Althusser was one of the most influential Marxists of the 20th century, and he actually identified with Machiavelli

While you might not have ever heard of Althusser, he was certainly incorporated into the thought of people you have heard of. Same with the Machiavellian Gramsci, whose thought Althusser also absorbed. I say we appropriate these Marxists for our own ends. Use them as a means to an end so to speak wink wink.

Althusser was interested in founding a “new state” – he gravitates toward the following in particular from the Discourses on Livy

every absolute beginning requires the absolute solitude of the reformer or founder

Neech believed this too, and as is well-known, Machiavelli was one of the few who he greatly admired all the way to the end of his life. And I do suspect that a disproportionate amount of my own readers have an affinity for solitude.

One can’t formulate a “new beginning” while constantly surrounded by others, because they represent the old. And yes, I do see the decadent progs as representing the old, and the reactionaries representing the new. The point is, if you want to think up a new order you need to stay away from “contaminants” who embody the old order.

Anyway I’m just sick of playdoh and h-dawg at the moment so I’m looking at a thinker I usually don’t focus on

an ‘enigma’ which had led Croce to venture that the Machiavelli question would never be ‘settled’

It IS ambiguous whether he was truly a “thinker of evil”–and this is a pressing question given that many take him to be thee founder of modernity. Those two things could go together? Who would ever imagine…

Here’s a living communist who also gravitates around the spaghetti-head in question

what Negri has dubbed ‘a materialism of singularity’, imputed to the trio of Machiavelli, Spinoza and Marx, but perfected in the oeuvre of the first, whose profound historical and political realism was upheld.

I never thought of that, the cohesion of Machiavelli–>Marx – makes sense.

Wouldn’t you say that someone who very closely resembles the “Prince” is… Lenin?

We can learn from leftist statesmen in some cases.

Anyway, Althusser called Gramsci “the Machiavelli of modern times”, you know that same Gramsci whose methods some attribute to the liberals who “marched through our institutions” over the last handful of decades? Modern-day liberals are thoroughly Machiavellian, and of course they’d disavow that. I’m sure none of the redactor gulaggers reading this relate to that label at all. “Yesssss….” hiss the charcoal-soul gremlins. I’m a contemporary Solzhenitsyn, deal with it.

Isn’t this delectable?

In fact, one might even spot Machiavelli in the very first sentence of the preface of the Theologico-Political Tractatus if one takes “fortune” to be a legitimate allusion.

This is acute

if he is gripping, it is not simply because he is new, but because he represents a beginning.

Bringing Spinoza into this again, Machiavelli represents the beginning of a new theological-political order.

Ahhh I love this, this IS the tradition I write in!

This is what gravitated me toward Strauss, Land, Yarvin, etc.- because they are part of this tradition. Arguably an ideological part of it in many respects.

I’m liking this Marxist Althusser

‘It is’, he writes, ‘an evil not to call evil an evil.’ The evil that harms rulers and peoples is imaginary representations. Machiavelli gives it a name – imagination – and moves on.

He’s obviously alluding to materialist dialectics, false consciousness, etc. which I don’t fully subscribe to though.

Ah I’m learning Montesquieu praised Machiavelli too. I’m not sure if there would have been a French Revolution without this “innovation” of his. This is part of why his teaching wasn’t taught throughout the centuries, because of its dangerousness. What, anon, you don’t think the “revolutionary spirit” is a bad thing? Well consider Guenon’s regression of the castes- that is real, and humanity might already be destroyed.

We have this today, don’t we folks

the dual aspect of the power of the absolutist state according to Gramsci: it involves violence and coercion, but at the same time consent, and hence ‘hegemony’.

Althusser shows how Gramsci derived some of his formulations from Machiavelli.

Gramsci calls the new “prince” the proletariat and its revolutionary party.

We have something like that today with the bioleninists and their jews.

See how I’m speaking frankly? This is what I mean when I say I’m part of the Machiavellian tradition- that’s the true meaning of that tradition.

Step back and reflect how well the left understands political realism. Even if they don’t often TALK about it, they UNDERSTAND it.

And -psst- part of understanding it is NOT talking about it. And hence you’ll never see them throwing a parade for the jews for the reason that they represent the leaders of the communist party. “Yayyy!!! We celebrate you for that!!” No, that’s to remain a secret, for political expediency.

GRRRRR damn these communists

A “look how they massacred my boy” moment. Using Machiavelli to institute a planet of the apes scenario, how precious.

Why do I always feel so alone in hating all this? Humanity must be in a severe delusion.

Yeah, Althusser is illuminating though, check him out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: