Power Will Cost You Everything, It’s Worth It

Moses called a massacre and then he lied about it. He said, "God told me to do

about it. He said, "God told me to do it." That's how the Ten Commandments

it." That's how the Ten Commandments were established. Harry Truman, after

were established. Harry Truman, after dropping two nukes on civilians, never lost a single night's sleep over it.

Good people always make bad leaders. The

worst thing you can be for Machaveli is effeminite, lacking in this manly virtue. Machaveli believed in the great

virtue. Machaveli believed in the great man theory of history that rare and marvelous men can rise [music] up and completely change the course of events.

Studying Machaveli has thoroughly radicalized me. If even the great Moses

radicalized me. If even the great Moses lied and cheated to satisfy his political [music] goals, who the hell are you to be so damn precious about

your morality?

Mchaveli wrote his books to teach the few and [music] not the many. He wrote

to teach those rare and marvelous men that come once every few hundred [music] years how to achieve the grandest political projects. The founding of

political projects. The founding of states [music] civilizations, and even religions. And

Machaveli's chief lesson for them is this. Always being good makes you weak

this. Always being good makes you weak and effeminate, [music] and you will lose to those who aren't. Good people,

people who are altruistic, public-spirited compassionate make terrible leaders.

As a leader, then you must operate on a different set of rules than everyone else. It is good that you are selfish.

else. It is good that you are selfish.

It is good that you have a lust for glory. You [music] must be willing to

glory. You [music] must be willing to cheat, lie, murder, steal if necessary.

But you must do all of this while appearing [music] to be good like a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is what you will learn in our lecture [music] today.

Why and how to enter into evil.

So in part one of this lecture, I'm going to try to ease you in to Mchaveli's ideas by helping you understand his leader part excellence

Moses almost more so than any other leader. Achilles, Caesar, certainly

leader. Achilles, Caesar, certainly Alexander. It is Moses that he holds up

Alexander. It is Moses that he holds up as the prime model of how to enter into evil. I know. I know what you're

evil. I know. I know what you're thinking, right? How can that be? This

thinking, right? How can that be? This

this is blasphemy.

Moses is the greatest political leader in the Jewish tradition. He remains one of the greatest uh prophets in the Christian tradition. And Jesus's

Christian tradition. And Jesus's transfiguration when his divinity is revealed. This is in Matthew. There's

revealed. This is in Matthew. There's

only two people next to him, Elijah and Moses. Okay? When we think Moses, we

Moses. Okay? When we think Moses, we think good. We think honest, humble, we

think good. We think honest, humble, we think compassionate, generous. When we

think Mcaveli, we think evil, deceptive, prideful, self-absorbed. So, how can

prideful, self-absorbed. So, how can Moses possibly be Machaveli's model of entering into evil if he is literally the lawgiver? Right? He established the

the lawgiver? Right? He established the Ten Commandments.

Mchaveli would respond, look more closely at how Moses established those ten commandments.

Whoever reads the Bible judiciously will see that since he wished his laws and his orders to go forward, Moses was forced to kill infinite men who moved by

nothing other than envy were opposed to his plans.

Moses called a massacre and then he lied about it. He said, "God told me to do

about it. He said, "God told me to do it." That's how the Ten Commandments

it." That's how the Ten Commandments were established. Now, let me be clear.

were established. Now, let me be clear.

Machaveli highlights Moses's evildoing, not to expose him. Not like many moderns who go around tearing down statues, denouncing great men for their

problematic deeds. Just the opposite.

problematic deeds. Just the opposite.

Machaveli points out Moses's evil not to discredit him, but to empower you. If

even the great, the saintly, the faultless Moses lied and cheated to satisfy his political goals, who the hell are you to be so damn precious

about your morality? This is why Moses is the chief example of entering into evil precisely because our conception of him is so good. And that's the story I

will begin this lecture with in part one to help you ease you into his invitation into evil. Okay. Exodus 32,

into evil. Okay. Exodus 32,

Israelites freed from Egypt and they're all huddled around the base of Mount Si.

God himself comes down himself, not in persona form, but uh in thunder, lightning, fire, trumpets, and he speaks in his own voice to the Israelites. The

Ten Commandments, first commandment, no gods before me. Okay? No idolatry.

People get scared. God's God is literally screaming to your face and they say, "Moses, you act as an intermediary. Okay, you help us mediate

intermediary. Okay, you help us mediate the situation." Moses goes up the

the situation." Moses goes up the mountain for 40 days and he creates these two tablets, right, with the Ten Commandments written upon them. The

Israelites, they get a bit impatient and they're like, "Why hasn't Moses come down?" And so a few ring leaders start

down?" And so a few ring leaders start gathering all the jewelry, all the trinkets, gold trinkets, gold jewelry, molds it down and shapes it into a

golden calf [snorts] which they start worshiping. And they attribute their

worshiping. And they attribute their escape from Egypt and their freedom to this calf. 40 days, literally four days,

this calf. 40 days, literally four days, 40 days ago, God himself came down and said, "No idolatry."

Well, God sees this. He's furious, okay?

And he says, "I'm going to kill those idolatrous bastards." Okay, I'm

idolatrous bastards." Okay, I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, but not by much because he tells Moses, "I'm going to kill all of every single

Israelite except for you, and then unto you, I'm going to make a great nation."

God was going to make Moses a second Noah. Start from a blank slate. Okay?

Noah. Start from a blank slate. Okay?

And then at this point, Moses pulls out every bag in his rhetorical toolkit.

Did you do all that just to kill us here? Did you forget your covenant you

here? Did you forget your covenant you made with Abraham? He manages to get God to relent and he immediately speeds down the mountain. Okay, carrying the two

the mountain. Okay, carrying the two tablets. Goes down the mountain. He sees

tablets. Goes down the mountain. He sees

the idolatry and he too is furious. He

smashes the two tablets. They break.

Okay, symbolizing lawgiving, ethics has failed.

He burns down the idol and then he rallies the Levites, okay? Which is one of the few pure groups of Israelites who did not commit the idolatry. And this is what he says to them. This is going to

be a lie. By the way, we're not not going to talk about that now, but but listen close.

Exodus 32:27. And Moses said unto them, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout

the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor." Moses

ordered an indiscriminate massacre.

Okay? And we are told that day 3,000 Israelites died. And it is this act

Israelites died. And it is this act through which Machaveli elevates Moses as a true political leader, as a true founder. Everything else, parting the

founder. Everything else, parting the Red Sea, miracles, communing with God, that just makes him a prophet. He has

religious authority. He communes with God. But that's not enough to be a great

God. But that's not enough to be a great leader. To be a great leader, you need

leader. To be a great leader, you need to be an armed prophet. You also need to know how to wield violence when necessary. I quote to you, Machaveli.

necessary. I quote to you, Machaveli.

All the armed prophets conquered and the unarmed ones were ruined. Things must be ordered in such a mode that when the people no longer believe, one can make

them believe by force. Moses, Cyrus,

Thesius, and Romulus would not have been able to make their peoples observe their constitutions for long if they had been unarmed. Okay? Why? Why is that? Why do

unarmed. Okay? Why? Why is that? Why do

you need arms to establish law? Why did

Moses need to call a massacre?

Mchaveli's reading is that what motivated the creation of the golden calf were the ring leaders envy of Moses that he had this special

relationship with God. But envy is this very stable uh passion. And Machaveli

tells us the only way to kill envy is to kill the envious.

If Moses had let the ring leaders live, they would have found new ways to thwart him, to thwart God, which will inevitably cause God to smite all of

them. But of course,

them. But of course, the Levites didn't just kill the ring leaders. It was an indiscriminate

leaders. It was an indiscriminate command. This is why, by the way,

command. This is why, by the way, Machaveli, in the first quote I read to you, calls it an infinite killing. It

wasn't an infinite killing. We're told

3,000 exactly died that day. What he's

emphasizing in the infinite part is how it was indiscriminate. So that's the next question. Why didn't he just host a

next question. Why didn't he just host a fair trial? Why did he call an

fair trial? Why did he call an indiscriminate massacre?

Maveli says that cruelty, violence, if used with precision and in a spectacular fashion, is an effective, sometimes the only pedagogical tool that works. Think

about how corrupt the Israelites were at this time.

God him again God himself shows up in front of you tells you in his own voice no idolatry less than 40 days go by you start doing the first thing he tells you not to after all of that after

everything he did to take you out of Egypt this is what you do such corruption necessitated much more than a fair trial of the guilty command was

indiscriminate because it wasn't about punishing guilt but to teach everyone a memorable able lesson through a public and uncompromising display of violence.

It was precisely because it was so excessive that made it effective. Machi

is going to talk about another violent spectacle that we're going to explore later on in the following words.

The ferocity of this spectacle left the people at once satisfied and stupified.

And I think he would say the same about Moses's massacre because it worked. It

worked. Moses goes up again, communes with God, comes down with a new set of tablets, and successfully establishes

the laws. Okay, I quote Machaveli,

the laws. Okay, I quote Machaveli, in every decision of ours, we should consider where are the fewer inconveniences and take that for the best policy because nothing entirely

clean and entirely without suspicion is ever found. This is the real world that

ever found. This is the real world that Machaveli wants to grow us up into.

Okay, this is why he's considered a realist. He's saying there are two

realist. He's saying there are two options. You do this massacre or you

options. You do this massacre or you don't. God is going to kill all of us.

don't. God is going to kill all of us.

And this in a nutshell is the type of leader that Machaveli is trying to cultivate. Someone who doesn't just do

cultivate. Someone who doesn't just do the thing that seems right, that gets a little applause from the humanitarians and the moralists and the philosophers, but someone who is willing to do the

difficult but ultimately the necessary thing. In his own words, he wants to

thing. In his own words, he wants to teach leaders how to not depart from good when possible, but know how to enter into evil when forced by

necessity. Okay, summarize.

necessity. Okay, summarize.

We've been introduced this idea of necessary evils, right, by the example of Moses's massacre.

And it was necessary because it was the least worse option in a in a couple of very bad options, right?

But I'm still just easing you in, okay?

because it's going to get a lot this story gets a lot more scandalous. And

what I'm going to tell you now, Machaveli himself only hints at it, but a Machaveli scholar Maritio Veroli pointed out to me and you can't unsee it after you see it.

Moses lied. He lied giving that command.

Nowhere does God give that command.

Listen to Exodus 32:27. This is the the battlecry he rallies the Levites with.

And Moses said unto them, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side." yada yada yada.

Something's very weird is going on here.

Almost every other instance in Exodus, we have the Bible narrate, "Thus spake the Lord." The Bible is directly saying,

the Lord." The Bible is directly saying, "God said this." That's what the Bible does. This is one of the few instances

does. This is one of the few instances in Exodus where it says Moses said God said this. Okay, that's suspicious.

said this. Okay, that's suspicious.

What's even more suspicious is that not only did God not give this command, he couldn't have time to give this command.

We are told immediately when God relents, Moses speeds down the mountain.

That's the sequence of events. And

here's the nail in the coffin. Okay,

here's why I think the lying reading is right. After the massacre, Moses goes

right. After the massacre, Moses goes back to God and God casts a plague upon the people as punishment. This is what

the Bible says just a few verses later.

The Lord plagued the people because they made the calf.

If the Levites were truly God's will, why would God do this kind of double punishment? The Levite massacre was not

punishment? The Levite massacre was not God's will. It was Moses's will. He

God's will. It was Moses's will. He

lied.

One should not reason about Moses, Machaveli tells us, as he was a mere executor of things that had been ordered for him by God. Okay, this is that hint.

Lying about religion, about God, about the greatest and highest things is something that Mcaveli is going to praise again and again in Roman

generals, especially when it comes to auggury. Okay, understanding uh that

auggury. Okay, understanding uh that phrase is going to help us understand a lot better why he thinks Moses had to do what he did here. So, we're going to take a little detour. So, Auggury is the

Roman belief, very popular, that the gods expressed their will through birds and how birds act. And this was such a widespread and strong belief that when

Roman commanders went on campaign, they brought with them chickens. And they

brought with him a chicken priest, a priest who manages the chickens. When

they want to fight a battle, they give food to the chickens. If the chickens ate, the gods wanted us to fight. We

have the gods on our side. Otherwise,

no. This is stupid. Okay?

[clears throat] It's stupid to us. It's

stupid to Maveli. It's stupid to the generals. But that doesn't mean you can

generals. But that doesn't mean you can just violate this at will because your soldiers believe it. Okay? And so

there's actually two failure modes for Roman generals when working with Auggury. The first failure mode is quite

Auggury. The first failure mode is quite obvious. Uh you only fight battles when

obvious. Uh you only fight battles when the chickens tell you to fight. You

decide you're the general, not the chicken. But there's some even more

chicken. But there's some even more subtle failure mode. And Machaveli tells us the story about a blatantly impious general. Okay, he wants to fight the

general. Okay, he wants to fight the battle. Gives the chickens. Chickens

battle. Gives the chickens. Chickens

don't eat. And he says, this is almost word for word. He says, "Let's see if the chickens want to drink." throws the chickens in the ocean. The chickens die and he calls the troop to battle. He

loses. Why? The soldiers think, "Oh my god, we've just offended the gods and I can't be following this impious man into battle." What does the clever general

battle." What does the clever general do? The clever general, Makaveli, tells

do? The clever general, Makaveli, tells us. Wants to fight. The chickens don't

us. Wants to fight. The chickens don't eat. He lies. He says, "Nope, the

eat. He lies. He says, "Nope, the chickens ate." And then the chicken

chickens ate." And then the chicken priest comes running out of the camp telling all the soldiers, "No, the the chickens actually didn't eat. You guys

are in for big trouble." The general calls the chicken priest a liar. No, no,

he's the liar. And he puts the chicken priest in the most dangerous part of the formation. He gets stabbed by a spear

formation. He gets stabbed by a spear and dies as soon the battle as the battle starts. And he says, "Look, the

battle starts. And he says, "Look, the god's will kill the liar." Okay. The

clever general preserves the outward appearance of piety while doing what was politically necessary.

And so did Moses. On one hand, Moses wasn't blatantly impious, right? Think

about what would happen if he called the massacre in his own name. I want you guys to kill your brothers in my name.

That wouldn't have worked. He would have lost all credibility. But Moses also wasn't too precious about his piety that he wasn't willing to lie to do what was

necessary. Okay? Religion is the

necessary. Okay? Religion is the strongest force to justify otherwise difficult to establish deeds and the wise ruler must know how to twist it if

necessary.

What's the moral of the story? Let me

ask you this. Did God disown Moses?

Jesus in his transfiguration? Was he

like, "I don't want to be associated with this lying guy." No, he's embraced.

He's still faultless because he did what was necessary.

The ethical foundations of the Judeo-Christian worldview, then the Ten Commandments themselves, is a founding murder hidden by a lie.

But I'm still just easing you in because it gets a lot more scandalous when we talk about the actual foundations of Israel itself. Okay, so fast forward in

Israel itself. Okay, so fast forward in the story. The Israelites arrive at the

the story. The Israelites arrive at the promised land. Little problem. There's

promised land. Little problem. There's

people in the promised land. There's

native inhabitants.

So Moses before he dies, and keep in mind that u if you recall, Moses does not actually go into the promised land.

He's kind of like on the boundaries and it's his successor Joshua that eventually takes him to the promised land. Moses tells the Israelites what

land. Moses tells the Israelites what their policy should be to the native inhabitants.

Kill them all. kill everything that breathes, leave no one alive. This is

not a policy that the Israelites were successful with following through, but that was the policy. And just to give you a sense of the brutality, I'm going to read to you the book of Joshua and

one of the conquests of the early cities called I.

when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of I in the field in the wilderness wherein they chased them and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword until they were

consumed that all the Israelites returned unto eye and smoteed it with the edge of the sword. And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men

and women, were 12,000, even all the men of I. For Joshua drew not his hand back,

of I. For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of I. All that's women and

children as well. And this was the policy. So Joshua smote all the country

policy. So Joshua smote all the country of the hills and of the south and of the veil and of the springs and all their kings. He left none remaining, but

kings. He left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded. And

Joshua smoked them from Kadesh Barnea, even unto Gaza, and all the country of Gan even unto Gibian.

The Israelites genocide of the natives.

And this, too, Machaveli argues, is virtuous.

This can't be right. This is just sheer evil. Sure, I get the lying about God

evil. Sure, I get the lying about God thing, but this can't be. On what

possible grounds could Machaveli justify this?

Machavel in Discourses 28 is going to separate and differentiate between two kinds of war. There's war of command and war of habitation.

Wars of command is when you don't want to live where they are. You just want them to obey you as a junior partner, as a subject, as a vassal estate.

That doesn't have to get too bloody. But

quoting Machaveli, the other kind of war is when an entire people with all its families removes from a place necessitated by either famine or war and goes to seek a new seat and a new

province, not to command it like those above, but to possess it. When they are a great number, then they enter with violence into the countries of others, kill the inhabitants, take possession of

their goods, make a new kingdom, and change the province's name, as did Moses, who called that part of Syria seized by him, Judea.

There's two kinds of wars. Wars of

command, wars of habitation. Wars of

command are a lot less bloody. Genocide

would neither be excusable nor necessary nor good. In fact, Machaveli praises

nor good. In fact, Machaveli praises cities and states that are able to win wars of command in a bloodless way. Like

when Ptoa willingly subjected herself to Florentine rule because the Florentines were so merciful to them. They acted to

them with mercy as a brother. Okay. The

most virtuous way to relate to your enemy in words of command is this. Crush

them with the arts of peace. That's

Machaveli's own words. And I bring this up again, another detour here just to show you that Machaveli has no blood lust. Okay? It's necessity rather than a

lust. Okay? It's necessity rather than a perverted fascination with violence that he advises eliminating native inhabitants in wars of habitation. So

that becomes the question, if wars of command can be won in this bloodless way, why does he advise elimination when it comes to wars of habitation?

Men should either be caressed or eliminated because they avenge themselves for slight injuries but cannot do so for grave ones. So the

injury one does to a man should be such that one does not fear revenge for it.

In wars of command, you don't need to injure them. Okay? You don't need to

injure them. Okay? You don't need to take their property. You don't even need to disarm them. Maybe an isolated act of violence, of war, of strength is enough.

Maybe you don't even need that in the PTOIA exam. In which case, you should

PTOIA exam. In which case, you should benefit them. Okay? You should make sure

benefit them. Okay? You should make sure to turn them into friends. Be as humane as possible if you don't need to injure them. But wars of habitation by

them. But wars of habitation by definition will bring injury to the habitants, right? You're taking all of

habitants, right? You're taking all of their their property, and because of that, you probably need to kill all of their combatants.

Now we moderns, we come in and say, "Okay, but stop there. Leave the

civilians alone, right? Take their

property, kill the combatants. Those are

the rules of war. Leave the civilians alone."

alone." Machaveli's response would be, "Okay, let's play this out." Because you've now injured the native inhabitants, but not

enough so that you don't fear vengeance from them. You took their property. You

from them. You took their property. You

killed their combatants. But who are the combatants?

Well, [clears throat] they're the fathers, the sons, the grandsons, the uncles, the nephews, the husbands of the civilians that you just let free. What

do you think they're going to do? You

think they're going to thank you for showing so much mercy? They're going to hate you forever. You don't think the women are going to make it their own debt to burn it into their sons and

grandsons minds to destroy you as soon as they have the chance? If you don't think that, that's fantasy.

Machaveli's response to us moderns is this. For wars of habitation, you're

this. For wars of habitation, you're already past the point of peaceful coexistence. Can it happen? Sure,

coexistence. Can it happen? Sure,

extremely rarely. But don't bet your future on it. Machaveli's point is if you don't eliminate them now, your people will pay the price in the future

when they inevitably seek revenge.

Now to qualify this a little bit, um elimination doesn't necessarily always mean kill.

The Roman tactic is division. Okay? You

spread them across your empire so that they can't coordinate with each other.

The American strategy is forced assimilation, right? You make sure that

assimilation, right? You make sure that they can't speak their own language.

They can't practice their own religion.

You But but what elimination means is you take them out of combat. You got to make sure that they can't seek revenge upon you.

Now, Machaveli knows all the bad words you want to call him and all the bad names, villain, devil, teacher of evil, and he preempts this. These modes are

very cruel and enemies to every way of life, not only Christian, but human, and any man whatever should flee them and wish to live in private rather than as

king with so much ruin to men.

Nonetheless, he who does not wish to take this first way of the good must enter into this evil one if he wishes to maintain himself.

But men take certain middle ways that are very harmful, for they do not know how to be either altogether wicked or

altogether good. Machaveli does not like

altogether good. Machaveli does not like the idea of elimination any more than you do. He's not a bloodthirsty demonic

you do. He's not a bloodthirsty demonic teacher of evil evil. He's telling you these are the realistic outcomes. Think

about it like a a decision tree, right?

In a war of command, be as humane as possible. Try to crush them with the

possible. Try to crush them with the arts of peace. If you don't have to injure them, benefit them. In wars of habitation, if you want to live on their land okay

you're already injuring them to such a great degree, just go all the way. What

you don't want is you don't want to take a middle way. You try to fight a war of habitation humanely.

Either don't take the promised land.

Keep wandering the desert. But if you take the promised land, make sure you take all of it. And this dual structure of full humanity and full evil is

exactly what Moses describes the Israelites in Deuteronomy. Okay, I quote you to Deuteronomy.

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it, and it shall be. If it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be

tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Okay, this is the humane

serve thee. Okay, this is the humane way. Thus shalt thou do unto all the

way. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from these. You're not trying to live there.

these. You're not trying to live there.

These are words of command. which are

not of the cities of these nations, but of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance. Thou shalt leave alive

inheritance. Thou shalt leave alive nothing that breathes, but thou shalt utterly destroy them. This is why Moses

is Machaveli's leader per excel. He's

always thinking about what is the most, this is the key word, possible humane option here. But when he's willing to

option here. But when he's willing to enter into evil, he goes all the way.

And to scare you, to tell you what happens to peoples who take this middle way, he tells us the story of the

Samites. Okay, so the Samites were one

Samites. Okay, so the Samites were one of the rival tribes against the Romans.

Um, and due to this sheer act of military brilliance, they trapped the entire Roman army into this valley so they could have their way with the Romans. They could just decide to kill

Romans. They could just decide to kill all the Romans if they wanted to and suffer very little casualty. And

suddenly they don't know what to do.

Okay, these are historic rivals.

A Samite elder said there's only two possible options here.

Either you you benefit them. Okay, let them go full honors. Turn them into your

full honors. Turn them into your brothers. Befriend them. use this as an

brothers. Befriend them. use this as an opportunity to be friends with him and and and ally with him or you got to kill them all and take them out of the picture so that Rome does not threaten

us. The Samite leader didn't have the

us. The Samite leader didn't have the guts to do either of those options and he took the middle way. He took away Roman arms. It's a temporary kind of

kind of uh disarming of the Romans. It's

going to take them some time to rearm.

They made all the Romans walk under a yoke to humiliate. A yoke is what you put ox in to plow the fields. And they

made the Romans swear a treaty that they will not attack the Samites. All

cosmetic procedures. The Romans went back and as soon as they recovered they utterly destroyed and killed all the Sammites wiping them off the face of the

earth. This Machaveli warns you is what

earth. This Machaveli warns you is what happens to people who go the middle way.

Machaveli's core teaching then is echoed in one of the famous lines from great uh American philosophers. Quote you there

American philosophers. Quote you there is no such thing as halfway crooks.

By the way, another great American philosopher Tupac big fan of Machaveli as well. uh read Machaveli in prison and

as well. uh read Machaveli in prison and his stage name was actually Makaveli.

Anyways, slight light detour. Uh that's

Moses and that's part one of our lecture to try to ease you in in so far as one can be eased in to to this uh invitation into evil. Machaveli, for reasons that

into evil. Machaveli, for reasons that hopefully are obvious, has been called a teacher of evil ever since people have started reading him.

But I hope you can already start seeing that's not the full picture. So what

we're going to do in part two is we're going to add three important qualifications to this idea that he's a teacher of evil because I want to make

him uh more digestible and palatable to us moderns. So I'm going to keep

us moderns. So I'm going to keep delaying and withholding my own objections until the end. Right now, I'm still just trying to make you understand uh Machaveli au as authentically and as

charitably as humanly possible. Okay.

The first qualification is that Machaveli is a teacher of evil but for the sake of the good. Okay. If Moses

didn't massacre, God would have killed them all. If Moses didn't lie, he

them all. If Moses didn't lie, he couldn't have carried out his acts and and established the laws. If the

Israelites did not pursue a policy of elimination, Israel would always be under existential threat. Every evil

kind of is only justified if it is serving some kind of greater good. And

even stronger, Machaveli's conception of the good is not that different from our conception as moderns. He wants a society that is stable, that is

protected, that can survive, that has rule of law, that has freedom, and that is really radically egalitarian for his

age. And this is what makes Machaveli

age. And this is what makes Machaveli worth engaging. Because if Machaveli is

worth engaging. Because if Machaveli is just this power-grabbing self-help guru telling princes how to like grab power or he's out to train tyrants, that wouldn't be interesting. We just

disagree with his ends. But it's

precisely because our ends, I know it may not seem like it are Machaveli's ends that we must read him as a critique

of how we approach politics. He's saying

you think international law, you think your human rights, your civil discourse, your activism, your civil disobedience, if you feel extra naughty, is going to establish you your peace, your equality,

your freedom, your state, your rule of law. Think again. The major difference

law. Think again. The major difference between us and Machaveli is not in what ends are good for the state. It's what

means are necessary to achieve them. And

so moral judgment for Machaveli does not just stop at evaluating the act in itself. This is good. This is evil. This

itself. This is good. This is evil. This

is humane. This is cruel. In fact, he would probably agree with most of our labels. That's why he still calls it

labels. That's why he still calls it entering into evil.

Machaveli's moral reasoning goes a second step and says, "Okay, but is this evil? Is this cruelty? Is it wellused or

evil? Is this cruelty? Is it wellused or is it poorly used?" In other words, in a consequentialist way. He's inquiring

consequentialist way. He's inquiring about their effects.

Those can be called wellused if it is permissible to speak well of evil that are done at a stroke out of necessity to secure oneself and then are not

persisted in but are turned to as much utility for the subjects as one can.

Those cruelties are badly used which though few in the beginning rather grow with time than are eliminated. Okay. The

most famous example of cruelty well used in all of Machaveli, infamous really is Chesire Boura. Chze Boura was an

Chesire Boura. Chze Boura was an ambitious Renaissance prince, a contemporary of Mchaveli's who was known for his ruthlessness, his military

genius and his uh his charm.

His dad was Pope Alexander was a pope and Chzure himself was the closest person who came to unifying Italy at the time. And like Moses, Chzure is held up

time. And like Moses, Chzure is held up as one of these beaming exemplars for future leaders to imitate. And also like

Moses, it was a seemingly inexcusable act of brutal violence that he elevates as what must be imitated. Okay, so the

story is this. Chze comes to possession of the Romana region in Italy that was terribly managed. It's its uh its uh

terribly managed. It's its uh its uh rulers were weak and competent which led to chaos. It led to all kinds of thieves

to chaos. It led to all kinds of thieves and crimes rampant in the Romana.

And when a people are so corrupt, think back to the Israelites at Sinai.

Machaveli believes you need a dictatorship who's willing to use force.

So he installs a brutal bastard of a man called Romero. Romero had very little

called Romero. Romero had very little ethical qualms and he cleaned house very quickly and established border. However,

after you uncorrupt a people, you no longer need the dictatorship anymore, right? You want trusted institutions

right? You want trusted institutions that can sustain themselves. And so,

Chzure started setting up a much more democratic structure with a civil court and different cities had their own advocate. And at this time, Romero

advocate. And at this time, Romero became a liability for three reasons.

Number one, you don't need a dictatorship anymore. Number two,

dictatorship anymore. Number two, Romero started gaining uh a princely reputation for himself that could be threatening to Chze. And number three,

because of all the violence that he had to do, people really started hating Ramire. Okay. What does Chesire do to

Ramire. Okay. What does Chesire do to his um effective and quite loyal minister? He kills him. He kills him as

minister? He kills him. He kills him as a cathartic scapegoating event to purge people's hatred to show that that's not

me. That's all him. And he kills him in

me. That's all him. And he kills him in the most spectacular fashion imaginable.

Gets Romero. He splits him in half. He

lays both halves out in the public square where everyone traffics in the morning and he lays the knife and the wood block right next to a separate

body. Mcaveli concludes this anecdote.

body. Mcaveli concludes this anecdote.

The ferocity of this spectacle left the people at once satisfied and stupified.

This for Machaveli is a prime example of cruelty wellus.

It was necessary to bring the Romana under order with violence and then it was necessary to dispose of the dictator. It was contained. Okay, it was

dictator. It was contained. Okay, it was done in a very very brief moment with very limited casualties. It secured not only Chzare's position, but it also

benefited all the subjects of the Romana by establishing much more civil rule of law, democratic institutions. And this

is what I'm trying to tell you.

Machaveli wants what we want, right? and

his work is a direct challenge to us.

You aren't going to vote your way out of the Romana.

This is why for Machavelli, seemingly cruel actions like the uh the Romero example can be long run long-term

uh humane and the reverse is also true.

Seemingly humane actions can be actually very cruel.

Many times works that appear merciful, which cannot reasonably be condemned, become cruel and are very dangerous for a republic if they are not corrected in

good time. It seems merciful to be kind

good time. It seems merciful to be kind to criminals, to not punish them too hard. It seems merciful to let them out

hard. It seems merciful to let them out and early parole, even very violent ones, give them a second chance at life.

That's how you end up with the Romana, right? It's a deeper kind of cruelty.

right? It's a deeper kind of cruelty.

That's what Mchaveli is gesturing at.

All right, to summarize, still in part two of the lecture, we're still trying to qualify his invitation into evil. The

first qualification is it is an invitation to evil, but for the sake of the good. The second qualification

the good. The second qualification is that moments when you actually need to do this are extraordinary moments.

Moments of founding like Moses and moments of refounding, cleaning house like Chzure. Okay? In other words, if

like Chzure. Okay? In other words, if the first qualification is to say no, Machaveli actually shares our conception of the good and of good ends.

The second qualification is to say he also shares with us how to behave in ordinary political life. Okay? If you

already live in an orderly and lawful state, a free state, in the absence of a crisis, don't do any of this. Okay? You

don't have to lie. You don't have to call any massacres. Evil would not just be inexcusable, non-necessary. It would

be actively just evil. Evil, quite evil.

And even if you actually live in a disorderly state, you're probably not the one to do this. Maveli's work must be interpreted as limited to

extraordinary times, extraordinary people in extraordinary places of power.

Moses calling the Levite massacre with the authority of God has a different taste than some just random Israelite running up and down to the camp killing

people. And I think this qualification

people. And I think this qualification is necessary if we are to even begin to make sense of Machaveli's own life.

Mchaveli was born in a very divided Italy where Republican city states well some some princely citystates as well are vying for power and even go to war.

Okay. Mchaveli wrote all of these books, most of his works in exile, but before his exile, he was a public servant in

his native Florence. And so a natural question arises, which is did Machaveli in his political career because he was an ambassador, right? He was a military

leader, he was a public servant and politician, civil servant, did he prosecute politics in a Machavelian way?

No.

Not even close. In fact, the exact opposite. He was by all accounts an

opposite. He was by all accounts an extremely loyal uh upstanding public servant who gave his soul, dedicated his soul to Florence in a time that was

extremely corrupt where not taking embezzlement would almost be weirder than taking embezzlement. We have no evidence whatsoever that he took any bribes, which is why he ended up in

exile in relative poverty. And even in exile when he was given a very lucrative salary by Rome he declined because he was writing the Florentine histories at the time because he wanted he was a patriot and he wanted to teach future

Florentine leaders how to rule through his books.

This I think we can call him the Machaveli paradox which is most people write about how good you should be in politics and then they're complete bastards in their actual political

lives. Mchaveli

lives. Mchaveli writes about how you should be evil in politics and then he's the most upstanding and loyal public servant. Why

is this? This is why I think we need the second qualification to make sense of Machaveli's life.

Even if Italy at the time required a chereet to reunify it and even if Machaveli was an extraordinary man, he was not in an extraordinary

place of power and therefore you should engage with politics in the ordinary mode. Okay.

mode. Okay.

But then another riddle arises which is if 99% of the time 99% of us should engage in the let's call it nice mode of

politics rule of law public discourse why are all of his books [laughter] about the most extraordinary of cases and that's where we need to introduce

the third qualification. Okay here's the third qualification.

Machaveli is so interested in the extraordinary, that's the word he uses, actions.

Because contr the popular perception of being a realist, he's also an idealist.

He wants to help princes achieve the most idealistic, grandio, seemingly impossible tasks imaginable to man. In

other words, he is a realist. That's the

common perception. The qualification

we're adding is that he's also an idealist. And I think this becomes

idealist. And I think this becomes obvious when you compare him to your vanilla cynical realist. Right? You

can't reform health care. Like we can't get anything done. Politics is limited.

Let's just tend to our own garden. That

was the opposite of Machaveli. Machaveli

believed in the great man theory of history that rare and marvelous men can rise up in extraordinary times and completely change the course of events.

This is why Machaveli is so obsessed with founding and refounding. Okay,

Moses and the founding of Israel, Romulus and the founding of Rome. And he

was so praising of Chesire because Chesire at this time he didn't succeed but he was the man who came closest to unifying Italy.

We can loosely say then that Machaveli is an idealist in ends but a realist in means. And it's precisely that tension

means. And it's precisely that tension that makes his work so bloody. It's

precisely when you want to really establish a radically different order and you need to break a lot of eggs.

Okay? And so I hope this last qualification makes you slightly more charitable to all of Machaveli's bloody evil advice in the following way, which

is he's doing all of it because he's actually quite optimistic about things.

Another way to put it is this. Even that

most idealistic of philosophers, Plato, and Machaveli criticizes him as such.

Even Plato would be forced to concede this point that Machaveli raises. Plato

in his republic when he talks about the founding of the Caliplus, the ideal city. He also calls a massacre. All the

city. He also calls a massacre. All the

adults are killed. We're told everyone above the age of 10 are led into the fields. Okay, euphemism if there ever

fields. Okay, euphemism if there ever was one. And the reason is because Plato

was one. And the reason is because Plato knows if I want to design a radically different order, I got to start with people who are malleable. I got to start with the children. So even Plato, I

think, is forced to concede this point on the necessity of entering into evil when pursuing grand and noble projects.

All right, summarize part two.

We added three qualifications to this intuition of entering into evil that we developed in part one through Moses. The

first qualification is evil but for the sake of the good. The second

qualification is that these actions are only called for extraordinary times, extraordinary people, extraordinary positions of power. And the third one is

that this recommendation comes from the fact that he is an idealist as well as a realist.

Hopefully uh each of these three qualifications has made Mcaveli a bit more palatable if not digestible for for us moderns. But what I'm going to do in

us moderns. But what I'm going to do in part three is I'm going to push you in the completely opposite direction. I'm

going to show you just how radically different of a break Machaveli is compared to the traditions that came before, namely the classical tradition and the Christian tradition. Okay? And

it's in that comparison we're going to learn new things about this invitation to evil. The most obvious break between

to evil. The most obvious break between Machaveli and the tradition that came prior is how he uses the word virtue. If

you read Machaveli right after you read Plato Aristotle or even the Christians, you're going to have whiplash every time he uses the word virtue because it completely has changed its meaning.

Okay? And these are the paragraphs that are most important to understand what he means by virtue.

Fortune shows her power where no virtue has marshaled to resist her. She directs

her onslaught to those places where dikes and dams have not been constructed to restrain her. Thus it is better to be impetuous than cautious because fortune

is a woman and it is necessary if one wants to hold her down to beat her and strike her down. And one sees that she lets herself be won euphemism more by

the impetuous than by those who proceed coldly. And so always like a woman, she

coldly. And so always like a woman, she is the friend of the young because they are less cautious, more ferocious and command her with more audacity.

Machaveli gives us two striking metaphors to think about virtue. Flood

and rape. One of the defining features of virtue for Machaveli then is force.

Okay. An overwhelming ordering force which Machelli associates with the masculine that pushes back against a chaotic energy in the world which he

associates with the feminine. When Moses

established the Ten Commandments in the wilderness, when Chesire brought the Romana to peace and order coming from lawlessness, these are all examples of

that masculine ordering force taming the chaos of the natural or the political world. The opposite of virtue then in

world. The opposite of virtue then in Machaveli is no longer vice. It becomes

effeminiscy. Okay? The worst thing you can be for Mcaveli is effeminite lacking in this manly virtue and helplessly pushed around by fortune. But that's the

first defining feature, force. But

virtue is not just force. The second

defining feature of virtue is prudence.

Prudence is the classical virtue that uh survives most intact in Machavelli.

Um, and it's so important because it helps you decide when to use virtues and when to use vices. It helps you to see through the classical teachings, right?

Because because from antiquity, we're given a series of virtue vice pairs. Humanity is

virtue, cruelty is vice, liberality is virtue, stinginess is vice. But as we saw already with humanity and cruelty, sometimes the humane act is actually uh

more cruel. Sometimes the cruel act is

more cruel. Sometimes the cruel act is actually more humane. Classical virtues

are nowhere near accurate enough to act as a consistent guide for action. What

prudence does then is number one, it tells you what situations you need to use the virtue and what situations you actually want to use the vice. But

remember the bold and uh impious general. You can't just ignore popular

general. You can't just ignore popular morality. Also, what prudence does is it

morality. Also, what prudence does is it teaches you how to appear to be as virtuous as possible and how to limit the amount of uh vices that will give

you infamy, that will make your life unlivable. Okay?

unlivable. Okay?

It is not necessary for a prince to have all the virtues, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them. Nay, I

dare say this, that by having them and always observing them, they are harmful.

And by appearing to have them, they are useful. Men in general judge more by

useful. Men in general judge more by their eyes than by their hands. Because

seeing is given to everyone, touching to few. Everyone sees how you appear. Few

few. Everyone sees how you appear. Few

touch what you are. So let a prince win and maintain his state. The means will always be judged honorable and will be praised by everyone like Moses. For the

vulgar are taken in by the appearance and the outcome of the thing. And in the world there is no one but the vulgar.

Think back to Moses and his lie, right?

Doesn't matter because he successfully established Israel. Prudence instructs

established Israel. Prudence instructs you how and when to violate ethical norms while appearing to be their

greatest champions. And even more so

greatest champions. And even more so than force, this kind of cunning will help you master fortune. You'll never

master fortune 100%. But you'll be able to gain control of fortune much more than people think is possible.

Virtue then in Machaveli is an ordering force guided by prudence that helps you overcome fortune. And the best image he

overcome fortune. And the best image he gives of this is Iron. Okay, this is the centaur, halfman, half horse teacher of Achilles, Thesius and a whole host of

other uh classical heroes.

To have as teacher a half beast, half man means nothing other than that a prince needs to know how to use both natures and the one without the other is

not lasting. Man represents law. Beast

not lasting. Man represents law. Beast

represents force. Law cannot be sustained without force. and force needs law if it doesn't just degenerate into tyranny.

Okay, which beast should we use? Since a

prince is compelled of necessity to know well how to use the beast, he should pick the fox and the lion. One needs to be a fox to recognize snares and a lion

to frighten the wolves.

Lion is raw power. Fox is cunning prudence.

That's the image of virtue. You have

man, law, order. You have lion, raw force, power. Then you have fox,

force, power. Then you have fox, cunning, prudence. Virtue is an ordering

cunning, prudence. Virtue is an ordering force guided by prudence.

And with that image, I think you can already start to appreciate just how far we are from the Christian tradition that came right before it. For Christians, we

are half man, half God.

For Machaveli, we are half man, half beast. And it is the beastial part that

beast. And it is the beastial part that great leaders need to know how to use.

If you're interested in um Machaveli's relationship with Christianity, I filmed two interviews that I can share later um with some of the the best Machelli scholars in the world. But I just want

to briefly summarize to conclude part three Mchaveli's relationship with the tradition that came before him. So you

got the classical tradition, okay? You

got classical theorists Plato Aristotle and you got classical heroes like Thesius, Moses, Cyrus. Then you have the Christian era and then you have the Renaissance which is the time that

Machaveli wrote in which gave birth to modernity.

Machaveli hates strongly dislikes the Christian era because he thinks it's made men weak and offended. like the

Renaissance, he wants to go back to he he wants to rescue something, okay, from the classical tradition. But unlike the Renaissance, he thinks that the Renaissance has imitated the mere

surface, imitated all those useless things like poetry and philosophy and architecture and sculpture.

What Machaveli wants to do is to give you a taste. He used a lot a lot of gustatory metaphors when talking about reading. My two great passions, of

reading. My two great passions, of course.

He wants to give you a taste of what classical heroes were like. In other

words, he doesn't want to go back to the classical world of theory. Plato,

Aristotle, those people for him are just as diluted diluted as the Christians. He

wants to go back to the world of classical political action. Thesius,

Moses, Cyrus. This is why sometimes Machaveli frames his project as a complete return because it is a complete

return. Imitate Moses. But also why

return. Imitate Moses. But also why sometimes he he frames his project as a radical innovation because it is he's trying to construct a theory of

classical political action and not just trying to rescue classical political theory. Okay? So do as the ancients do

theory. Okay? So do as the ancients do not as they say. Uh there's a small caveat there where he actually introduces some brand new ideas even to classical political action like tumults

and egalitarianism but that's the kind of general relation. All right.

That's part three. We talked about Machaveli's chief exemplar Moses to kind of ease you into this idea of entering to evil. We qualified in part two his

to evil. We qualified in part two his teachings his invitation. And in part three we put his moral teachings in the proper historical context.

And now to end this lecture I want to offer my critique. Okay. Let's say I agree with Machaveli on everything he has to say about political reality. I.e.

what means are necessary for what ends.

One should still ask is it worth it?

Right? What are the consequences for my character for my soul to enter evil into this way?

In Plato in his gorgius asks a very similar question.

Um in the gorgius a question is posed.

Would you want to do injustice or suffer injustice? Okay. So would you want to

injustice? Okay. So would you want to murder or be murdered?

The correct answer for Plato is you want to suffer injustice. Why? Because doing

injustice makes you a bad person. It harms your soul directly. But suffering injustice

soul directly. But suffering injustice doesn't necessarily because you're not doing anything if you react with it virtuously. This is where the stoics get

virtuously. This is where the stoics get the idea. If you react to it virtuously,

the idea. If you react to it virtuously, your soul's unharmed.

So Plato here in the Gorgius is challenging. It's a very good challenge

challenging. It's a very good challenge to Machaveli. You talk so much about the

to Machaveli. You talk so much about the necessities of human survival, but you haven't given that much thought of what in the human deserves to survive. What's

the point if after your massacres, your genocides, you rule a city of ashes with a stone cold heart? What's the point if you have to evaluate your friends, your

family in this cold, calculating manner?

Isn't that an alienated life worse than death? Isn't there more, Plato would

death? Isn't there more, Plato would say, to life than just power, glory, survival? Machaveli's first response, I

survival? Machaveli's first response, I think, is to say, there is more to life, but not to political life.

Machaveli was a great lover of life. He

wrote some of the best Italian comedies in his darkest times in his own life. He

loved his friends and playing card games with him. He loved great clothes. Uh uh

with him. He loved great clothes. Uh uh

uh he loved um wine. He loved uh great food, beautiful women. That one a bit too much.

And Machaveli clearly was attuned even to the joys of the contemplative life.

Okay, I'm going to read to you a private letter from Machaveli describing his day to his friend.

When evening comes, I return to my home and I go into my study and on the threshold I take off my everyday clothes which are covered with mud and meer and

I put on regal and courtly robes and dressed in a more appropriate manner. I

enter into the ancient courts of ancient men. He's starting starting to read and

men. He's starting starting to read and am welcomed by them kindly and there I taste the food gustatory metaphor that that alone is mine and for which I was

born and there I am not ashamed to speak to them to ask them the reasons for their actions and they in their humanity answer me and for 4 hours I feel no

boredom. I dismiss every affliction. I

boredom. I dismiss every affliction. I

no longer feel poverty nor do I tremble at the thought of death. I become

completely part of.

This is the most moving account of a contemplative life I've ever read and it's from Machaveli.

So yes, Mavelli would say there is a lot more to life, Plato, than just survival, glory politicking but not political life. Political life

should just be focused on getting us the basics. stability, order, rule of law,

basics. stability, order, rule of law, freedom equality.

Because when you try to combine those higher ideals with political life, you're going to destroy both of them.

That's how we got classical political theory when Plato tried to bring integrate philosophy with the state. And that's

how we got the Christian era of affeminite men.

Now on the second issue of isn't your soul harmed by doing injustice? I think

Machaveli would say it's not clear that my soul is harmed if I do a necessary evil. Right? Because it it was

evil. Right? Because it it was necessary. You certainly wouldn't say

necessary. You certainly wouldn't say Plato that your philosopher kings are are like traumatized forever for carrying out the mass found in the calipos. Why? Because it was the right

calipos. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. It was the difficult thing to do. And this is a real psychology, by

to do. And this is a real psychology, by the way. Harry Truman, after dropping

the way. Harry Truman, after dropping two nukes on civilians, said multiple times in interviews, he never lost a single night's sleep over it. Why?

Because for him, that was the right calculus. He needed to bring the boys

calculus. He needed to bring the boys back home. In his mind, he didn't do the

back home. In his mind, he didn't do the wrong thing. And so, Machaveli would

wrong thing. And so, Machaveli would push back against Plato. No, reading my work is exactly how you don't scar your soul because my work tells you that the

evil you had to do was necessary.

That's what I think Machaveli would want to say as a as one intuition. But

ultimately I think Machaveli would concede the difficulty, okay, of doing all these evil acts and not have some stains on your soul because he writes this.

Because the reordering of a city for a political way of life presupposes a good man and becoming prince of a republic by violence presupposes a bad man. One will

find that it very rarely happens that someone good wishes to become prince by bad ways, even though his end be good.

and that someone wicked having become prince wishes to work well and that it will ever occur to his mind to use well the authority that he has acquired badly. Okay, what he's saying here is a

badly. Okay, what he's saying here is a major issue for everything we talked about today. If it's evil for the sake

about today. If it's evil for the sake of good and you just told me very rarely are good people going to be able to survive going through this.

That's a big issue.

This is why I think Machaveli does not write to teach the good man but the great man.

The good man is altruistic. The good man cares about others. The good man is public-spirited for the sake of the public. The great man is

public. The great man is self-interested. The great man cares

self-interested. The great man cares about his own glory and he wants to help the public because it will help him win the mortal glory.

>> [snorts] >> And this I think is the key insight of Nakielli which is altruism, publicspiritedness compassion.

Think Mother Teresa. These drives are not brutal and forceful enough to do all the necessary evil that political founding requires. And they're so

founding requires. And they're so fragile that they will dissolve once you enter into evil. Can you imagine your your

into evil. Can you imagine your your compassion intact after calling a genocide?

Mchaveli would say that's not a reasonable psychology to rely on.

But a lust for glory is a lust for glory is brutal in that way because it's already selfish to its core. This is why to this day I've never met a single

successful entrepreneur who has as their primary motivation the desire to help the world. I've met infinite failed

the world. I've met infinite failed entrepreneurs with that desire. And if

if that's your desire, you should just go to the Himalayas and meditate because it's not brutal enough to withstand the tumults that you're going to experience. But

to experience. But concern for reputation, self-interest, avarice, insecurity, or even better, a desire for the glory of helping the

world that can work. That is dependable.

Good people always make bad leaders. The

reverse is not true. Bad people do not always make good leaders. Far from it.

But it's those selfish drives that that you need to work with, that you need to cultivate as a teacher of princes. And

this is why I think Machaveli spends so much of his work, the prince and book three of the discourses advising the ruler's interests, which is

different from the state's interests.

One reason is because as we saw in the case of of Romero, even the tyrants's interests of securing his own power is actually often greatly aligned for

Machaveli with the state's interests, especially if it's a disorderly state.

But even in moments, okay, even in moments when the state and the leader interests diverge, sometimes he still calls the ruler who

who uh elevates his interests above the states virtuous. Why is that? I think

states virtuous. Why is that? I think

what he's saying is that look, our best shot at establishing a good and peaceful order in civilization is having a selfish, glory seeking person at the

helm because those drives are forceful and robust in a way the other drives aren't. Sometimes that just means we're

aren't. Sometimes that just means we're going to have to take the hit. Their

interests are going to diverge from ours, but it's still better than trying to build a political order with a good man at the helm. And just how selfish

are these great men? They view

the enslavement of the people that they eventually rescue, as a precondition, as a gift for their own glory.

It was necessary then for Moses to find the people of Israel and Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians so that they would be disposed to follow him in order to get out of their servitude.

Cyrus needed to find the Persians malcontent. These could not have

malcontent. These could not have demonstrated his virtue if he had not found the Athenians dispersed.

This gives you a sense I think of the hyper egotistical orientation that Machaveli attributes to people he wants to teach. He had no delusions of

what motivated someone like Chzure Boura in wanting to reunify Italy. Okay. And

he asks us to take a more skeptical view to our other cultural heroes like Moses and Thesius as well.

But once you frame it like that, it's it's glory that's the kind of currency here. There seems to be a much more

here. There seems to be a much more expedient path to glory, which is Machaveli's path. Machaveli is more

Machaveli's path. Machaveli is more glorious than any captain of his day.

Plato has more glory now than Thesius.

If it's all about glory at the bottom, why don't I just retreat from society? I

don't have to deal with any of this and I just write my books and win glory that way. In other words, studying Machaveli

way. In other words, studying Machaveli has thoroughly radicalized me, but just in the opposite direction that he would have hoped for. Machaveli exposes evil to say, "No, no, you two have this

license. Go, go at it." Whereas I read

license. Go, go at it." Whereas I read all this, and I think, "Well, yeah, you do need to do all these terrible things.

So, I'm not going to engage in politics at all. I'm going to try to stay as far

at all. I'm going to try to stay as far as away as humanly possible from all this. I want to be left alone. And on

this. I want to be left alone. And on

top of that, I still get to pursue more glory."

glory." This is the first thing Maveli would say to me. It is not enough to say, I do not

to me. It is not enough to say, I do not care for anything. I do not desire either honors or useful things. I wish

to live quietly without quarrel. For

these excuses are heard and not accepted. Nor can men who have quality

accepted. Nor can men who have quality choose to abstain even when they choose it truly and without any ambition because it is not believed of them. So

if they wish to abstain, they are not allowed to by others to abstain.

you want to leave, people aren't going to let you. They're going to notice you.

You're already in the game. But the

deeper thing that Machavelli would say to me is this. Look, Jonathan, I wrote my books as a last resort in exile after I tried every single humanly possible

way to get back into politics to serve my beloved Florence because I loved my fatherland. And I

would have gladly given up the opportunity to write these books if I was given in my lifetime another opportunity to serve Florence. This is

why Jonathan I rank the glory of the founder, the political founder over the glory of the philosopher. They're the

ones who actually do the difficult thing that help their people in their lifetimes.

So your understanding of glory, Jonathan, is limited. If you think it's purely selfish, there's a version of that that he calls fame. People like

Caesar, according to Machaveli, have won eternal fame for doing a bad thing, for destroying the republic. That's not what glory is. True glory is the recognition

glory is. True glory is the recognition of actually having benefited your republic, your fatherland. And that's

what I think Machaveli would finally say to me, that glory is not just selfish.

It has this other oriented aspect as well. In fact, I think that Machaveli

well. In fact, I think that Machaveli praises glory so much because it's this dependable psychological mechanism that bridges these two things that bridges

the good and the evil. The great man who desires glory has his own self-interest intimately tied to his fatherland.

Right? And so glory is as dependable as brute self-interest, but it's often motivate. It often aims at the same publicly spirited ends that

compassion is.

And so I think Machaveli has a very strong response to Plato's question, isn't your soul corrupted? I think

Machaveli could say, as he often wrote in his letters, I love my fatherland more than my soul. For the sake of my fatherland, I'm willing to enter into

evil, to risk corruption, dishonor, shame. You, Plato, teach withdrawal and

shame. You, Plato, teach withdrawal and bad states for fear of corruption. I

enter risking corruption who's selfish.

Now, that is how much I love my Florence.

This was the psychology, by the way, on the other side of the Samite War. The

when the Samites locked the Romans into this valley and the Romans knew they were toast. They fought they honorably

were toast. They fought they honorably they would die. But to the proud Roman mind going under a yoke disarming is unthinkable. Unthinkable dishonor and

unthinkable. Unthinkable dishonor and shame. So they were lost at what to do.

shame. So they were lost at what to do.

They genuinely considered okay just all dying honorably. But then reason

dying honorably. But then reason prevailed.

Since the life of Rome consisted in the life of that army. it was to be saved in every mode and that the fatherland is well defended in whatever mode one defends it, whether with igniminy or

with glory. For if that army saved

with glory. For if that army saved itself, Rome would have time to cancel igniminy. If it did not save itself,

igniminy. If it did not save itself, even though it died gloriously, Rome and its freedom were lost. Plato was wrong.

A shameful, dishonorable, injust continuation is better than an honorable destruction because it gives

you the opportunity to write the wrong.

So when I see Machaveli and his selfless dedication as a public servant, when I read his labor, all of his books in educating a future redeemer

of Italy, when I witness him bearing through torture, exile, poverty, humiliation, and still trying to serve his Florence,

I can't help but see a patriot who is willing to corrupt his soul for his fatherland.

And when I realized that, whatever moral smuggness, whatever bad words I wanted to call him fell by the wayside and instead I was left with admiration and

respect because I realized the difference between me and Machaveli, my moral boundaries and his seeming ruthlessness was not my aversion towards

evil, but his dedication to the good.

And the last thought I was left with is if only I cared about the good as much as that teacher of evil, Nicolo Machaveli. Thank you.

Machaveli. Thank you.

[applause] Thanks for watching my lecture. If you

want to go deeper into these ideas, then join my email list at jonathanb.com.

You'll not only get full [music] length episodes, but also transcripts, book notes, and invitations to future lectures. If you like this lecture on

lectures. If you like this lecture on Machaveli, go check out my other lectures on Machaveli or my interviews with some of the greatest [music] Machaveli scholars in the world. You can

find links to those episodes as well as everything else we cover today in [music] the description as well as on my website jonathanb.com.

website jonathanb.com.

Thank you.