Understanding our society's race to the bottom

When it comes to understanding human nature it seems to me Descartes was a dabbler compared to Machiavelli, who really nailed it.

Why the Most Foolish People End Up in Power – Machiavelli Knew This

Philosophy Coded

Apr 19, 2025 #Machiavelli #PowerDynamics #CriticalThinking

Why Stupid People Gain Power – Machiavelli’s Dark Truth in Leadership Psychology Why do many unqualified individuals become CEOs, politicians, and powerful executives? This video uncovers the psychological and structural forces behind this disturbing trend, revealing how confidence, charisma, and manipulation often beat competence. Grounded in Machiavelli’s political philosophy and backed by modern leadership psychology, it explores why many of the world’s most powerful figures aren’t necessarily the most capable—and what that means for organizations, institutions, and individuals like you.

:backhand_index_pointing_down: What You’ll Learn in This Leadership Psychology Masterclass:
The Machiavellian Paradox: Why intelligence can be a liability in power games
The Confidence Illusion: How boldness and charisma outperform actual skill
The Incompetence Network: How weak leaders surround themselves with yes-men
The Simplicity Trap: Why the public prefers clear, wrong answers to complex truths
The Ethical Handicap: How moral integrity blocks advancement in toxic systems
Toxic Environments: Where mediocrity thrives—and how to reverse the dynamic
Mass Distraction Tactics: How manipulative leaders maintain control and appear competent
Breaking the Cycle: Strategies to resist manipulation and promote merit-based leadership

:books: This isn’t just philosophy—it’s a roadmap to understanding modern leadership. By fusing political theory, executive strategy, and organizational psychology, this breakdown equips you to recognize dysfunctional systems and navigate power dynamics more effectively in business, government, and daily life.

Because they end up failing or dead.

https://facty.com/network/answers/dastards-and-their-demise-how-some-dictators-died/

They did the job finance capital demanded of them.

These sort of channels can be fun to watch but I wouldn’t take them seriously. You have no idea who the runs the channel and no idea if they actually know what they’re talking about.

The description of Philosophy Coded sounds a little too sensationalist with talk of “unlocking secrets of the mind”, etc.

As for Machiavelli, he is a good example of a historical figure who is often taken out of context or oversimplified. Just read his work if you really want to understand him.

1 Like

The challenge is, if you can rationally identify what is foolish?

I mean take a look at the grand arc of society these past few decades, …

Seems to me USA’s the trump phenomena totally track with what Machiavelli was outlining.

As is our loss of faith in government and standards of honesty, etc.

Why do you disagree?
It would be interested in your perspective.

1 Like

This isn’t about the channel it is about the description of Machiavelli’s thesis - are you saying this is misrepresenting Machiavelli?

Please do be specific.

The system spat out trump because of the epoch we are in and the social and working relations therewith. Fools are the public with a false conscious that let it happen

That says noting. What epoch, can you describe what’s different about this epoch, from the previous epoch? … Which was?

What is that?

Explain what’s false

and how that’s changed people.

Back to the words of that Video, which seems to me was fairly faithful to Machiavelli writing, from what little I’ve read about of them.

You said

That’s easy to agree with (same can be said of Descartes) - but I don’t see where that was done in the video.
That is why I’m asking you, or thatoneguy, to show me.

It is possible and likely.

Machiavelli wrote 2 books that are still read today because they describe Realpolitik – “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy” .

A common takeaway is Machiavelli advocated an amoral, power-hungry leadership style. I’ve read both, and this is a very oversimplified understanding at best.

I agree.

Machiavel work is more descriptive then laudative.

The ideal of Machiavel was not the Prince, but a republic of citizens.

But you can’t show any specifics.

Well thanks, and the sun rises in the East.

That’s simply stating the obvious.
I would find it more interesting to be offered specifics worth thinking on.

I found what was said in the video I shared quite insightful - and it totally tracks with what we’ve been witnessing unfold during this past half century of USA’s principles and governmental structure slowly being undermined, along with way willful stupidity has been brainwashed into so many, and how it has become our national standard in this trump era.

Burn the books, hang the professors and other experts, have faith and reject all you can see with your eyes. Mao would have been proud.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying about what was spoken about in the video - slap ya in the face descriptive.

I’ve heard that said by a number of scholars over the years, and don’t have any reason to disagree.
I was given Prince to read long ago, but imagine I’d get a lot more out of it now, than I did back in those tender years.

It’s been years since I’ve read them and I don’t have time to re-read the books again, but since you aren’t familiar with Machiavelli at all, you won’t be able to understand any “specifics” anyway.

That’s why my advice is read him yourself instead of watching questionable YT content.

Yes, that’s my recollection from Discourses on Livy. The Roman republic was the highest form of government. Although I can’t remember if he thought that only for Italy or everywhere.

Oh so you don’t have any substance to add.

You’ve read it all, but guess you forgot.

So let’s go to the video,

Oh but apparently you don’t even remember enough to be able to point out the red flags, that reveal the video to be as you claim.

But the insults, that you are dang good at dishing out - shallow and childish though they may be.

What insults? Someone being skeptical of the online content you read is nothing to take personally.

1 Like

You are an insult yourself.

I simply asked for you to provide a little substance.
In exchange you can’t get beyond snide remarks.

Oh and talk about the Race To The Bottom,
excellent case in point:

People actually believe in that . . .