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about that. He's just discussing military theory. That's like trying to assign a moral value to a math book. And a math book is not the same as "The Satanic Bible". The Prince is like a great great grandparent of "The Satanic Bible".

A person might conceivably read a book like The Prince or The Satanic Bible to get an insight into how immoral people think. As long as they're not out to put the stuff into practice or adopt the book's worldview, I don't think I'm against people reading The Prince. I think we can agree we don't want people to put it into practice or adopt its worldview. And I think to should be regarded as a manual to success. The book is allegedly a manual to power and that is why his own life is ironic. It's like fitness advice from a 500-pound person (which would be difference than the same person discussing math).

Also, Nietsche was gone when Nazism took off. And he went crazy if I remember correctly because he got an STD from a brothel. You seem to be sympathetic to him. I do think he helped promote a sort of philosophical basis for it. And I do think he and Machiavelli were of the same sort of school of thought.

And Tupac was allegedly trying to live in accordance with The Prince. It makes perfect sense to denounce The Prince as having influenced him on a road to getting himself killed.

So anyways, as long as we agree The Prince shouldn't be implemented, I think we're in agreement. I have a copy (as I said, blue Cambridge edition) and I'm not saying people shouldn't read it but we shouldn't praise the book or its author.

A lot of your post is on the basis that I'm saying books have to be evaluated by the morality of the authors. This is a strawman. I'm evaluating the contents of The Prince by the contents of The Prince.

And yes The Prince does discuss history but he is not a detached historian. The Prince is like a manual for evil and he uses history as examples and to encourage people to do evil. I don't think we should say his stuff is "realistic". I think you defend him like people defend gangsta rap. "Oh, they're just talking about the realities of the ghetto". Gangsta rap does not just dispassionately describe immorality. It's not like just reading a biography of El Chapo by some journalist. Gangsta rap promotes immorality. The Prince is not a history book just because he cited history as examples. The Prince is more like a manual.

You say you don't support The Prince but I think your stuff seems kind of sympathetic.

The Art of War and On Guerrilla Warfare by Mao Zedong are not like The Prince. The first two are books of strategy and their contents are more like a math book- they're just discussing warfare. They're not specifically advising immorality and Sun Tzu specifically instructs leaders to be in line with the moral law- that is the opposite of Machiavelli. The two are not the same. Strategy and immorality are not the same thing. The Prince is more like "The Satanic Bible". Your portrayal of The Prince seems sympathetic, just like people who defend Gangsta Rap seem sympathetic to Gangsta Rap.

Nietzsche, who you seem to sympathize with and who was of the same school of thought as Machiavelli, actually influenced The Satanic Bible. Sun Tzu was not an influence. To try to make immorality and strategy seem equivalent and to try to make Sun Tzu and Machiavelli seem equivalent is slanderous.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Mao Zedong definently used machiavellian tactics, every single leader used those tactics one time in their life. Either you didn't understand the book, or you don't have a basic understanding on how politics works.

So you're basically, low-key advocating Machiavellianism. You're saying every leader uses it. That would imply Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used it too.

I hate this, but i believe we need a borderline facist national re-awakaning that will unite, and later transistion to other types of stable governance when the fundamental structures are laid. But that would also be too risky imo, because people are not numbers and statistics. It is easy to predict a scenario when you take the people out of the equation, but the somali people are simply very stubborn and too unpredictable.

Maybe the country needs a radical purge of people in power with liabilities before we even discuss what type of governance it needs?

^That was just a suggestion, and does not reflect my ideology

That is ends-justifies-the-means stuff. I think you actually do believe in Machiavellianism.

Marxism is just a criticism of the capatalist sytem, nothing more.

This is false. "As Lenin noted, citing Engels. "Our doctrine...is not a dogma, but a guide to action..."

https://socialistworker.org/2006-2/606/606_13_Marxism.php



Are you a Muslim?

 

[The alchemist]

So you're basically, low-key advocating Machiavellianism. You're saying every leader uses it. That would imply Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used it too.



That is ends-justifies-the-means stuff. I think you actually do believe in Machiavellianism.



This is false. "As Lenin noted, citing Engels. "Our doctrine...is not a dogma, but a guide to action..."

https://socialistworker.org/2006-2/606/606_13_Marxism.php



Are you a Muslim?

Bro. You are reading too much into this. We are sort of on the same page, but with some fundamental differenceson on how we view certain issues. And ofc i would not compare our perfect prophet whith corrupt leaders.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Bro. You are reading too much into this. We are sort of on the same page, but with some fundamental differences in some issues. And ofc i would not compare our perfect prophet whith corrupt leaders.

As long as you are not actually sympathetic to Machiavellianism and don't actually agree with The Prince.

 

[The alchemist]

As long as you are not actually sympathetic to Machiavellianism and don't actually agree with The Prince.

No. Actually i believe that those people that use these methods to rule are actually the main problem, and reason this world is in chaos.

 

[Omar del Sur]

No. Actually i believe that those people that use these methods to rule are actually the main problem, and reason this world is in chaos.

Alhamdulilaah.

 

[Okoj]

I just ordered the book MAPS (1986) by Nurradin Farah. should be a good read!

 

[Omar del Sur]

I was reading this recently. A very interesting book. I don't exactly hate him or love him. I don't exactly see myself as being for him or as being totally against him.

I am not really for him and I sort of am.... not so much a fan. However, he did do things which were against colonialism and imperialism. For that, I don't think I can totally be against him. I don't see him completely as a good guy or completely as a bad guy. I see him as kind of mixed. I don't support his Communist stuff but... he was against Western imperialism. He did good which I do not wish to forget or overlook- things which I appreciate.

I don't think he was a great, saint guy either. I don't really even think he was a good guy. I think of him as the enemy of my enemy (imperialism), though tbh. So I'm not totally against him.

A very complex figure and unfortunately some of the relevant material I cannot find in English for the people here. However, this is a good book for anyone who wants to know the facts about the man. The author I think is not a fan at all but he is not completely one-sided. You see some good and some bad. With this, I think you can examine the facts for yourself and better draw your own overall conclusion.

Also, I am neither attacking nor defending his role in the Ogaden War. I simply don't know enough about the Ogaden War to really have much of an opinion. I certainly welcome any respectful discussion from that perspective and I'm certainly interested in people's views from that vantage point.

 

[RedStar]

 

[A_A]

Everyone here is reading some deep and informative books. Here I am reading YA fiction...

 

[Apollo]

The Bitcoin Standard

So far so good, @Bohol, I recommend this one.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Highly recommended.

 

[SLMan990]

10/10