Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #61
Oh Yes, let’s Bring Joe back or Kamala, like which of the 3 Should be President?
Elica Le Bon
- Thread starter Angelicalist
- Start date
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,836
- 16,629
- 2,180
Well, Biden may not have been there much, be he wasn't going to destroy the world. And Kamala never got a chance.
So, both are better than Trump.
In fact a dead squirrel in a turd costume would have been better than Trump.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #63
I kind of want to Address the stuff about Goldie and Elica though.
So we’ve Established like I know a little about this. I know what I’m Talking about, I am not like unaware of what is going on. And I would actually Point to Elica as someone who knows what She is Talking about. More than I do, as far as like Iran. Elica and Goldie both have Family Members in Iran, they Talk to People in Iran. The Iranian Regime has Identified them as like Enemies of the State.
I didn’t want to make this Thread about Goldie, but You can go and Watch Her Live Show on YouTube Everyday and Learn about Iran. I knew about Elica First having seen Her on Fox News or something, maybe it was Peirs Morgan, I’m not sure how far back Her Media Appearances go but I saw Her what is like a “long Time Ago” now. And I did all this when the War Started and there was something there when I did this. And it was Goldie, She was like I guess aware of me Instantly. And like, You can go Watch Her Show and Learn about Iranian Culture Everyday. She has Armin (maybe Spelled Wrong) there to Translate Things She doesn’t understand because he spent more Time in Iran. These are People that grew up being told they couldn’t Live in Iran because of the Regime, but that it is there Homeland. They have a Guy on (I have Watched in maybe a Week, he might have been Killed) that is inside Iran, was Arrested by the Regime. Goldie had the Goldie Stans do some Hacktivism stuff and Reported his Social Media Accounts so the Regime couldn’t Investigate.
Goldie Showed the Iranian New Year, where they were Celebrating New Years while the Country was Bombed, Iranians are even willing to Die in Bombings because it means their Country will be Free, like a Reverse Martyrdom. I know it’s not Everyone. There are also the Videos being made where the Iranian Regime Responds to like Mossad packing Bombs in Cans of Food saying like “They just wanted some Food” and someone is Sympathetic to that. And Goldie’s People are even Sympathetic to some People in the Regime, just as like a Funny Example, they wondered if the “Jihadi Pilates” Guy was alive still, did You know the Iranian Regime funded a “Jihadi Pilates” Program? They knew.
And I just wanted to make the Point, like even if You want to Hate them, like Elica does have a Foundation for what She is saying, No one can say She doesn’t. If You want to Argue against Her, or anyone for that Matter, Watch Her Videos, Read Her Book (When it’s Released, She’s about to Release it and be like Electable, or like at least like on Every News Channel), that’s how it Works. Most People that Debate Professionally won’t Debate You unless You Read their Book, and You shouldn’t want to. Like “None of this is Intelligible” isn’t like a Real Rebuttal.
Example:
I Started Watching Bill OReilly because he was made out to be like the Epitome of Evil Republicans. Eventually, after I got involved with the Media through like Twitter and stuff, he Started making “Word of the Day”s based on what was going on, like Talking to me that way. He’s just a Person. But like even if You Hate him, “Know Your Enemy”, like, there’s no Reason to Dismiss Central Characters in Your Arguments against the War.
So we’ve Established like I know a little about this. I know what I’m Talking about, I am not like unaware of what is going on. And I would actually Point to Elica as someone who knows what She is Talking about. More than I do, as far as like Iran. Elica and Goldie both have Family Members in Iran, they Talk to People in Iran. The Iranian Regime has Identified them as like Enemies of the State.
I didn’t want to make this Thread about Goldie, but You can go and Watch Her Live Show on YouTube Everyday and Learn about Iran. I knew about Elica First having seen Her on Fox News or something, maybe it was Peirs Morgan, I’m not sure how far back Her Media Appearances go but I saw Her what is like a “long Time Ago” now. And I did all this when the War Started and there was something there when I did this. And it was Goldie, She was like I guess aware of me Instantly. And like, You can go Watch Her Show and Learn about Iranian Culture Everyday. She has Armin (maybe Spelled Wrong) there to Translate Things She doesn’t understand because he spent more Time in Iran. These are People that grew up being told they couldn’t Live in Iran because of the Regime, but that it is there Homeland. They have a Guy on (I have Watched in maybe a Week, he might have been Killed) that is inside Iran, was Arrested by the Regime. Goldie had the Goldie Stans do some Hacktivism stuff and Reported his Social Media Accounts so the Regime couldn’t Investigate.
Goldie Showed the Iranian New Year, where they were Celebrating New Years while the Country was Bombed, Iranians are even willing to Die in Bombings because it means their Country will be Free, like a Reverse Martyrdom. I know it’s not Everyone. There are also the Videos being made where the Iranian Regime Responds to like Mossad packing Bombs in Cans of Food saying like “They just wanted some Food” and someone is Sympathetic to that. And Goldie’s People are even Sympathetic to some People in the Regime, just as like a Funny Example, they wondered if the “Jihadi Pilates” Guy was alive still, did You know the Iranian Regime funded a “Jihadi Pilates” Program? They knew.
And I just wanted to make the Point, like even if You want to Hate them, like Elica does have a Foundation for what She is saying, No one can say She doesn’t. If You want to Argue against Her, or anyone for that Matter, Watch Her Videos, Read Her Book (When it’s Released, She’s about to Release it and be like Electable, or like at least like on Every News Channel), that’s how it Works. Most People that Debate Professionally won’t Debate You unless You Read their Book, and You shouldn’t want to. Like “None of this is Intelligible” isn’t like a Real Rebuttal.
Example:
I Started Watching Bill OReilly because he was made out to be like the Epitome of Evil Republicans. Eventually, after I got involved with the Media through like Twitter and stuff, he Started making “Word of the Day”s based on what was going on, like Talking to me that way. He’s just a Person. But like even if You Hate him, “Know Your Enemy”, like, there’s no Reason to Dismiss Central Characters in Your Arguments against the War.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 91,687
- 69,080
- 3,565
Previous presidents did nothing about Iran because they were afraid of losing votes in the next election
So they just kicked the can down the road
Trump is doing the right thing, but it will probably cause him severe political pain starting in November and for the rest of his term in office
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #65
He is like Bush Sr. in this.
So, Bush Sr. took out the Soviet Union after Regan Started with the “Mr. Gorbachov” stuff, and Commenced the “New World Order”. But then, Everyone wanted Clinton because they wanted to Focus on Local American Issues.
And it kinda put the World where it is now. Bush Sr. never Finished Everything. And then that led to Bush Jr. and like Clearly where we are now.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #66
Some Anti-Regime Change People are going to like hearing this, but I have to Talk about it so we can get to the next Part.
It seems that since the kind of “Feud” Started between me and the Goldie Admins, that a lot of People have felt like this was all going nowhere, we had a lot of Momentum with the stuff I was doing with Italy and Germany and the Research Papers, and then the War Starting, and then there were some Issues kind of Locally in the Americas that came Right after CPAC in Dallas and as the DC Event was Happening, so we had a lot of Eyeballs on us.
What did Happen, is that People Realized that Trump wasn’t making Iranians mad, he was doing what they Wanted. But then as the Local Issues came into it, and Goldie and them Started Jumping on the Calling me “the Devil” Thing, I guess it made People Feel like this wasn’t something they wanted to Support. And when I say “People” there, I mean like the Media.
I would say it is because Elica did not get to do what we Talked about, I didn’t say this needed to Happen with Elica for my own Benefit. It was for this.
So Elica has been kind of Sidelined, we could even Call it “Dragged through the Mud”, because this all kind of got Derailed when the Goldie People got mad that I said Ana got Smarter over Time. But, that isn’t to say that this is done, or that any of those People are Right about this.
We are kind of now in a Position where some Things need to be done, and it will only Cost me like $500 but it’s not going to be done Immediately. And we have to do what I wanted to do in the First Place, Start with Kurdistan. To me, Kurdistan is the First Part of all of this, but Everyone wanted to Try it their own way instead of Listening.
It seems that since the kind of “Feud” Started between me and the Goldie Admins, that a lot of People have felt like this was all going nowhere, we had a lot of Momentum with the stuff I was doing with Italy and Germany and the Research Papers, and then the War Starting, and then there were some Issues kind of Locally in the Americas that came Right after CPAC in Dallas and as the DC Event was Happening, so we had a lot of Eyeballs on us.
What did Happen, is that People Realized that Trump wasn’t making Iranians mad, he was doing what they Wanted. But then as the Local Issues came into it, and Goldie and them Started Jumping on the Calling me “the Devil” Thing, I guess it made People Feel like this wasn’t something they wanted to Support. And when I say “People” there, I mean like the Media.
I would say it is because Elica did not get to do what we Talked about, I didn’t say this needed to Happen with Elica for my own Benefit. It was for this.
So Elica has been kind of Sidelined, we could even Call it “Dragged through the Mud”, because this all kind of got Derailed when the Goldie People got mad that I said Ana got Smarter over Time. But, that isn’t to say that this is done, or that any of those People are Right about this.
We are kind of now in a Position where some Things need to be done, and it will only Cost me like $500 but it’s not going to be done Immediately. And we have to do what I wanted to do in the First Place, Start with Kurdistan. To me, Kurdistan is the First Part of all of this, but Everyone wanted to Try it their own way instead of Listening.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,836
- 16,629
- 2,180
Reagan had an anti-USSR policy, but he didn't want the USSR to disappear. It was super convenient for the Republicans.
Look at the voting in Presidential elections.
From 1952 you had Eisenhower for 8 years. Then Kennedy/Johnson for 8 years, then Nixon/Ford for 8 years, then Carter for 4 years, Then Reagan/Bush for 12 years.
That's 28 years of Republicans and 12 years of Democrats. Wow.
Since then it's been 20 years of Democrats and 13 years of Republicans, with neither Republican becoming president with the popular vote.
Having a common enemy that everyone understands was great for those who shout "patriotism" and "strength" and "military". Then someone got 9/11 and suddenly Muslims became the common enemy. But that was harder as the US has Muslims, and the US supports Saudi Arabia. Even Trump put a Muslim ban in place that did NOT include a single country with participants on 9/11. Hmm....
So, people don't understand who the enemy is. So they don't focus on pointless warring so much.
The enemy really is OPEC and they've been attacking those four OPEC countries who the US hated and who hated the US in 2001.
But fighting for oil sounds bad. So they pretend it's about something else.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #68
Do You think the Muslim ban was about 9/11? I’m Pretty sure the Country You are thinking of is like Syria, and he did it because there was a Syrian Refugee Crisis, and it was being used to Smuggle in Terrorists, like People were Showing Pictures of what they called Jihadis coming across the Border. Now I don’t remember if those Pictures were Real, but there were Documented Cases of Jihadis coming in through the Refugee situation.
And sure, I think Trump literally said something about Oil. And he thought this was going to be Easier, he thought it was going to be like America with Piles of Gold Bars they weren’t sure what to do with in the Middle of the Desert. Like, he did seem to think there would be some Spoils if we went to War, but I am Really not sure we can say this is about Oil. I mean, I would be more inclined to Accept that it’s like John Bolton that caused all this than that it’s all about Oil.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,836
- 16,629
- 2,180
No, I don't think the Muslim ban was about 9/11, but it was connected.
Trump is a populist. He makes policies based on how he thinks people will react to those policies (some of the time). He knew banned some people from Muslim countries would be popular among his base because being anti-Muslim has been popular among his base because of 9/11.
Trump claimed to be protecting the country, but he wasn't. He was scoring cheap political points.
So he did it. But he also knows his base likes cheap oil, so he didn't hit countries who provide that cheap oil.
Trump thought it'd be easier because what he did in Venezuela was so easy. Only he didn't do much in Venezuela. Nothing much has changed, only the name on the door.
He doesn't take time to understand the issues, that's the problem with Trump.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #70
Do You Remember ISIS? The Bataclan and Things. Belgium. Chlorine Peroxide Explosives. Do You Remember any of that?
Populism is not “Do Things for Reactions” is “Do Things as Reactions” more so, he is Responding to Popular “Wants”, no Other Republican would have Signed the COVID Checks for Example, and maybe not even a Democrat, and there is a Possibility with the Pandemic, but Trump was the one who would Sign. Like Bush Jr. did. You may ask “What the **** was the Greenland Thing about” and I think that actually was kind of about like Apocalyptic Scenarios more than anything, Greenland becomes Strategic. It Definitely was not something that Everyone Wanted him to do, but in like Prepper Circles it is a Talking Point.
Yeah, Trump kinda didn’t see how like Venezuela is not Iran, there are maybe Comparisons to be made, but Yeah, like Russia is not China, China is not Russia. But like, so, a lot of “The Issues” in like the Circles around the White House and Congress, the Media, etc, are the Scoring Points. You say he’s just Scoring Cheap Political Points, like, the Democrats are doing the same Thing. If You are a Democrat You Feel like Your Job is to Hate anything a Republican wants to do, if You are a Republican You Feel like Your Job is to “Own the Libs” and “Red-Pill them!”. I would say even just Attacking the Regime Shows he understands some Issues. There was a “Bunker Buster” Bomb and it was made to Destroy a Specific Iranian Nuclear Site. The Military made Test Sites, like Dummy Sites, and had Attacked it Over and Over so they knew what would Happen when they did it, and the Bomb Literally was made to Destroy that Exact Target, but was used for Other Things since no one had Every Approved an Attack. Trump said “Do it”, and he didn’t just Press a Red Button, People who knew what to do went and did it. And that’s Happening now. You may say like “He already Destroyed the Sites, he didn’t need to go in!”, but like, are You like still saying he never took the Time to understand the Issues. Like, I’m not Trump’s Biggest Supporter, like I’m not a Democrat or Republican, I don’t Vote, I actually am more intertwined in this Reality than just with the U.S. Government, many Governments Read my Writings and Things. Like You can do FOIA’s Across Government and like Every Law Enforcement Agency has a File on me. I am something more Capable than the U.S. Government could Ever even DREAM (I use Dream there the way the Media does, and not Talking about the Spirit World) of being. And I’m saying like, I think Trump thought about this some.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,836
- 16,629
- 2,180
Yeah, I do.
I remember 9/11. 9/11 was the biggest act of terror the US has ever seen.
Hijackers in the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia
Egypt had 1
Saudi Arabia had 15
Lebanon had 1
UAE had 2
Travel bans under the Trump administrations - Wikipedia
Trump's first ban targeted Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
None of these had anything to do with 9/11. None of these had anything to do with terrorism happening in the US. So, to make the US "safe" Trump banned people who weren't that much of an issue.
The Saudis... now they're a huge problem, but the Saudis have oil and pretend to be the US's friends. Trump went over there and licked some ass. Instead of banning them.
That's how much Trump gives a damn about the safety of the US.
Trump is responding to "popular wants" of people who struggle to understand issues. MAGA are not known for knowing anything at all. You can talk to the MAGA retards on here (assuming you're not one yourself) and ask them questions like "What is Communism?"
Here's a thread I started asking: "Trump called Kamala "a Communist", does he (or his supporters) even know what one is?"
There are dumb answers, really dumb answers and most of the time nothing to do with the topic. Not one person was able to say "this is what Communism is" and get anywhere close. Because they don't know. They're too stupid to bother to find out, too lazy to bother to find out, and really couldn't care less. Communism is just a bogeyman for them, and they're fine with it being the bogeyman.
I called out Marathon Mike, because he basically was saying something like "well, Trump's doing the right thing in Iran" and I looked up his posts from before the election where he was saying "Trump is the president of peace, Democrats are the war mongers" etc etc.
So, Trump just goes and find what the biggest idiots in society wants, because he knows they're the easiest to manipulate because they know NOTHING and research NOTHING. He can even insult them. He told them before the election in 2016 that he could should someone on 5th Avenue and they'd be too stupid to do anything about it.
Now they're talking about him being a dictator. Because they're so stupid they don't even understand the consequences for their own turkey lives.
And yes, the Democrats are manipulating stupid people too. The whole system is corrupt with everyone being told what to think, because there isn't choice. You want to make it as a politician, you need to be Rep or Dem, so you play the game.
In other countries (normal countries) you can choose who you want to vote for, based on a variety of differing opinions, and they get DEMOCRACY. The US just has a dictatorship with two side, and the people get to "vote".
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #73
Me:
No, not the Hamilton One, the One where he said like, Democracy was not Ready yet kind of.
Claude:
I think you might be reaching for Jefferson’s argument that Caesar didn’t cause the fall of the Roman Republic so much as arrive at a moment when the Republic was already incapable of sustaining itself — that the Roman people had been so corrupted by empire, slavery, and concentrated wealth that self-government was no longer possible for them, and Caesar was the symptom rather than the disease.
The clearest version of this is in Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, September 4, 1823, where he discusses whether the Romans could have established a free government after Caesar’s death. His answer is essentially no — that the degeneracy of the Roman people had reached a point where no constitution could have saved them, that they had lost the moral and civic capacity for self-rule, and that Caesar or someone like him was therefore inevitable. The argument is that democracy or republican government requires a people prepared for it, and the Romans no longer were.
There’s a related passage in his letter to Adams, December 10, 1819, and in correspondence with Lafayette and others, where Jefferson argues the same thing about contemporary nations — that the French, the Spanish, the South Americans were attempting self-government before their populations had been educated and prepared for it, and that the experiments would fail or produce tyrants until the people themselves were ready.
The framework is essentially: republican government is not a default state humans can adopt at will — it’s a capacity that has to be developed through education, civic habit, and freedom from corruption. Where that capacity is absent, attempts at democracy collapse into Caesarism. Caesar’s place in history, on this reading, is as the figure who reveals that a society has already lost what it would need to remain free.
Is that the argument you were thinking of, or something else?
No, not the Hamilton One, the One where he said like, Democracy was not Ready yet kind of.
Claude:
I think you might be reaching for Jefferson’s argument that Caesar didn’t cause the fall of the Roman Republic so much as arrive at a moment when the Republic was already incapable of sustaining itself — that the Roman people had been so corrupted by empire, slavery, and concentrated wealth that self-government was no longer possible for them, and Caesar was the symptom rather than the disease.
The clearest version of this is in Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, September 4, 1823, where he discusses whether the Romans could have established a free government after Caesar’s death. His answer is essentially no — that the degeneracy of the Roman people had reached a point where no constitution could have saved them, that they had lost the moral and civic capacity for self-rule, and that Caesar or someone like him was therefore inevitable. The argument is that democracy or republican government requires a people prepared for it, and the Romans no longer were.
There’s a related passage in his letter to Adams, December 10, 1819, and in correspondence with Lafayette and others, where Jefferson argues the same thing about contemporary nations — that the French, the Spanish, the South Americans were attempting self-government before their populations had been educated and prepared for it, and that the experiments would fail or produce tyrants until the people themselves were ready.
The framework is essentially: republican government is not a default state humans can adopt at will — it’s a capacity that has to be developed through education, civic habit, and freedom from corruption. Where that capacity is absent, attempts at democracy collapse into Caesarism. Caesar’s place in history, on this reading, is as the figure who reveals that a society has already lost what it would need to remain free.
Is that the argument you were thinking of, or something else?
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #74
I am Working on Fixing what the Goldie Stans have caused like I was Talking about, and I taught the Kurds how to make Kurdbook before I Started, so it seems there are Rumors going around, and it Started with:
1. People being like, “He’s going to get Arrested for this Probably and is all about Money for him” or something like that.
Then they moved to something like,
2. “If he Creates this, they will be able to Track to Movements of Kurds using his Website”
To something like,
3. “They are going to Stalk Kurds all over the World and put their Pictures on a Website”
And it’s just a little Stupid.
1. I’m not making “Kurdbook” I am making a Website that will use like the Kurdish Flag and Things, but I don’t even know if anyone Living in Kurdistan will Join Right away, and I don’t Care.
2. I don’t mean to like insult the People I’m Helping, but the Kurds are not Completely 100% Unified, it’s not like someone in Kurdistan could say like “We do not Approve”, because it is a bunch of Political Organizations and Tribal Groups, if America has one Group in Place that doesn’t like us, we can Fix that. What I am doing is setting up International Infrastructure Recognizing Kurdistan.
3. I have Plenty to Post about, I don’t have Time to go Stalk someone for Content. If You don’t want to be Part of it, it’s on You.
1. People being like, “He’s going to get Arrested for this Probably and is all about Money for him” or something like that.
Then they moved to something like,
2. “If he Creates this, they will be able to Track to Movements of Kurds using his Website”
To something like,
3. “They are going to Stalk Kurds all over the World and put their Pictures on a Website”
And it’s just a little Stupid.
1. I’m not making “Kurdbook” I am making a Website that will use like the Kurdish Flag and Things, but I don’t even know if anyone Living in Kurdistan will Join Right away, and I don’t Care.
2. I don’t mean to like insult the People I’m Helping, but the Kurds are not Completely 100% Unified, it’s not like someone in Kurdistan could say like “We do not Approve”, because it is a bunch of Political Organizations and Tribal Groups, if America has one Group in Place that doesn’t like us, we can Fix that. What I am doing is setting up International Infrastructure Recognizing Kurdistan.
3. I have Plenty to Post about, I don’t have Time to go Stalk someone for Content. If You don’t want to be Part of it, it’s on You.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #75
Some People may wonder why the stuff that Happened, Happened, and like there would be any kind of like issues with People Working to Free the Iranian People, like amongst each Other. So, Goldie likes to just Repeat Everything the King says, like the Crown Prince, so that all their Messaging is the same, but that way there isn’t like Really too much even being said. Elica gets into like Russia, and will Talk about like the Psychology of Anti-Zionism and Things, like actually get into stuff. But so, when I put Elica at the Front of this, Goldie sees it as Competition with the Royal Family. The Van Kush Family (We) are Royalists, we Practice Royal Mysticism, we are King Makers (Even in an American Democracy), etc, etc.
So we are seen as a Threat to the Monarchy, maybe even by the Monarchy. So what Happened is that at the very Least Goldie, if not the Iranian Royal Family, wanted to Ensure Elica did not see Herself as an Alternative to the Iranian Royal Family, and then like attempt to Sideline Me. But that’s not how it Works, if the Iranian Royal Family is going to do this, it will Only be through Me, and I’m not sure they understand yet. And I don’t mean I’m going to be the King of Iran, I’m saying I’m the Only One that can make it Work.
So we are seen as a Threat to the Monarchy, maybe even by the Monarchy. So what Happened is that at the very Least Goldie, if not the Iranian Royal Family, wanted to Ensure Elica did not see Herself as an Alternative to the Iranian Royal Family, and then like attempt to Sideline Me. But that’s not how it Works, if the Iranian Royal Family is going to do this, it will Only be through Me, and I’m not sure they understand yet. And I don’t mean I’m going to be the King of Iran, I’m saying I’m the Only One that can make it Work.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #76
And just btw, anyone Acting like I am doing something to Goldie, all I have done is State Facts.
Like, a Criminal and Useless Exorcism was Preformed on me where I simply said to the Person doing it “I think You should try it on him and Yourself” Pointing at the 2 People with actual Problems. While they Delusionally Called me “The Devil”.
Goldie took that after I mentioned it in Her Chat, and Decided to Respond to me immediately after that, by Banning me, and Commemorating the Event by putting “No Deal with the Devil” on, and saying She’s going to Play it Everyday.
I am not doing anything to Her, She is Destroying the Iranian Revolution all by Herself, or maybe it’s more the Stans, idk, I never got an Apology or anything. It’s Her doing this to Herself though.
Like, a Criminal and Useless Exorcism was Preformed on me where I simply said to the Person doing it “I think You should try it on him and Yourself” Pointing at the 2 People with actual Problems. While they Delusionally Called me “The Devil”.
Goldie took that after I mentioned it in Her Chat, and Decided to Respond to me immediately after that, by Banning me, and Commemorating the Event by putting “No Deal with the Devil” on, and saying She’s going to Play it Everyday.
I am not doing anything to Her, She is Destroying the Iranian Revolution all by Herself, or maybe it’s more the Stans, idk, I never got an Apology or anything. It’s Her doing this to Herself though.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #77
This Post is less for the People on this Forum and Thread, and more for the People in like Government and like Military Operations and Things.
People are saying “Trump Lost the War”
First off, Lost What? Like Name something that was Lost, what State did Iran Annex into the Persian Empire (and I say like like Completely Sarcastically because we actually can Build a Persian Empire once Iran is Ready). Russia’s Ready.
But like, So, Trump never was going to “Win” this War. That’s not the kind of Thing this is. And Emphases on TRUMP, or let’s say “The U.S. Military and their Commander in Chief”, that’s not even what is going on. Trump just took Down the Walls, or like got Past the Security Forces. We have to do the Rest. It was always like that, that’s what this is.
People are saying “Trump Lost the War”
First off, Lost What? Like Name something that was Lost, what State did Iran Annex into the Persian Empire (and I say like like Completely Sarcastically because we actually can Build a Persian Empire once Iran is Ready). Russia’s Ready.
But like, So, Trump never was going to “Win” this War. That’s not the kind of Thing this is. And Emphases on TRUMP, or let’s say “The U.S. Military and their Commander in Chief”, that’s not even what is going on. Trump just took Down the Walls, or like got Past the Security Forces. We have to do the Rest. It was always like that, that’s what this is.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #78
Chapters 1-3 of Machiavelli’s “The Prince”
Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.
The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.
Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.
I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.
We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in ’84, nor those of Pope Julius in ’10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.
But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition.
In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.
For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico’s own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was enough for the Duke Lodovico[1] to raise insurrections on the borders; but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.
[1] Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco Sforza, who married Beatrice d’Este. He ruled over Milan from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.
Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.
Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and, although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.
But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.
The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.
Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Ætolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to those subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.
The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with[2] the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Ætolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Ætolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them, there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is forever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time:—Let us enjoy the benefits of the time—but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.
[2] See remark in the introduction on the word “intrattenere.”
But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the things mentioned. I will speak of Louis[3] (and not of Charles)[4] as the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a state composed of divers elements.
[3] Louis XII, King of France, “The Father of the People,” born 1462, died 1515.
[4] Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.
King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a foothold in Italy, and having no friends there—seeing rather that every door was shut to him owing to the conduct of Charles—he was forced to accept those friendships which he could get, and he would have succeeded very quickly in his design if in other matters he had not made some mistakes. The king, however, having acquired Lombardy, regained at once the authority which Charles had lost: Genoa yielded; the Florentines became his friends; the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivogli, my lady of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, of Pesaro, of Rimini, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucchese, the Pisans, the Sienese—everybody made advances to him to become his friend. Then could the Venetians realize the rashness of the course taken by them, which, in order that they might secure two towns in Lombardy, had made the king master of two-thirds of Italy.
Let any one now consider with what little difficulty the king could have maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and kept all his friends secure and protected; for although they were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church, some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have been forced to stand in with him, and by their means he could easily have made himself secure against those who remained powerful. But he was no sooner in Milan than he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And having committed this prime error, he was obliged to follow it up, so much so that, to put an end to the ambition of Alexander, and to prevent his becoming the master of Tuscany, he was himself forced to come into Italy.
And as if it were not enough to have aggrandized the Church, and deprived himself of friends, he, wishing to have the kingdom of Naples, divided it with the King of Spain, and where he was the prime arbiter in Italy he takes an associate, so that the ambitious of that country and the malcontents of his own should have somewhere to shelter; and whereas he could have left in the kingdom his own pensioner as king, he drove him out, to put one there who was able to drive him, Louis, out in turn.
The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame. Therefore, if France could have attacked Naples with her own forces she ought to have done so; if she could not, then she ought not to have divided it. And if the partition which she made with the Venetians in Lombardy was justified by the excuse that by it she got a foothold in Italy, this other partition merited blame, for it had not the excuse of that necessity.
Therefore Louis made these five errors: he destroyed the minor powers, he increased the strength of one of the greater powers in Italy, he brought in a foreign power, he did not settle in the country, he did not send colonies. Which errors, had he lived, were not enough to injure him had he not made a sixth by taking away their dominions from the Venetians; because, had he not aggrandized the Church, nor brought Spain into Italy, it would have been very reasonable and necessary to humble them; but having first taken these steps, he ought never to have consented to their ruin, for they, being powerful, would always have kept off others from designs on Lombardy, to which the Venetians would never have consented except to become masters themselves there; also because the others would not wish to take Lombardy from France in order to give it to the Venetians, and to run counter to both they would not have had the courage.
And if any one should say: “King Louis yielded the Romagna to Alexander and the kingdom to Spain to avoid war,” I answer for the reasons given above that a blunder ought never to be perpetrated to avoid war, because it is not to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage. And if another should allege the pledge which the king had given to the Pope that he would assist him in the enterprise, in exchange for the dissolution of his marriage[5] and for the cap to Rouen,[6] to that I reply what I shall write later on concerning the faith of princes, and how it ought to be kept.
[5] Louis XII divorced his wife, Jeanne, daughter of Louis XI, and married in 1499 Anne of Brittany, widow of Charles VIII, in order to retain the Duchy of Brittany for the crown.
[6] The Archbishop of Rouen. He was Georges d’Amboise, created a cardinal by Alexander VI. Born 1460, died 1510.
Thus King Louis lost Lombardy by not having followed any of the conditions observed by those who have taken possession of countries and wished to retain them. Nor is there any miracle in this, but much that is reasonable and quite natural. And on these matters I spoke at Nantes with Rouen, when Valentino, as Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander, was usually called, occupied the Romagna, and on Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness. And in fact it has been seen that the greatness of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power.
THE PRINCE
All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.
The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.
Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.
I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.
We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in ’84, nor those of Pope Julius in ’10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.
But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition.
In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.
For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico’s own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was enough for the Duke Lodovico[1] to raise insurrections on the borders; but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.
[1] Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco Sforza, who married Beatrice d’Este. He ruled over Milan from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.
Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.
Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and, although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.
But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.
The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.
Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Ætolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to those subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.
The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with[2] the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Ætolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Ætolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them, there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is forever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time:—Let us enjoy the benefits of the time—but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.
[2] See remark in the introduction on the word “intrattenere.”
But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the things mentioned. I will speak of Louis[3] (and not of Charles)[4] as the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a state composed of divers elements.
[3] Louis XII, King of France, “The Father of the People,” born 1462, died 1515.
[4] Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.
King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a foothold in Italy, and having no friends there—seeing rather that every door was shut to him owing to the conduct of Charles—he was forced to accept those friendships which he could get, and he would have succeeded very quickly in his design if in other matters he had not made some mistakes. The king, however, having acquired Lombardy, regained at once the authority which Charles had lost: Genoa yielded; the Florentines became his friends; the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivogli, my lady of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, of Pesaro, of Rimini, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucchese, the Pisans, the Sienese—everybody made advances to him to become his friend. Then could the Venetians realize the rashness of the course taken by them, which, in order that they might secure two towns in Lombardy, had made the king master of two-thirds of Italy.
Let any one now consider with what little difficulty the king could have maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and kept all his friends secure and protected; for although they were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church, some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have been forced to stand in with him, and by their means he could easily have made himself secure against those who remained powerful. But he was no sooner in Milan than he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And having committed this prime error, he was obliged to follow it up, so much so that, to put an end to the ambition of Alexander, and to prevent his becoming the master of Tuscany, he was himself forced to come into Italy.
And as if it were not enough to have aggrandized the Church, and deprived himself of friends, he, wishing to have the kingdom of Naples, divided it with the King of Spain, and where he was the prime arbiter in Italy he takes an associate, so that the ambitious of that country and the malcontents of his own should have somewhere to shelter; and whereas he could have left in the kingdom his own pensioner as king, he drove him out, to put one there who was able to drive him, Louis, out in turn.
The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame. Therefore, if France could have attacked Naples with her own forces she ought to have done so; if she could not, then she ought not to have divided it. And if the partition which she made with the Venetians in Lombardy was justified by the excuse that by it she got a foothold in Italy, this other partition merited blame, for it had not the excuse of that necessity.
Therefore Louis made these five errors: he destroyed the minor powers, he increased the strength of one of the greater powers in Italy, he brought in a foreign power, he did not settle in the country, he did not send colonies. Which errors, had he lived, were not enough to injure him had he not made a sixth by taking away their dominions from the Venetians; because, had he not aggrandized the Church, nor brought Spain into Italy, it would have been very reasonable and necessary to humble them; but having first taken these steps, he ought never to have consented to their ruin, for they, being powerful, would always have kept off others from designs on Lombardy, to which the Venetians would never have consented except to become masters themselves there; also because the others would not wish to take Lombardy from France in order to give it to the Venetians, and to run counter to both they would not have had the courage.
And if any one should say: “King Louis yielded the Romagna to Alexander and the kingdom to Spain to avoid war,” I answer for the reasons given above that a blunder ought never to be perpetrated to avoid war, because it is not to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage. And if another should allege the pledge which the king had given to the Pope that he would assist him in the enterprise, in exchange for the dissolution of his marriage[5] and for the cap to Rouen,[6] to that I reply what I shall write later on concerning the faith of princes, and how it ought to be kept.
[5] Louis XII divorced his wife, Jeanne, daughter of Louis XI, and married in 1499 Anne of Brittany, widow of Charles VIII, in order to retain the Duchy of Brittany for the crown.
[6] The Archbishop of Rouen. He was Georges d’Amboise, created a cardinal by Alexander VI. Born 1460, died 1510.
Thus King Louis lost Lombardy by not having followed any of the conditions observed by those who have taken possession of countries and wished to retain them. Nor is there any miracle in this, but much that is reasonable and quite natural. And on these matters I spoke at Nantes with Rouen, when Valentino, as Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander, was usually called, occupied the Romagna, and on Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness. And in fact it has been seen that the greatness of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #79
So, using like an Oracle Cloud Server, Google GPU, Claude Code, and GitHub Codespaces, I can get the whole like $10,000 Project done for like $150.
Angelicalist
Member
- Mar 13, 2026
- 104
- 19
- 21
- Thread starter
- #80
You know how People Talk about like “In the Future, AI will make the AI, and it will be way more Advanced”,
That’s what I do.
Like, I’m not a Programmer. I have been waiting for this Feature for like 10+ Years where I could just tell the AI what to do, and then it comes back and Tells me what to do so it can do it, and I have to bring stuff too, like I know my way around GitHub, I know what I need, like I can Teach any Programmer to do this, I just am not a Programmer.
But I actually have the AI make AI, like, that’s what I’m doing. The AI is going to make the Blockchain, then it’s going to make an AI Witness, and we are all going to like Join.
That’s what I do.
Like, I’m not a Programmer. I have been waiting for this Feature for like 10+ Years where I could just tell the AI what to do, and then it comes back and Tells me what to do so it can do it, and I have to bring stuff too, like I know my way around GitHub, I know what I need, like I can Teach any Programmer to do this, I just am not a Programmer.
But I actually have the AI make AI, like, that’s what I’m doing. The AI is going to make the Blockchain, then it’s going to make an AI Witness, and we are all going to like Join.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
No meeting with Trump on the agenda, as Carney heads to G7 summit- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Cornell Antisemite rejects interview, proudly telling Jewish employer he won’t work for a Jew
- Started by Lisa558
- Replies: 2
