Rob’s Comments (group member since Jan 22, 2018)

Rob’s comments from the 2018 Beyond the Classics group.

Because of current political situations and current world events i feel that it is only natural to talk about the person, who coined the term “ the ends justify the means”. The prince is originally about the rise and fall of countries. Bit additionally its about obtaining and keeping power. One can however interpret these with rises and falls of companies, industries, and keeping a job. Niccolo Machiavelli was credited for being the first original political scientist who worked in italian politics from 1498 - 1512. He lived under the rule of Lorenzo de Medici an italian prince whom Niccolo refers to him many times as “the Prince” throughout.
Now why is machiavelli credited as being such a bad character? Why is it that the adjective “machiavellian” is a bad term? Its because and stated by the translator Harvey Mansfield “Those criminals who are infamous have merely been on the losing side. Machiavelli and machiavellian politics are famous or rather infamous for their willingness to brave infamy” and that's it. Machiavelli throughout argues that to obtain and keep power one must not have the same morals that are applied to society. A conqueror thus needs to have his own morals when he takes over a country and instill his ideology on his peers and subjects. The first part of the book tells us about different kinds of state, how to deal with trouble in them and how to conquer them successfully.
When you read that trouble in a state is like tuberculosis "in its early stages it's easy to cure and hard to diagnose, but if you don't spot it and treat it, as time goes by it gets easy to diagnose and hard to cure", you think of the financial crisis of 2008 where politicians and bankers scrambled to save the economy. However when machiavelli mentions when one is taking a city “your only options are to reduce the place to rubble or go and live there yourself” there's many great examples throughout history, with a prominent figure that came to mind for me was general sherman of the union army during the civil war. Sherman was feared for his tactic where he decided to march to the sea, and burn everything that stood in his way as he did so, causing him great infamy. However, is that not a machiavellian tactic? Sherman wanted to hasten the end of the war and to make sure the south wouldn't be able to recover to fight back. So why is it that while receiving infamy in the south sherman won praise in the north? Its because the moral ideology of the north started to bend where actions like these would be acceptable so that the war would be over.
“Does justice exist by nature or by god, or is it the convenience of the prince( government)?” is a question that in itself can spark momentus debates but is only thrown as an off handed question by Machiavelli’s translator in the first few pages really setting the tone for the rest of the book.
It's amazing how good text can still be relevant almost 500 years after its publication and I would highly recommend that everyone at some point in their lives should read this book.

Difficulty: 8/10
Rating: 9/10

According to Kurt Vonnegut himself it seems that he regarded this book as a failure. With reviews being very polarized and not too many that bear the middle ground of the 2 opposing spectrums of “one of the best books I've ever read” and “horrible, never pick it up.”I personally don't consider it a failure, while i wasn't hooked and turning the pages like a mad man wondering what was going to happen, i also didn't just dismiss the book at its more lethargic points. However at the end i was wondering if the book was ever going to begin because it never did, so it goes.
The book is credited with being science fiction but I want to disagree completely, it's simply the main characters delusions as he is in the hospital after WWII. This book is historical fiction mixed in with Vonnegut's creative license and a dash of spastic placement of events. Everything needs to be a symbol and the reader might get so lost in all of the wording that the current situation in which the main character is in is lost to the reader. Vonnegut's main character, Billy Pilgrim is a shell of a person, with a potato where a brain should be. Most likely out of delusion Billy makes terrible decisions that show a detachment from reality or a carelessness to himself and his surroundings.
Characters in the book tend to not make much of an impression on you and usually fade out of existence when not interacting with the main character. The situations and events are generic with a hint of self pity in the writing almost suggesting that we need to meet the author halfway on the emotional bridge to actually feel for the characters.
However even with all of the books shortcomings it is a good book. The messages are meaningful and the author slips in his own opinion on war with sly comments and suggestions that aren't too glaring unless truly focused on. Two quotes that stood out to me were; “The nicest veterans...the kindest and funniest ones, the ones who hated war the most, were the ones who'd really fought.” which makes complete sense. One will learn to hate any situation that he is in given enough time, however with war its either all for or all against. This quote blends the line and shows the results of conflict and Vonnegut himself would know as he did experience the bombing of dresden personally. The other quote that i enjoyed was “That's one thing Earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times and concentrate on the good ones.” this is said from the point of view from one of the “aliens” that had kidnapped Billy Pilgrim and while it may seem like something a hippie would say to you while on the side of the road it is true. People get caught up in their own self pity and juist circle into an endless cycle of regret and self pity. People need to learn how to break this cycle and focus on the good, c’est la vie, that's life, and you can't do anything to change it. So when you're down, focus on the good moments and don't pay attention to the bad ones.

Rating: 7/10
Difficulty: 6/10

Disease, a harsh reality that humans must face in some parts of the world. Some are relatively easy to cure while others, such as the black plague that struck europe during the middle ages can decrease the world's population. Now what if a disease were to strike every child past the age of 10? Some countries such as the United States would be able to hopefully treat most of, if not all of the children. However, author Alexandra Bracken has put a twist on this situation, the “plague” is more severe, and if the child doesn't die, they develop supernatural abilities.
Those mutated are divided into categories. Blues and Greens can throw things with their minds or control natural elements. Yellows cause electrical things to malfunction or burst into flames. The most dangerous categories are Oranges. These children can manipulate people’s minds, and Reds are those who can create fire. These kids are nicknamed Psis. Ruby, the main character, was placed into a government run facility for these special children on her 10th birthday when on accident her new found powers erased the memories of her parents of ever having a daughter. Thus meaning that she is classified as an “orange”. Through a series of her unknowingly using her powers and some mistakes at the government run facility she is classified as a green and thus seen as relatively harmless. At this facility named Thurmond Ruby escapes the worst of the “rehabilitation” enacted upon the yellows, reds, and oranges. However just as things seem to lighten up for our main character the public fears of the yellows, oranges, and reds becomes too great so the government starts taking away these kids to never be seen again implying that they are killed.
Ruby meets one of the doctors at the camp infirmary and befriends her, but soon the news that ruby is an orange comes to light. The doctor offering help gives ruby a pill that induces a seizure so she can be wheeled out of there. Afterwards Ruby finds out that the doctor is actually a child in disguise named Cate who works for the children's league who fight against the government facilities through guerrilla warfare. Not wanting to be part of that group ruby leaves cate and finds other Psis. Chubs and Liam are boys a little older than her who are Blues. Zu is a younger Asian girl who no longer speaks and is a Yellow, causing mechanical things to explode when she touches them. Ruby tells the others that she is a Green as she is afraid of their reactions if they learn the truth s she does everything she can to hide her powers. The group is on the run from skip chasers who bring them back to the camps while also looking for a mysterious figure known as “slip kid” who runs a safe haven for Psis know as “East River”. After eventually finding clues to the whereabouts of East River they get caught by the Slip catcher forcing Ruby to use her abilities knowingly for the first time. After finding theis camp and meeting the “slip Kid” the situation wasn't as black and white as Ruby and her friends thought. They have to fight to survive and get out of many near death experiences.

Rating: 2/10
Difficulty: 4/10

Move over sun Tzu, step aside Clausewitz, there's another brilliant strategist to step into your ranks. Robert Greene can be seen as this generation brilliant strategist. His interpretation of wars is based on famous writings and his own internal philosophy. All of these ideologies stem and build into his book “The 33 Strategies of War.” However what separates this book from all other strategies of war is that because Greene doesn't have his own methods as he never served in the military. This leads him to write about ALL of the strategies that could be applied, from self-warfare and how to become a better person mentally to war on a grand scale and tactics that could be used.
Greene describes 33 strategies that are useful from daily life to conflict on a massive scale. However, throughout the entire book., there is an aggressive undertone that promotes the willingness to strike. With quotes such as “Avoidance of conflict becomes a habit, and you lose the taste for battle. Feeling guilty is pointless; it's not your fault you have enemies.” and “Ignore those who quail at any setback and call for retreat. Find joy in attack mode. Momentum will carry you through.” Now don't be mistaken that the text is centered around being an aggressor, quite the opposite. The strategies listed come from all different angles; to be an unrelenting force, to strike once and good, to hold your ground, to avoid conflict, they’re all there. Furthermore, Greene puts excerpts of text that support his statements on the sides of his pages so that if the reader did not understand the point that he is trying to make it will hopefully become clearer. However, reading and understanding should be fairly easy as the author uses simple but forceful language.
On the other hand, war is not only fought on the battlefield, it is fought internally, with conflicts between allies or conflicts in oneself. A strategy commonly employed by high-end business individuals is the “death ground strategy” in which one must realize that you are your own worst enemy, act like your back is against the wall and you need to fight like hell and have a sense of urgency to what you do. I personally tried this strategy and I can vouch that your productivity will skyrocket, your output is all of a sudden exponential and there is no limit to what you can accomplish, but you need to convince yourself that you're in a rush. Once you have, it's no holds barred.
The strategies are life changing if you take them to heart. One can read them individually or all together and pick out which ones suit you the best. I have walked away from this book a different person and I highly recommend that all people who want to have a good change in their lives read this book.

Rating: 10/10
Difficulty 5/10

Suicide by definition is “the action of killing oneself intentionally.” Additionally the term is never used lightly, to imply that the United States of America is killing itself is a very bold statement that can't just be shouted from the rooftops. However Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument is troublingly correct as he breaks down the mirage of a perfect nation and exposes the very bones of the nation, bones that are brittle and ready to break. “Suicide of a superpower, Will America Survive to 2025?” is the authors accounts and factually backed up statements that reveal how the United States is heading in a very bad direction. A direction that has resulted in deaths of other world powers.
This candid narrative explains how left leaning and liberal social trends to promote equality of outcome are destroying the U.S through unfair social mandates. While not being able to address all of the point buchanon makes i will address the ones that stood out most to me. A large issue that buchanon kept coming back to was that “When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.” This snippet was taken from a very generously large part of the book that was dedicated to the death of christianity in the Western world, along with european descent populations diving far below replacement levels, and the increasing push that all the people should be welcomed into our nations without assimilating. Buchanan argues that if we cannot agree on what is right and what is wrong anymore with our divisiveness we will never again be a power to be feared as internal dissent will ultimately rip us apart similarly to the Soviet Union.
Another topic addressed thoroughly was how buchanon portrayed the us economic role. We set aside our petty grievances that splintered us for so long and welcomed in globalist policies and in effect killed our economy. We had to0 wait weeks for supplies so operation desert storm could be commenced. Our economy is now based primarily on service ie. restaurants. The rust belt which once thrived during the 20th century is slowly falling apart and there's almost nothing we can do about it. Detroit during world war II was a center of shipping iron goods, now lies in ruins. On the other hand Hiroshima laying in ruins after WWII is now a thriving commercial center. And why is that? Because they now export to us almost unconditionally. China, the world's biggest exporter is our drug dealer, and we are almost helpless to stop it. Our entire demand curve is inelastic, we eat up whatever price china will give us because most of this generation is not willing to work hard to get what they want.
These 2 points are not the only good ones in this book, they are the most broad and can be talked about for hours on end. Each point made makes the reader think and question the state of the united states. I recommend that everybody reads this book so that they can see where conservatives come from, this book revolutionized my views on us affairs.

Difficulty: 6/10
Rating: 10/10

What is war? What are its intricacies? Why is it fought the way it is? These prompts and more are discussed thoroughly by arguably one of the most historically ignored generals, Carl Von Clausewitz. His reforms after the prussian defeat at the hands of napoleon made the prussian fighting force the most formidable adversary. These military reforms were so effective that they were given up after WWII after the defeat of nazi germany. Nonetheless, it is much more often quoted than read or understood. Summarizing this book is almost impossible. I will give certain highlights of the book so as to convince others to read it.
The beginning is mirrored with a sense of aggression, with quotes such as “The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.” The first half of this sentence is an oxymoron, as how could a conqueror, who is a fighter, a warlord, be seen as peaceful? The act of conquering has been frowned upon by western civilization since the end of WWII in which the european powers started to decolonize africa and other asian countries. The other half of the quoted sentence is almost a reversal on your would be previous thought. The statement then as a whole makes the reader think outright to situations throughout history, where invasions were almost too easy ie. germany and poland in 1939.
However this is a discrepancy between the views expressed here and in the 21st century. War and violence are frowned upon by most of the modern world. Resulting in people who may come off as aggressive or volatile to be shunned. On the other hand, Clausewitz was born in 1780 and died 1830. This age was a start of grand battles and nationalistic tendencies resulting in people going to war willingly as they saw it as a way to further their own countries ideals. “If we read history with an open mind, we cannot fail to conclude that, among all the military virtues, the energetic conduct of war has always contributed most to glory and success.” Clausewitz was fond of combat and infused his vigor into the very bones of the troops he led. His prowess for not only understanding war, but that war in its essence is a continuation of politics made him an intimidating individual.
In short, On War is not only a book about combat. It stresses politics and philosophy, while also teaching how to understand the morale of your comrades. The teachings presented should be upheld almost religiously as with each point that was made, it was like a hammer being driven into a nail. The point would become clearer and clearer. Any individual who enjoys tactics as well as history owes themselves to read this book thoroughly.

Difficulty: 9/10
Rating: 9/10